| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody else ever heard about The Oberoni (or Rule Zero) Fallacy?
Basically it says if someone says a rule is not broken because the GM can always use Rule 0 to fix it, then they are committing the false. If you HAVE to change the rule to make it work, then that proves it is broken, otherwise you wouldn't HAVE to fix it.
I'm seeing a very similar thought process going on in some posts here.
"A GM should use internet pictures and change the written and developed game material (which they probably purchased specifically to avoid having to do all the writing and developing themselves). See there isn't any issue here. There is nothing wrong with the content at all. All you need to do is fix it."
EDIT: I do find it a bit strange that people's idea of male "seduction" involves intimidation of females for sex (have sex with me or else you and your companions will be tortured), outright physical force, or domination.
First off, "seduction" doesn't have to even involve the act of sex. Getting hung up (no pun intended) on always poking something seems an area of concern. Secondly, why can't a male character actually ... you know be interesting enough that the female would be interested in them. I mean, is anyone telling me that the only way succubi get mortal men is by dominating them? Or do they convince a lot of them to give in willingly? Why are males so incapable of doing something similar? Or are females immune to temptation?
It isn't any different.The female sexual assault perpetrators usually aren't hobgoblins though. Typically, they're succubi and other creatures that are portrayed in a way that your typical straight male is going to appreciate. Which still is creepy and not okay but, you know. Male fantasies.
I'm can't claim to know what is "typical" for strait males, but the idea of being raped and murdered doesn't seem that appealing. (^~^)"
That said, I did say "in my campaign". Those who practice arcane magic are shunned by hobgoblin society, but there are those among them known as tainted witches, who often take non-hobgoblins as mates (because other hobgoblins want little to do with them, and kidnapping other hobgoblins is frowned upon, naturally). They especially favor elves (contrast to the rest of their society who hate elves).
It is different. It's different because our real society is different and one of those plays off a real, if exaggerated threat and the other does not.
Therefore it's likely to affect the players differently. That's a problem, but it's a problem with society, not with the players.
I had a male family member sexually assaulted at gunpoint by a woman, so don't lie and say that sexual violence against men is not a real threat.
and THATS the difference.
Male reaction to the situation= Woo hoo!!*
Female reaction to the gender flipped version "ICK!"
Making a game is all about making it fun. The first usually is and the second usually isn't. (*individual exceptions as always may apply)
That had never occurred to me. That's an interesting argument to say the least.
On a side note, the threat of being sexually assaulted by a satyr is pretty high. I'm not sure it's the fantasy of your typical shepherd boy to get mind-raped by a satyr and then sexually-raped by them to boot.
(0~o)
EDIT: That would be a weird random encounter. Happening upon an orgy of satyrs (that's what a band of 7-11 satyrs is called) in the middle of business with a caravan and its guards.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody else ever heard about The Oberoni (or Rule Zero) Fallacy?
Basically it says if someone says a rule is not broken because the GM can always use Rule 0 to fix it, then they are committing the false. If you HAVE to change the rule to make it work, then that proves it is broken, otherwise you wouldn't HAVE to fix it.
I'm seeing a very similar thought process going on in some posts here.
"A GM should use internet pictures and change the written and developed game material (which they probably purchased specifically to avoid having to do all the writing and developing themselves). See there isn't any issue here. There is nothing wrong with the content at all. All you need to do is fix it."
I believe that fallacy got brought up on another thread. It is one that bothers me, as it basically is a way to shut down other people's opinions of what the GM could do to fix, change, or adjust things to remove a perceived problem. Keep in mind on this it isn't broken -- the APs function quite well if you don't have your particular flavor of playmate or eye candy in them. For a large number of groups, that is a secondary, tertiary, or lower priority/goal/thing that they are interested in.
And this is very much something that the GM should be doing anyway -- or maybe it is just me? Does no one else adjust adventures for their gaming groups? Sure, there are problems and it would be nice if the Powers That Be had space to cover every contingency and preference that might crop up in your group.
You aren't being asked to do all the writing or developing. You are adjusting things for your groups sensibilities, likes and dislikes, and so on. It doesn't seem likely that a product designed for mass distribution is going to be able to cover all the angles. That is just not something that is going to happen. They have to walk a fine line that keeps it approachable or interesting for a wide market while simultaneously not offending or ostracizing others.
It isn't easy and it has come a pretty far way for Paizo. They seem interested in addressing the problems and adjusting to the changing market. Until that happy day happens, however, GMs and players will have to do their part to customize the product for their individual needs.
(...)fact: female seducer creatures consistently show up in APs and other material. fact: up until EXTREMELY recently (as in within the last month), when they do, they only have females enthralled, and never have positions of sexual dominance over men.(...)I don't mean to nitpick, but this is in fact not correct. I haven't read the Wrath of the Righteous so I can't speak for how succubi are presented there, but the first adventure path Paizo ever published prominently features a succubus who is in a position of sexual dominance over both genders. The same adventure path also contains other "seductive creatures" that have males enthralled.
** spoiler omitted **
Thank you for reminding me about these instances! I had completely forgotten them and needed to reread them.
First off, in the exact same "women-only" manner in which all lust/sexy time-related areas are described, the entire complex was built by a "sisterhood of enchanters" - unlike every other wing in the complex, where the genders of the wizards are not factored into the complex's creation. The concept of "lust" is entirely created by, ruled by, and perpetrated by women and/or other females. Personally, I find this extremely uncomfortable, especially when it feels like a male fantasy. There are no males mentioned or involved in the creation of this complex. It's not left ambiguous, like the other complexes: it's specifically all female.
For the first part about the inhabitants, the succubus you mention is exactly the problem I described. Any men related to her are dead and thus irrelevant to the AP itself. The fact that she kept their remains is the only reason the players would even have knowledge of it. Players have no interaction with them in any way, do not see them be dominated, do not even really have an ability to discover the purpose of the remains (for which there is none).
The male character you mention is not enthralled - he is driven insane, and is guaranteed to die regardless of anything that happens, just as every male in the complex - even though they would have been immortal as well - is also dead, meaning they were deliberately killed. The players do not have to deal with viewing or seeing any man in actual subservience to a woman - every man is either already dead or irrelevant. Instead, the succubus rules four female minions, and the other minions you mention are given a blurb and are not referred to or included, in any way, in the detailed interactions that all the explicitly female creatures interact with each other and the players. They are irrelevant fodder.
One of the named NPCs that you mention being seduced is again, not shown in a position of subservience to the woman. We know it as the DM/reader of the AP, but he is valueless and irrelevant. It even states that she says as much to his face, in the off-chance they encounter each other, even though if the players were to observe that, it is extremely likely that he would just side with them and kill her since he is not, at that point, enthralled by magic. Again, his being subservient to her is not shown to the players. She has no other thralls other than him, not even amongst any new minions. Otherwise, he is discovered before they encounter each other and the players still don't see him acting under her (since he has no orders from her, regardless of situation).
The other named villain
There IS a good example there, yeah, but... I mean I personally am not comfortable with the message sent there, and then sent again in Shattered Star, regarding the domain of "lust" and how its sole representatives are horny female creatures, only dominating female creatures. The positive example mentioned is not related to those instances, but the instances themselves felt very similar to the end of the Wrath of the Righteous AP, and I don't think anybody would have noticed that continuous theme had I not said anything.
Just to be fair, Xeose4, most of these examples are derived from ancient, classical and medieval sources. A few others from more "contemporary" fantasy sources.
I'm not stating this to minimize your criticism. I just think using these examples does not support it.
They're also some core creatures from 3.5 and I think it's perfectly fair to have them in-game. The fact that Pathfinder started with this and had some ground to make up for isn't bad, by itself. It was just made worse by the overall arc of the creatures that were released - and more importantly to me, the text accompanying them. Moreover, new seductress creatures, like the jorogumo (attractive spider woman specifically mentioned to copulate with human males), huldra (attractive woman with a wooden hole in her back), and the lampad (underground nymph) are all new additions that expand on the theme of "female seducer creature", while there still isn't a new one male. Add to that things like adding a half-succubus template to an int-based archvillain who worships a giant insect - much less the creation of a half-succubus template when alu-fiends already exist - suggests that there is continuous expansion of, and elaboration upon this "beautiful female seducer" still without anything given to the other side.
Yeah, it's hard to get away from conventional monsters from myth, but the Bestiary 4 added the Swanmay, Lampad, Vouvire, 3 mew types of hag, the Huldra, Rokurokubi (again explicitly mentioned to take human male lovers), Oceanids, Leanan Sidhe, and the changeling (which has been discussed before in the thread, I know). That's compared against the fossegrim. It's not exactly closely balanced if the only three male creatures people can continuously cite are the same 3, spread across 4 beastiaries with that kind of ratio. And there's no sexually dimorphic race favoring the male side, which isn't even ancient myth.
I propose that to bring this to light and demand more male sexualization that we make and encourage a 'Boys of Pathfinder' swimsuit collection.
haha you are awesome. "swimsuit edition: equal representation" is cool too though :P
You *DO* understand those are mythological creatures, right?
And satyrs are definitely "seducers". Read The Circus of Dr Lao. Heck, that's good advice for everyone.
I still don't really think that past-history status has anything to do with how they are currently portrayed in-game. And yeah, satyrs in greek myth were randy men willing to canoodle anything that moved and breathed, but I am not going off greek myth or any other material. I am strictly going of Paizo material and Paizo's presentation of these creatures. I like satyrs. They are, hands down, my favorite creature ever. I love Paizo's smarmy comments about "awkward pregnancies and shepherd boys facing awkward questions" in the original satyr bestiary entry. I have like the (2) instances where I've seen them appear in AP material (both times being in love with dryads they're willing to die for). It's cute, it's great, but nothing more is done with them, compared to other, more appealing (re: female) fey.
TriOmegaZero, if you could share that instance you're talking about, I'd really appreciate it.
There's a LOT of comments about what people are/aren't comfortable with regarding seducer creatures. I do want to point out that I'm not strictly talking about seducer creatures alone - a male version of the thraie, for instance, wouldn't be "seducer" so much as just "possible fantasy creature of an attractive, all-male race" which, in Pathfinder materials, does not exist yet.
The concerns about being respectful, I think, is important, but also some of the situations that arise are a little too unlikely. Yes, it is very, very easy to run into a bad situation with seducers creatures. As was pointed out by Arachnofiend, however, people run into uncomfortable situations regardless of how "Sexy" the creature is. Some posters have commented that things are "less uncomfortable" when the seducer creature is female: that is not my own experience. As I mentioned before, I struggle to defend things like all-female lust complexes. I struggle to get my female players engaged in things where they feel that a creature exists to just be a male fantasy, and there aren't opportunities for them to normally see or encounter male creatures they themselves might be interested in. I don't like that, I am uncomfortable doing it. I'm uncomfortable with the overall message of pathfinder material, as it exists today, of female creatures being lusty and horny, while male creatures... don't have sexual impulses. This isn't comfortable or fun for me, and I can see when female players roll their eyes that it's not comfortable for them to watch what they feel is a male fantasy unfold. I can only speak to my own experience, of course, and female commentators are free to speak to their own experiences (and please do, if you feel like you want to).
First off, "seduction" doesn't have to even involve the act of sex. Getting hung up (no pun intended) on always poking something seems an area of concern. Secondly, why can't a male character actually ... you know be interesting enough that the female would be interested in them. I mean, is anyone telling me that the only way succubi get mortal men is by dominating them? Or do they convince a lot of them to give in willingly? Why are males so incapable of doing something similar? Or are females immune to temptation?
Pres Man, how do you have such a knack for putting things so succinctly?
Anybody else ever heard about The Oberoni (or Rule Zero) Fallacy?
Basically it says if someone says a rule is not broken because the GM can always use Rule 0 to fix it, then they are committing the false. If you HAVE to change the rule to make it work, then that proves it is broken, otherwise you wouldn't HAVE to fix it.
I'm seeing a very similar thought process going on in some posts here.
"A GM should use internet pictures and change the written and developed game material (which they probably purchased specifically to avoid having to do all the writing and developing themselves). See there isn't any issue here. There is nothing wrong with the content at all. All you need to do is fix it."
I believe that fallacy got brought up on another thread. It is one that bothers me, as it basically is a way to shut down other people's opinions of what the GM could do to fix, change, or adjust things to remove a perceived problem. Keep in mind on this it isn't broken -- the APs function quite well if you don't have your particular flavor of playmate or eye candy in them. For a large number of groups, that is a secondary, tertiary, or lower priority/goal/thing that they are interested in.
And this is very much something that the GM should be doing anyway -- or maybe it is just me? Does no one else adjust adventures for their gaming groups? Sure, there are problems and it would be nice if the Powers That Be had space to cover every contingency and preference that might crop up in your group.
You aren't being asked to do all the writing or developing. You are adjusting things for your groups sensibilities, likes and dislikes, and so on. It doesn't seem likely that a product designed for mass distribution is going to be able to cover all the angles. That is just not something that is going to happen. They have to walk a fine line that keeps it approachable or interesting for a wide market while simultaneously not offending or...
Thank you both for contributing your points. Pres Man, I think your adding this really summed up the problem with the suggestion often given that people who are dissatisfied with the game should "just fix it themselves". Yeah, I know I can fix it myself. I could change genders, add new races, add exactly what I want! I also don't think I'd be the person to buy APs, think so critically about them, and invest so much of my time in them, were that the case. I don't want to do that extra work all on my own, and I don't want to have to worry about everything I do being a "houserule" or "personal campaign" creature all the time. I'd like some consistency across the board, especially when I'm participated in a community-accessible world like Golarion.
Knightnday, your point is spot on, however, and it's what I'd cite as counter to people being made uncomfortable by the presence of anything, in ANY Paizo materials. People may be made uncomfortable by the intimation of a "sexy times" creature, yeah. And that's fair. They can also be made uncomfortable by disease, death, horror, gore, innocence lost, or anything! Paizo is very aware of when something might be problematic and, to my knowledge, they've been pretty consistent about including blurbs on how to tone down or reduce the intensity of something, depending on the needs of the players around the DM's table. I have female friends who've straight-up asked "how nice-looking" nude male creatures are, and I've had others who immediately shut down any NPC's attempts to even make vaguely flirty small-talk with them. I made a point of learning what's acceptable to whom and I don't overstep that boundary - the same way I'd do for any player, with any issue that they personally are uncomfortable with.
Returning to Pres Man's point about male seducers not being about intimidation and rape, with DM discretion in mind, and the earlier posts about making people uncomfortable; it might take a little more DM skill, yeah. I mean, most guys tacitly accept "she's a hot chick and charmed you, sure the character is horny for her", but I don't see how just explicitly stating that "you like him and feel an unusually strong attraction to him" is going to be the path to leading female players to feelings of intimidation/intimations of sexual assault or rape. Yeah, incubi are associated with rape. I think it's a poor choice on Paizo's part to imply that specifically in the incubus bestiary entry, but then I've also stated that I think a lot about them is terrible. Regardless, there are other aspects too then, to satyrs, to any new creature that Paizo might dream up, and they don't have to be that "they have sex" in order to still meet the "they are sexually attractive" criteria.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, this thread would be WAY too long for me to read and reply to tonight...
All I'm gonna say before I finish reading the rest of this thread, is that I too am rather disappointed with the lack of hot male eye-candy, and even hot male romantic interests in the adventure paths. Out of the material I have, only Socothbenoth is mentioned as a hyper-sexed male, though Book of the Damned 2 alludes that his isn't so much sex as other vices.
As a bi guy, I'm actually kind of depressed about it. Not that I'm looking to turn Pathfinder into the Book of Erotic Fantasy or anything, but I'd actually like to have the option of some maleXmale romance in some published stuff. Maybe I'm just picky, but my characters have never gone for that 'rugged' type (unless the 'rugged' was a battle-scarred amazonian female, but that's a whole different 'rugged' altogether). Every supposed attractive male I've even heard of in paizo published material is of the 'handsomely rugged' territory, with the exception of elves. What about those fair-faced kimono wearing Tians!? Nope, 'rugged' seems to be the only attractive male descriptor Paizo can use.
It's not a big gripe, it's not something I'd quit buying Pathfinder stuff over (though I have slowed down a considerably). It is something, however, that has made me stop bothering with NPC relationships in an adventure path. I'm bored with female NPCs, because they always turn out the same kind of sexualized female. Always goes pretty much the same route.
On that note: My girlfriend also is annoyed that there's no real potential males in most APs. For example! She managed to charm Orik Vancaskerkin in RotRL:AE (Anniversary Edition) into joining the party as an NPC (later became her Cohort)... Yet, while he's got a nice description of 'ruggedly handsome' (There it is again!).... He doesn't look that great in his picture.
The only hot males we've seen in the actual art, would be Seltiyel, the Not-eldritch Knight/The Magus, and the Alchemist whose name I've forgotten (even then, it's only his main picture, all the rest of the art kind of falls short). Every other guy's kind of... Bland... And generic, actually... They look alike most of the time...
So... I think I've rambled with this, but to sum it up... We need more equality with the sexualism of male and female characters and creatures in Pathfinder. Just my 2 cents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need more paladins of Lymnieris. ;)
Yes we do, lol...
For that matter... Maybe someone could clue me in on this because I might be missing it, but...
Where the hell are the Amazonians? Where are the tall, buff, beautiful babes that can kick Valeros' ass? Every female I've seen, even those with muscle tone, are slender, curvy, and half the time pretty skinny.
Buffest female I've seen is Imrijka, and she's a half-orc. That gets no bonus points from me (despite the fact I do actually find Imrijka pretty attractive. Then again, I love a woman that can kick my ass).
Amiri the barbarian iconic? Most of the time, she's no more muscled than Ezren.
... Actually, that was pointless, because Mythic Wizard Ezren hulked out.
Muscle chicks need some love too man!
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
One problem that I often see is a difference in -how- the genders are presented as sexualized.
Females are often sexualized as objects of desire much more often than as sexually aggressive and wanting -you- rather than the other way around. Males on the other hand often get the opposite as aggressive, dangerous sexual creatures that generally are more often male power fantasies than something appealing to heterosexual women (or gay males).
What I'd like to see is an incubus depicted as an object of desire, alluring and there to tempt you, pushing you to make the move, to want them rather than the other way around. Males are rarely depicted in this capacity.
Taking a page from my partner, I created a male (though capable of shifting gender at will) sorcerer who also works as a high priced escort *cough*rent boy*cough* in my current campaign that by various means ended up sweeping their character off of his feet and leading him around like a love-sick puppy. Nothing good will come of this given that the manipulative dandy is an erodaemon descended tiefling that worships Trelmarixian, but the character does turn the standard dynamic of how RPGs portray males as sexual (when they do at all) on its head.
More variety in how males, females, and every other option is depicted and presented as sexual (when it makes sense in context to present them that way) would be awesome. Things are improving -a lot- compared to even just ten years ago, and Paizo has been really working on this, which is awesome. :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For that matter... Maybe someone could clue me in on this because I might be missing it, but...
Where the hell are the Amazonians? Where are the tall, buff, beautiful babes that can kick Valeros' ass? Every female I've seen, even those with muscle tone, are slender, curvy, and half the time pretty skinny.
Buffest female I've seen is Imrijka, and she's a half-orc. That gets no bonus points from me (despite the fact I do actually find Imrijka pretty attractive. Then again, I love a woman that can kick my ass).
Amiri the barbarian iconic? Most of the time, she's no more muscled than Ezren.
... Actually, that was pointless, because Mythic Wizard Ezren hulked out.
Muscle chicks need some love too man!
Besides noting that Imrijka and Valeros are the Internet's official Pathfinder couple(YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG, I ASKED THE INTERNET AND IT SAID IT WAS TRUE)...
There's Holomog, which I swear seems to be getting pushed a bit more and more as possibly getting explored in the not too distant future(I hope).
Basically, imagine it as this:
A matriarchal nation of African Amazons who ride dinosaurs, locked in conflict with Geb, the largest necrocracy on Golarion, and Droon, a nation of lizardfolk who ride dinosaurs.
Bad. Ass.
(Some folks have also voiced hopes that Holomog might be home to a female equivalent of the gay male-oriented Iridian Fold, which also needs some more exploration in setting material(and recently got a good bit of exposure in Redemption Engine and the webfiction "Boar and Rabbit" on the blog here))
edit-ALSO, almost every Shoanti woman ever. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For that matter... Maybe someone could clue me in on this because I might be missing it, but...
Where the hell are the Amazonians? Where are the tall, buff, beautiful babes that can kick Valeros' ass? Every female I've seen, even those with muscle tone, are slender, curvy, and half the time pretty skinny.
Buffest female I've seen is Imrijka, and she's a half-orc. That gets no bonus points from me (despite the fact I do actually find Imrijka pretty attractive. Then again, I love a woman that can kick my ass).
Amiri the barbarian iconic? Most of the time, she's no more muscled than Ezren.
... Actually, that was pointless, because Mythic Wizard Ezren hulked out.
Muscle chicks need some love too man!
Besides noting that Imrijka and Valeros are the Internet's official Pathfinder couple(YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG, I ASKED THE INTERNET AND IT SAID IT WAS TRUE)...
There's Holomog, which I swear seems to be getting pushed a bit more and more as possibly getting explored in the not too distant future(I hope).
Basically, imagine it as this:
A matriarchal nation of African Amazons who ride dinosaurs, locked in conflict with Geb, the largest necrocracy on Golarion, and Droon, a nation of lizardfolk who ride dinosaurs.
Bad. Ass.
(Some folks have also voiced hopes that Holomog might be home to a female equivalent of the gay male-oriented Iridian Fold, which also needs some more exploration in setting material(and recently got a good bit of exposure in Redemption Engine and the webfiction "Boar and Rabbit" on the blog here))
edit-ALSO, almost every Shoanti woman ever. :)
I'm aware of the Imrijka + Valeros coupling (I've seen the fan *cough*art*cough*.
That said... Good to know. At some point, I might actually be able to see these females of which you speak, lol.
@Todd: Agreed. The fact that Paizo is doing anything at all with this kind of stuff is *bleep!*ing amazing.
Still hoping for a total-amazonian and a soft-featured slender male pair of iconics though... ^_^.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still hoping for a total-amazonian and a soft-featured slender male pair of iconics though... ^_^.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One problem that I often see is a difference in -how- the genders are presented as sexualized.
Females are often sexualized as objects of desire much more often than as sexually aggressive and wanting -you- rather than the other way around. Males on the other hand often get the opposite as aggressive, dangerous sexual creatures that generally are more often male power fantasies than something appealing to heterosexual women (or gay males).
What I'd like to see is an incubus depicted as an object of desire, alluring and there to tempt you, pushing you to make the move, to want them rather than the other way around. Males are rarely depicted in this capacity.
Taking a page from my partner, I created a male (though capable of shifting gender at will) sorcerer who also works as a high priced escort *cough*rent boy*cough* in my current campaign that by various means ended up sweeping their character off of his feet and leading him around like a love-sick puppy. Nothing good will come of this given that the manipulative dandy is an erodaemon descended tiefling that worships Trelmarixian, but the character does turn the standard dynamic of how RPGs portray males as sexual (when they do at all) on its head.
More variety in how males, females, and every other option is depicted and presented as sexual (when it makes sense in context to present them that way) would be awesome. Things are improving -a lot- compared to even just ten years ago, and Paizo has been really working on this, which is awesome. :)
Now I am not saying that male power fantasies don't exist, but the term itself is very often misused and very rarely applies to discussions of Pathfinder art.
Be aware that their is a difference between Sex object aimed at those who find the male form attractive and Male Power Fantasies
I can find more examples if needed, but this isn't an art thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **Still hoping for a total-amazonian and a soft-featured slender male pair of iconics though... ^_^.
Magic makes it a lot easier than it is for people in real life.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Insain Dragoon... That third link of yours is awesome. Pure LOL material. The guy has been shot by automatic fire, probably from close distance, and the wounds healed up, he shattered steel chains easily, due to his MASSIVE MUSCLES (that just had to be capitalized...) which were so massive that they burst his loose clothes clear off his body... Yes. Male power fantasy, I see that... But his expression truly takes all sorts of cake. It is, as I said, awesome in its brainless glory. :-)
As I stated previously, I think sexy is too easy. I want more beautiful. Men and women. But it seems to me that many here are arguing that all women want feminine men with big eyes, soft cheeks, slender bodies and kissable lips. While true for some, it certainly isn't for all women. Big men, hairy men, tall men, unshaved men, bald men, buff men, short men, sensitive men, aggressive men, delicate men, expressive men, old men, young men, carefree men, brooding men, sparkling men, stylish men, strong men, lithe men, they are all on the menu, and have various groups of fans among women and men. Please take that into account if you do decide to change policies, Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truly wonderful isn't it? I really wanted a piece of artwork that demonstrated what a male power fantasy truly is! I may have seen others that exemplify it more, but I can't think of others off the top of my head.
It's from an anime/manga called Hokuto no Ken (or Fist of the North Star) which is pure male power fantasy from page 1 all the way to the end.
His muscles in action
I like the art of men in Pathfinder because they rarely conform to "Male Power Fantasy" and many fall into the camp of "beefcake."
Kenshiro in FotNS is definitely fitting to the male power fantasy label, agreed completely.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just so you know, Sissyl, Kenshiro didn't take bullets to his chest. His rival repeatedly jabbed his fingers into his chest. BECAUSE MANLINESS DOESN'T NEED WEAPONS.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me quote one of the greatest women of all time: Ivanova. "The worst case of testosterone poisoning I've ever seen." I stand corrected. I underestimated his sheer manliness. =)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the hypersexualized thing don't have so much presence here. Even the hyper-macho symbol, that was Conan, are simply dragged away for an amazing iconic barbarian female.
Aside, the sexualization factor, as Freud understand, are not fully present in the enviroment but it's only a perception of the viewer.
I'm not denying that there are not sexualization on games, there is.
But I don't see it significally on PFO, it's about of concept. Imagine how it would be if this is medieval fantasy, and try to figured how it is different from PFO materials.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
Ah, but a cigar is NEVER just a cigar.
I suppose we might never actually see sexualized Halflings or Gnomes, either male or female, because, well, duh, they look like children. And you can get away with a lot of nudge nudge wink wink, calling things "demons" and such, but you cannot risk images of sexualized individuals that might look like children.
You just don't do that.
There is a halfling in the Advanced Race Guide (on page 64) that I find strangely attractive. I say 'strangely' because there isn't anything that's particularly sexualized about her, I just think she's really really hot. The hottest female artwork in the ARG.
.
I swear the halfling in in the Inner Sea World Guide looks like Sylvester Stallone (for those that like Sly)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see a male god of beauty modeled after a young George Takei.
I'm can't claim to know what is "typical" for strait males, but the idea of being raped and murdered doesn't seem that appealing. (^~^)
I don't know if its typical but its common enough to be a joke anyway
To males, its a pretty remote threat so the situation comes off as funny. To females unfortunately, not so much.
wait is it bad to be strong
|
I'm more concerned with the race issue; why is it that all the sexy characters are human (or at least half-human)? Bring on the hot dwarven studs & babes! Lustful halflings! And, of course, Red-Hot Goblin Action.
My human cleric of Calistria has hooked up with humans, elves, half-elves, half-orcs, a medusa, and ummm ... *ahem* a halfling before.
While some people discriminate, Calistria encourages lust for all!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, in the exact same "women-only" manner in which all lust/sexy time-related areas are described, the entire complex was built by a "sisterhood of enchanters" - unlike every other wing in the complex, where the genders of the wizards are not factored into the complex's creation. The concept of "lust" is entirely created by, ruled by, and perpetrated by women and/or other females. Personally, I find this extremely uncomfortable, especially when it feels like a male fantasy. There are no males mentioned or involved in the creation of this complex. It's not left ambiguous, like the other complexes: it's specifically all female.
This is not actually limited to the Lust sin - each wing of the Runeforge seems to have a specific gender focus corresponding to the gender of the Runelord representing that sin. For instance, the Wrath section creatures are either asexual (sinspawn, glabreezu, golem) or female (Warriors of Wrath, High Lady Athroxis). The antagonists in the other Sin Wings are either asexual or male except the Halls of Envy, which have been destroyed and are basically empty except for a single ooze.
I think a male runelord of Lust could have been very interesting if handled the right way! I also think it'd be potentially very dangerous ground if bungled, since "female rapes male" is both less controversial and less ostracized than "male rapes female/male rapes male". Having worked with a few male victims of sexual abuse I find that double standard incredibly unfortunate, but that's a different matter entirely.For the first part about the inhabitants, the succubus you mention is exactly the problem I described. Any men related to her are dead and thus irrelevant to the AP itself. The fact that she kept their remains is the only reason the players would even have knowledge of it. Players have no interaction with them in any way, do not see them be dominated, do not even really have an ability to discover the purpose of the remains (for which there is none).
I don't quite follow this... Is dominating behavior only significant if the players observe it?
The male character you mention is not enthralled - he is driven insane, and is guaranteed to die regardless of anything that happens, just as every male in the complex - even though they would have been immortal as well - is also dead, meaning they were deliberately killed. The players do not have to deal with viewing or seeing any man in actual subservience to a woman - every man is either already dead or irrelevant. Instead, the succubus rules four female minions, and the other minions you mention are given a blurb and are not referred to or included, in any way, in the detailed interactions that all the explicitly female creatures interact with each other and the players. They are irrelevant fodder.
Nelevetu is driven insane by being physically, psychologically and sexually abused (which presumably includes a liberal use of Charm spells) by the succubus and her daughters more or less constantly for 10 000 years... They keep him in a cage. That strikes me as a prime example of a female in a position of sexual dominance over a male. The impression my players had after interacting with that pitiful creature was basically "Daaaaaaamn... Okay, maybe being a succubus sex slave isn't so great after all". If anything the fact that their "affections" drove him insane makes him more relevant, not less. He's most likely one of the most sexually abused people in fictional literature.
I agree that the Stone Giants don't get a very large speaking part the way they're written. Ironically when my party arrived here the wizard charmed most of the giants and the party got their story that way, so I recalled them being more significant than the book makes them out to be.
One of the named NPCs that you mention being seduced is again, not shown in a position of subservience to the woman. We know it as the DM/reader of the AP, but he is valueless and irrelevant. It even states that she says as much to his face, in the off-chance they encounter each other, even though if the players were to observe that, it is extremely likely that he would just side with them and kill her since he is not, at that point, enthralled by magic. Again, his being subservient to her is not shown to the players. She has no other thralls other than him, not even amongst any new minions. Otherwise, he is discovered before they encounter each other and the players still don't see him acting under her (since he has no orders from her, regardless of situation).
Kaven Windstrike was initially converted using a mix of seduction and charm spells, and is now smitten to the point where Lucrecia no longer needs to use enchantment magic to get him to do exactly what she wants. In the end he more or less single-handedly doomed Fort Rannick by handing out patrol schedule information, intentionally delaying his own patrol to keep it from arriving in time to save the order, and informing Lucrecia about the Black Arrow leader's weekly trips to Myriana.
I also find Kaven particularly interesting since he's a case of a male "smooth talker" being dominated by a rather more talented female seducer. It's an interesting contrast to Nualia who was seduced, impregnated and subsequently abandoned by a male varisian in book 1.
My players learned Kaven's story surprisingly fast (Inquisitors are NASTY when the plot expects someone to keep a secret) and found him pathetic. That said, they argued on his behalf that he shouldn't be executed since the heavy use of charm spells meant he was acting "under outside influence."
I'm not sure you would expect him to side with the party if he's still around when they confront Lucrecia? Kaven was aware of her plan to attack fort Rannick all along, outing him to the party would provide him with incentive to help kill them - not to team up with them. Not that he really needs that incentive since he's already basically sold his soul for her.
On a larger scale you could even argue that Lucrecia is actually put in a position of dominance over an entire community - over two hundred (primarily male) Turtleback Ferry citizens carry her tattoo, after all.
(Ironbriar) is actually a perfect example of how to do it very well, in my opinion. You're right, in that case, it's egalitarian in theme and I don't see anything problematic in how it was portrayed.
Ironically Ironbriar is my least favorite example of the three and I wound up rebuilding his character into an Inquisitor to make him, well, more competent at what the skinsaw cult does. This was the first and only time my party hands-down lost a fight in RotRL - completely out of resources with one PC dead and another incapacitated they had to retreat, and Ironbriar abandoned the sawmill with the unconscious body of the party's wizard and the few surviving members of the cult. Xanesha immediately wisdom drained the wizard into compliance and charmed him as well. The party later fought Ironbriar, the remains of the skinsaw cult and their own friend when they assaulted the Shadow Clock.
There IS a good example there, yeah, but... I mean I personally am not comfortable with the message sent there, and then sent again in Shattered Star, regarding the domain of "lust" and how its sole representatives are horny female creatures, only dominating female creatures. The positive example mentioned is not related to those instances, but the instances themselves felt very similar to the end of the Wrath of the Righteous AP, and I don't think anybody would have noticed that continuous theme had I not said anything.
Cages of Lust and Shattered Star (I believe, my memory of that AP is hazy) both handle sex as a topic in relation to Runelord Delvahine, so to me it makes sense that the topic is not approached from wildly different angles. I would be careful with trying to define Paizo's approach to sex from those two APs. That said, I can't speak for Wrath of the Righteous since I haven't read it and I doubt I'll ever run or play it.
I noticed Shisumo mentioned he can think of examples from Second Darkness, Curse of the Crimson Throne and possibly Legacy of Fire. I haven't read any of those APs so I'm not really in a position to comment, but could it be we're experiencing some polling bias?
I still don't really think that past-history status has anything to do with how they are currently portrayed in-game. And yeah, satyrs in greek myth were randy men willing to canoodle anything that moved and breathed, but I am not going off greek myth or any other material. I am strictly going of Paizo material and Paizo's presentation of these creatures. I like satyrs. They are, hands down, my favorite creature ever. I love Paizo's smarmy comments about "awkward pregnancies and shepherd boys facing awkward questions" in the original satyr bestiary entry. I have like the (2) instances where I've seen them appear in AP material (both times being in love with dryads they're willing to die for). It's cute, it's great, but nothing more is done with them, compared to other, more appealing (re: female) fey.
TriOmegaZero, if you could share that instance you're talking about, I'd really appreciate it.
Reign of Winter has
Later there is a Satyr who has seduced and impregnated a Nymph and will specifically try to charm and suggestion female PCs so he can try to seduce them out of combat.
The way we solve this in our campaign is by making all male elves gay.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The female sexual assault perpetrators usually aren't hobgoblins though. Typically, they're succubi and other creatures that are portrayed in a way that your typical straight male is going to appreciate. Which still is creepy and not okay but, you know. Male fantasies.and THATS the difference.
Male reaction to the situation= Woo hoo!!*
Female reaction to the gender flipped version "ICK!"
Making a game is all about making it fun. The first usually is and the second usually isn't. (*individual exceptions as always may apply)
Flip it to homosexual males seeking to extort sexual use of male PCs and it will likely invoke homosexual prison rape fears and the typical reaction is likely to be "ICK!" again.
The female sexual assault perpetrators usually aren't hobgoblins though. Typically, they're succubi and other creatures that are portrayed in a way that your typical straight male is going to appreciate. Which still is creepy and not okay but, you know. Male fantasies.and THATS the difference.
Male reaction to the situation= Woo hoo!!*
Female reaction to the gender flipped version "ICK!"
Making a game is all about making it fun. The first usually is and the second usually isn't. (*individual exceptions as always may apply)
okay wait
this is basically the whole foundation of thread, from what the OP set forthin your 1st example, based on the way the content is often written and displayed, the female will more often than not be busty and have a trunk that you would like to put your bike in, regardless of whether or not she is evil, demonic, bad bad bad, etc.
in your 2nd example, the male will more often be odious or horrible, with bad breath, blackened teeth, scraggly hair, overweight, exaggerated non-aesthetically-pleasing-looks, etc.
so why are most bad girls who threaten the men still basically redonkulous while the bad guys are usually mostly uggo?
You're misunderstanding the fallacy a little.
The idea is not that a GM should never change things, but rather, the fallacy addresses blind defenders of rulesets. Basically:
-Rule has balancing issues and/or does not work
-Someone suggests a houserule/fix/modification
-There was never a problem in the first place because you can modify the rulesThe third part is the problem there. And a common one at that, including upon these very forums. Numerous classes/abilities/rules are pretty cruddy, or somewhat overpowered. Some folks claim that because you can just fix it, the RAW was never broken in the first place.
This is the logical equivalent of getting hit while stopped at a red light, needing a new transmission, and (the other person's) insurance refuses to cover it since if you just change the transmission it will was never has been damaged in the first place and thus they owe you nothing!
Oh no, I understand it. I just don't buy into it (see below). And while I am not much for blind defense, I am less for saying that if you can fix it that doesn't fix it. If the rules are borked and you fix it for your game, then it isn't a problem for your game.
Of course, broken is a matter of perception. There are people that will claim any number of things are broken, overpowered, underpowered, and so on.
As for the fallacy and the others that crop up on message boards, more often than not they are used to shut down conversation and dissenting opinion and translate in my mind as "you aren't coloring in the lines of the debate that I like, so your opinion doesn't matter anymore because of my kewl fallacy." Doing that is just as useless IMO as blind defenders. In another thread I mentioned that if you drank everytime someone blindly parroted "Stormwind" you'd die by page 3 of the thread. It stops being a useful point in a debate and starts being a meme that people throw out because they want to shut down the conversation.
Flip it to homosexual males seeking to extort sexual use of male PCs and it will likely invoke homosexual prison rape fears and the typical reaction is likely to be "ICK!" again.
Eyup.
|
TriOmegaZero, if you could share that instance you're talking about, I'd really appreciate it.
|
|
Eyup.Flip it to homosexual males seeking to extort sexual use of male PCs and it will likely invoke homosexual prison rape fears and the typical reaction is likely to be "ICK!" again.
Any male PC who reacted like James Bond did to Silva when this sort of thing was heavily implied in "Skyfall" would earn huge bonus points.
You're right, though - Paizo IS progressive. Read through some other posts in the read to see why they're so awesome and cool, and why we all agree with you on that. However, there is no one point where anybody in the world reaches "progressive-ism perfection". I am sorry if this news disappoints you.
Of course, no one is "perfect". But this is highly subjective, What you're asking for is that a Very Progressive Company, one that really cares about this, should take a step that relay hurts it's sales and allows it's competitors (who are not progressive at all, and deliberately promulgate what you hate) to succeed.
In other words, you're trying to punish the Good Guys and let the Bad guys win. Might I suggest you go over to the worst promoters of this sort of stuff and try to get them up to Paizo's high standards before you ask Paizo to do something which will reduce it's competitiveness?
Like it or not, Fanboys LIKE this sorta stuff. It sells product. Until that is changed, let's applaud Paizo who cares about the issue.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like it or not, Fanboys LIKE this sorta stuff. It sells product. Until that is changed, let's applaud Paizo who cares about the issue.
Good thing nobody is really asking Paizo to stop doing what they are doing. Instead people are suggesting they instead of doing X almost all of the time, why not do some Y and Z more often. Still do X from time to time, even most of the time, just less often then currently so those other things can get more time or even anytime in some cases.
Part of the point about discussing this here instead of at a company that is much worse about these issues is specifically because people believe that Paizo might actually be open to viewing the issue. Those other companies might just blow it off, like some individual poster here are doing. But Paizo might and has, in this very thread, shown they are willing to look at the issues raise and rethink them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like it or not, Fanboys LIKE this sorta stuff. It sells product. Until that is changed, let's applaud Paizo who cares about the issue.Good thing nobody is really asking Paizo to stop doing what they are doing. Instead people are suggesting they instead of doing X almost all of the time, why not do some Y and Z more often. Still do X from time to time, even most of the time, just less often then currently so those other things can get more time or even anytime in some cases.
I have a different reading from the original post than you and what he has advocated. He is explicitly asking Paizo to stop doing it at all if they don't provide more equivalence.
Don’t print more all-female, nude attractive girl races. Don’t print all-female-staffed brothels. No more dumb-dumb axe-wieldy incubi serving as simple cannon-fodder. If someone writes that stuff, correct them. While I love adult issues in campaigns, and I love seeing people handle them maturely, I don’t like it when female players roll their eyes and can only grudgingly participate in an AP. I don’t like trying to justify to myself why a race like the thraie, or the lashunta, shouldn’t simply be exterminated on sight in defiance of the dominant culture foisting its views on what’s attractive to me. I don’t like the harm it does to my experience of Pathfinder APs, and I don’t like having to swallow my irritation and anger every time I read about another race that just seems to serve as personal fantasy fodder for purely hetero dudes.
TL/DR
In short, I’ve perceived that there is a trend of women being placed in positions of sexual subservience, while men – even of the exact same lusty race – are not. It’s a weirdly consistent, borderline fetishistic constant throughout a LOT of Pathfinder materials, and while I’d love to see some real equivalence, I understand that’s not always possible. Failing equivalence, however, there’s another option: to not send that message at all, by no longer allowing material that perpetuates it.
To the OP:
I said this in an earlier post, but it got bilged, perhaps because its language was judged to be too pejorative. Which it probably was. I'll try and say this more nicely.
One:
Paizo are such nice guys that they made their whole system open source. That means anyone can write an adventure path for it, not just Paizo.
Two:
Paizo are clearly writing material for a certain target demographic. Just like Marvel Comics. Or Hooters Restaurants. If you don't like the target demographic for whom they're writing, you are free to write and publish material for a different demographic.
Three:
I'm sure a certain demographic would flock to a story line driven by gay incubi NPCs, and if you believe that market is large enough to turn a profit on an adventure path, you should write one for that market and get rich. There is nothing structurally within the rules that prevents such an adventure path from being written, so they are not discriminating. They are merely meeting what they perceive to be the demand. Just like Hooters. Or Marvel Comics.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
If by "target demographic" you mean "gamers who are interested in playing and seeing all kinds of people in their choice of roleplaying game" then yes, we are writing to that demographic. :D
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, okay, foul-mouthed talking bags of devouring, AND gamers who like playing and seeing a variety of different types of characters.