can I be in the pirate demographic that also likes things that are not pirates
|
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)
Well ick and joking. still not nearly the same. I still argue that most men would object to slavery or being eaten by the female monsters(most of them) that want victims not just a bit o fun
| 2 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.'
I've seen this idea that 'sex sells' bandied about a lot on discussions about sexualised portrayals of women in media and I'm afraid that I've just not seen any reliable evidence to back it up. The closest I've found was this study: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2040218/Sex-DOES-sell-Attrac tive-men-women-ads-affect-capacity-rational-thought.html - which has serious issues (such as assuming that high activity levels in the brain automatically equate to remembering all of the add rather than just the sexy bit).
On the other-hand in a five minute google search I've found four studies that not only suggest that sexy content doesn't improve recall but may actually reduce it:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201312/does-sex-sell
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sexy-adverts-turn-women-off-research-show s-8985656.html
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/06/sex-doesnt-sell-neither-does-violence.php
http://www.emergencemarketing.com/2005/10/25/sex-in-ads-does-not-sell/
I love pathfinder I really do, but even though it does so much better than other fantasy games on the gender equality front it can still be a bit irritating sometimes with the way it portrays women and I'd honestly love for there to be more body and age diversity for both genders- especially as cheesecake may actually harm sales rather than boost them :)
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.
Good point.
Time for me to go write some heavy yaoi adventures!
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.Good point.
Time for me to go write some heavy yaoi adventures!
Going to point out this relevant section of the Pathfinder Compatibility License.
You must use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our trademarks. You may not use this License for products that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way we solve this in our campaign is by making all male elves gay.Male elves exist?
Yeah, haven't you ever seen Shelalu? That's a male elf. All male elves have pretty figures, larger (than average male humanoid relative to their frame) breasts and give birth to babies. They're kind of like humanoid sea horses that way. (^_^)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Good point.
Time for me to go write some heavy yaoi adventures!
Going to point out this relevant section of the Pathfinder Compatibility License.
You must use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our trademarks. You may not use this License for products that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors.
Um, Liz, no offense or anything intended (I like that Paizo can get pretty "gritty") but short of actually describing sexual acts, I'm not really sure how it could be more inappropriate for minors than Paizo's existing AP line. :P
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.Good point.
Time for me to go write some heavy yaoi adventures!
Going to point out this relevant section of the Pathfinder Compatibility License.
You must use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our trademarks. You may not use this License for products that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors.
Can't help but feel there are already products published that break that section ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um... we don't write for a target demographic.
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
What about foul-mouthed talking bags of devouring?
Well, okay, foul-mouthed talking bags of devouring, AND gamers who like playing and seeing a variety of different types of characters.
I just want to say that I deeply appreciate the message sent by this sequence of posts as well as loving the color coordination until Gorbacz ruined it.
>:(
Um, Liz, no offense or anything intended (I like that Paizo can get pretty "gritty") but short of actually describing sexual acts, I'm not really sure how it could be more inappropriate for minors than Paizo's existing AP line. :P
Getting slightly off topic (further), this is one of those gray areas that I take very seriously when Pathfinder Compatible products arrive on my desk. Often it falls into the "do what we say, not what we do"—which sounds very draconian, I know, but those are the terms of the license agreement. But there are certain things that are absolute red flags: violence against children being one of them, nudity (despite my personal views on the topic), overt sexual content (and "clever" attempts to bypass it). Too often, these particular topics are added for shock value, or to add them just to add them, without being relevant to the story or material, and quite frequently feels like a cop-out on the writer's part (all my opinion, of course).
Can't help but feel there are already products published that break that section ;)
Hah. That is available on Paizo.com, too. :D
@ Artemis Moonstar - hah, I totally agree with everything you've said! Especially the Amazonians.
We need more paladins of Lymnieris. ;)
Mikaze, you are amazing!
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).
Yep. Females pretty commonly portrayed as ravenously bisexual, and typically value women partners over male partners (discarding male ones with uncaring regularity to obsess over new females).
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.
I think this really emphasizes pres man's earlier point too.
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.
Glabrezu are not asexual. They have male and female genders and are portrayed as such. Their genders are sometimes left out, sometimes not, but they are not asexual. The warriors in the Hall of Wrath are not all female, because it specifically mentions them reproducing sexually, as well as both male and female rulers. All of the other wings are either spoken of in gender-neutral or masculine terms regarding their inhabitants/creators and current wardens. All of the other wings have male/female and/or gender-mixed/gender-undefined wardens, despite the gender of the presiding Runelord. Only the Lust wing is explicitly, entirely female.
I don't disagree that having a male runelord of lust could have been problematic. By itself, it's fine. Whatever the story - she's a die-hard lesbian obsessed with female beauty, or anything! - by itself, is fine. It's the context of how it interacts with the material that has been put out, until very recently, however, that bothers me. There's nothing to counterweight it the message it sends (i.e. women are the exclusive perpetrators of sexual lust and desire).
I don't quite follow this... Is dominating behavior only significant if the players observe it?
I'm sticking to this point in order to more be consistent with what I've posted previously about dismissing the single enthralled male in Curse of the Lady's Light; for me personally, yeah, it does matter that players be able to observe it. It largely falls under the same question of "if a tree falls in the forest...", where, if no one is around to observe it, what does it matter? If that part of the message is made explicit to the players (or audience, in other media), what is the message that's communicated instead?
I know that it could be argued that it's up to me as the DM to then convey that stuff, but... there's two parts to that. First, I wouldn't have to do that extra effort if the adventure had it made explicit for me, and then second, I think it's weird that the adventures rarely have it explicit like that. When I look at it, there just seems to be deeper meaning behind it, or it wouldn't be so consistent.
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.
First, that's a brilliant way for a creature to convey all the information about the Lust-spire. Thanks for that, I really mean it. The other part is that I'm not disagreeing that he's not a sex-slave and horribly abused in many ways; I'm disagreeing that he's shown to be sexually subservient. He's shown restrained, tortured, imprisoned, and is an utterly insane wreck; it's not stated that he's obedient, it's clear that he's extremely likely to die at the end of the encounter, regardless of what happens, and in my opinion it's a "safer" choice to have him be a crazed, barely-human wreck rather than... I don't know. I mean, I just think it's weird that the AP details how the alu-fiends react to their fathers' remains, and yet doesn't bother detailing how they react to him, despite it being massively more likely - given the outlined parlay possibility between the succubus and the players - that them wanting him released would be a point of contention for the fiends. Something about it just feels off to me. I know that's not a good argument, though, and I'm sorry I can't articulate it better.
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.
I thought Kaven was pretty compelling too, especially since he could be taken aback and horrified by the massacre of the fort, or reveling in it. He can go a lot of ways! He could be furious at Lucrecia for betraying and spurning him at the same time, or he could still be desperate to get back with her. Whatever the case, he's stated to react "with guilt and shock" and her intention is for the party to turn on him. She may have power, but she immediately cedes control over him.
I don't disagree that Lucrecia has power. I think there's a subtle distinction between power and dominance, however. She has power over the village in that she's very close to succeeding in killing them all. She doesn't have dominance because none of them obey her and she's not showing to have any control over them - even Kaven - the way the AP itself plays out. She's just kind of waiting in a room at the back of the keep. She's a clever mastermind, the ogres defer to her, but they don't defer to her due to her power or control over them. It's to her amulet. I don't really think that's dominating anything. Again, she was definitely dominating in her backstory, but that's still not what's shown to the players.
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.
They're not the only points I use, but the fact that they're written so far apart and yet exactly the same, I think, is telling; I mean, there's no stated reason why Runelord Sorshen only had female creatures serving her, why she only cared about female servants, and why the writers chose to continue that. Following that, The Midnight Isles and City of Locusts were in the same vein. It didn't seem to be related to one particular author, time period, or AP. To me, that made it seem like a theme that was pretty consistent, despite being spread across the board.
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'm sorry, I actually forgot to ask about the instances he was thinking of in those other APs. Shisumo (or others), I think I can guess some of the ones that are going to be mentioned, but if you want to point out what stands out to you guys, I'd appreciate it a lot (although the AP I'm least familiar with is Legacy of Fire so it might take me some time to read that one).
Reign of Winter has ** spoiler omitted **
OH! You're right dude, thank you for those both! Those are perfect, wonderful examples. I really appreciate pointing those out!
** spoiler omitted **
I don't play Society so I don't normally get their material, but that sounds like the perfect reason to buy that one. That's awesome, and I definitely think is necessary to bring up. I mean, I don't want to make it seem like Paizo consistently fails at positive portrayals of things, or that they're stumbling around in the dark. It is examples like these last ones that, yeah, keep me in love with this company.
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. ... 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....
Even if you take my words there literally, I don't see how not adding new, all-female, nude seductress races - while only using male seducers as cannon fodder - is going to infringe in any way on sales. If that's what makes you buy Paizo products... I mean, like other people have helpfully pointed out, there are less progressive games that better pander to your tastes on that front.
I tried to clarify in a later post, after I'd had more time to reflect; it may not seem like much, but I do try to make an effort to use specific words when I post. In this case, I chose "another option" because I didn't know what sort of reaction my post would get from the community. If nothing else, I'd hoped to at least raise questions regarding why one team deserves their pie, while the other does not, and how would things be different if that team didn't get pie. I liked the feedback from people who said that not having pie would suck, and I mean, I totally agree. It would suck a lot and I don't want that to happen (and I especially don't want writers or artists to feel censored in what material they can produce).
Buuuut I also just realized that you didn't bold the preceding part of that quote, namely the "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..." part of the message that I was specifically referring to there.
In my opinion, that is not, in any way, related to no longer showing sexy people with lady parts, or sexy creatures with lady parts, or not having said lady parts in suggestive situations. What I'm referring to is making a very specific, conscientious point of not writing "typical male sexual dominance fantasy" where all these female creatures are just crazy for his man-bits, or there are dens and lairs where exclusively female lust-creatures writhe about, having sexy times, without a single male lust creature to balance anything out. And again, it's not that I'm against male power fantasies - just either don't package them in a format designed for a larger audience than just those men, or do, but counterweight it with the occasional something for other people too.
As a whole, however, it's the "subservience" piece that gets to me. Female sexuality existing solely in relation to how said female-part creature interacts with straight human men, while all other sexualities are almost completely ignored, is not a pie anyone should be getting.
|
Yep. Females pretty commonly portrayed as ravenously bisexual, and typically value women partners over male partners (discarding male ones with uncaring regularity to obsess over new females).
Um...I'm only coming up with one example that fit this description (Nocticula), and I don't think that constitutes 'pretty commonly'. There are a couple of others who come close, I guess, but I can think of at least one male example who does more or less the same off the top of my head (Socothbenoth)...he just hasn't had a volume of an AP focus on him.
I think your comments more generally have a lot of merit (though I feel you're overstating the degree)...but this one just seems flat-out wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What i´m not getting is why males have to look more or less like females in some depictions and be wearing make up. And i don´t mean that comics supposed to show how ridiculous female comic poses often are.
I want to add to that, since the first time i saw that comic, i did the same as many artists. I watched people in my surroundings and on the street, how they pose. There is a difference in women and men, perhaps it is socialized, with some it´s not that big, but it certainly adds to receive the gender of that person, independant from their biological gender. And then of course comics generaly exaggerate, that´s their nature, isn´t it. So this comic agenda seems like a Don Quixotery to me.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So many complaints about lesbians being a male fantasy.
But what about lesbians as a lesbian fantasy? Don't we get to have any fun? :(
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So many complaints about lesbians being a male fantasy.
But what about lesbians as a lesbian fantasy? Don't we get to have any fun? :(
That's another thing that needs to be avoided in these and the related discussions. That and how sometimes the fanservice debate can dip into slut-shaming at times.
It's part of why I think pushing for more variety and "something for everyone" is the best way to go, rather than taking it all away.(not that many have been suggesting that, but that extreme does come up sometimes).
Admittedly I can't recall any complaints about lesbian fanservice in this thread, but I'm sleep deprived and I are not think good now and the thread has gotten rather large.... I have seen that complaint though, with the notion that it should be toned down rather than upping the variety elsewhere.
What i´m not getting is why males have to look more or less like females in some depictions and be wearing make up.
For some folks, that's what they want. And some folks want the more rugged type. Or any of the myriad other possibilities. More diversity could cover a lot of those bases, especially the ones that don't get much or any coverage currently. (reminded of the discussion about "where are all the kind, welcoming faces on attractive males" from the related Male Beauty thread)
I like erotica and I like RPG's but I see no need for the two to overlap. I like fine dining and burger king too, but I don't want French fries at Elisilev's or Escargot at Pizza hut.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm either unlucky or lucky enough to never have run for a group that has wanted "romance". If it ever happened perhaps it would be an issue. But the beauty of any female NPC is mostly window dressing wasted on my group of orc-killers.
|
|
I'm either unlucky or lucky enough to never have run for a group that has wanted "romance". If it ever happened perhaps it would be an issue. But the beauty of any female NPC is mostly window dressing wasted on my group of orc-killers.>_>
<_<
I about got the group's Catfolk Samurai hooked up with Tenpenny in RoW... Then bandits happened.
I think romance beyond a certain point goes into the same territory as (for some only extreme) graphic violence. Mostly best left hinted at but unspoken in detail.
@Mikaze: Thanks for the explanation. That bishounen hint made it.
I recommend the redemption engine pathfinder novel to you if you didn´t read it yet.
Also, bishounen sounds a lot like male characters with low STR but high CHA to me, like most of my rogues and ninjas^^
Only they are much more likely to be halfling hehe.
And therefore kind of resemble me ;) (Some years ago.)
I don´t wear make up though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hrmmm well in terms of opinions here is a list of things I think we could do better on:
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fanservice and romantic interests don't necessarily mean erotica.
I have a fetish for meaningful, loving relationships.
Glad I brought that up, though I wasn't really being serious ^-^;...
That said... While I'm all for free-love and sexuality, totally agree on keeping the kids out of it.
In any case... Rest assured that if I ever DO undertake making a PF-compatible content, any 'yaoi' will simply take the form of options for homosexual male PCs to influence the events with their interactions with the gay NPCs. Similar to the various ways Foxglove would respond to the hot chick in the party when his rumpus gets saved. I don't have too many of the APs (something I plan on rectifying later), but so far from what I've seen/heard, there's not a whole lot of that going on for gay guys. Lesbians, sure, but not gay guys...
Unless that's a no-no.
Point 3 is probably one of my pet peeves - it can really break immersion if there are pinups for the sake of pinups alone. Then again, how many (non-monstrous) females do we see in pictures that don´t look good? Granted, most male NPCs (at least those that are friend/ally material) tend to look okay too, but I simply don´t remember seeing many unattractive female NPC (outside those the party is supposed to come in conflict with, like an ogress or a daughter of Urgathoa).
At least as far as eye candy goes, it would imo be good to have it more balanced - the games I am in seldom get to a lot of PC-NPC romances, but there is no harm to give gamers who are into men more to fantasize over. I wonder if it is due to my own biases, but I think most paths I´ve seen have fewer male friendly NPCs in positions such a relationship with a party member may develop.
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.
Yes, please.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also vote for sending Isaiah Mustafa a letter, asking him to donate his likeness to future PF deities or demigods.
It's for a good cause.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. ... 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.
...
Even if you take my words there literally, I don't see how not adding new, all-female, nude seductress races - while only using male seducers as cannon fodder - is going to infringe in any way on sales. If that's what makes you buy Paizo products... I mean, like other people have helpfully pointed out, there are less progressive games that better pander to your tastes on that front.
I tried to clarify in a later post, after I'd had more time to reflect; it may not seem like much, but I do try to make an effort to use specific words when I post. In this case, I chose "another option" because I didn't know what sort of reaction my post would get from the community. If nothing else, I'd hoped to at least raise questions regarding why one team deserves their pie, while the other does not, and how would things be different if that team didn't get pie. I liked the feedback from people who said that not having pie would suck, and I mean, I totally agree. It would suck a lot and I don't want that to happen (and I especially don't want writers or artists to feel censored in what material they can produce).
Buuuut I also just realized that you didn't bold the preceding part of that quote, namely the "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..." part of the message that I was specifically referring to there.
In my opinion, that is not, in any way, related to no longer showing sexy people with lady parts, or sexy creatures with lady parts, or not having said lady parts in suggestive situations. What I'm referring to is making a very specific, conscientious point of not writing "typical male sexual dominance fantasy" where all these female creatures are just crazy for his man-bits, or there are dens and lairs where exclusively female lust-creatures writhe about, having sexy times, without a single male lust creature to balance anything out. And again, it's not that I'm against male power fantasies - just either don't package them in a format designed for a larger audience than just those men, or do, but counterweight it with the occasional something for other people too.
As a whole, however, it's the "subservience" piece that gets to me. Female sexuality existing solely in relation to how said female-part creature interacts with straight human men, while all other sexualities are almost completely ignored, is not a pie anyone should be getting.
I was responding to Pres Man saying nobody was asking Paizo to stop what they were doing. I quoted your thread starting post where you specifically asked them to stop what they were doing and bolded those parts where you asked them to stop doing what they are doing.
That is separate from whether you are asking for a good reason or whether it would impact sales.
That's why I didn't bold your reasoning for asking for them to stop doing what they are doing and only bolded the parts where you asked them to stop doing stuff.
I did take your words literally. I thought you were honestly and in good faith saying you found a trend you did not like in the portrayal of men vs women and were suggesting they make a change to address it. I did not think it was sarcasm or hyperbole or a false request to make a point but an honest request for change.
While I don't disagree with you...Socothbenoth and Incubi are kind of difficult to use, as both these demons/types of demon are explicitly called out as being associated with rape. Using Incubi as established is likely to lead to pretty heavy trigger territory, something that Paizo should justifiably be concerned about. In contrast, Succubi are associated with seduction, which is less likely to make people feel uncomfortable.
There's also the problematic issue of things all too often defaulting to "sexual female = seductive, sexual male = predator" too. This comes through in the extreme with incubi/succubi, but it also crops up to a lesser degree with nymphs and satyrs.
The argument that you're making on this though, doesn't come from Paizo's pure choice. They have roots in mythology. In Mythology Succubi *were* seducers, and Incubi used physical dominance, and rape. It's not like Paizo made up some creatures and made that decision, it's already existent in cultural history. Likewise the Nymph/Satyr dynamic. Nymphs were seen as beautiful, and feminine, mostly innocent and pure, as was the "ideal" of the time. The satyr was seen as a creature driven by its lustful wants, typically attributed to males, and so the body was bestial in nature, which reflects the Greek feeling that unchecked lust was damaging, and destructive.
I've seen reference to the NPCs that are available for romantic interests, and I'll take RotRL Shopkeeper's daughter as an example. Paizo isn't including it to objectify the woman, it's set there to potentially punish the typical male gamer who ratchets up "seduction". It sets a very high bar for getting out of the situation without any penalty from the father, and a near impossible check to not incur the wrath of the daughter. Failure indicates that the whole party receives a -2 penalty to diplomacy from anyone in town, and stops them from being able to shop at one of the few shops at all. It's set as an object lesson for the adventurer that thinks the best bit of treasure resides in his pants. But the beginning text says "Pick a Pc, preferably one who fancies himself a ladies man..." Note; Pick *A* PC. Not necessarily a male one. The choice is the GMs. In the same AP, take a look at Arlen Foxglove. The first NPC that the party can really interact with, and the first that recurs. In that text it points out to have Arlen focus on the attractive female characters.
Paizo does put in "beefcake", maybe not in the same quantities that it does "cheesecake" and in some cases maybe not as easy to find, but then in a mostly male dominated audience, they're going to lean towards pleasing them first, and most. In the group that I play with, we have 4 women and 1 man, and quite often when I show pictures from the APs, I hear comments of "Well, hello!" So Paizo has got to have it right to some degree.
Originally, succubi and incubi were the same creature. Thing is, incubi were thought to be the reason for "unsanctioned pregnancies". So, first the succubus had sex with a man. It then changed its form into a male shape (incubus), and impregnated a woman with the seed it got from the first man.
Or this was one of the explanations, anyway.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really kind of disturbed right now that people don't see a distinction, with a male seducer, between seduction and assault.
Seduction involves convincing someone to sleep with you -- that is, getting a "yes." Assault involves sexual contact in the absence of a "yes" or even the presence of a "no."
You can absolutely have an evil character who seduces women for nefarious purposes who doesn't commit sexual assault.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really kind of disturbed right now that people don't see a distinction, with a male seducer, between seduction and assault.
Seduction involves convincing someone to sleep with you -- that is, getting a "yes." Assault involves sexual contact in the absence of a "yes" or even the presence of a "no."
You can absolutely have an evil character who seduces women for nefarious purposes who doesn't commit sexual assault.
Firstly, seduction is a very poor mechanic in game. There's nobody involved with a Succubus/Incubus who isn't aware that they are taking on a huge risk and massive detriment with truthfully no benefits... (i.e. there is no actual gratification.) I have never once seen a player succumb to the wiles of dangerous seduction except for failed Charm/Dominate spells.
[tongueincheek]Secondly, if a male ever successfully seduced a female, you could just go ahead and throw any semblance of verisimilitude out the window. Aren't we trying to make this more realistic?[/tongueincheek]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
oscar mike foxtrot golf
this is lamontius
we are going down
I repeat
we are going down
lost both engines, bailing on thread
repeat
bailing on thread
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm either unlucky or lucky enough to never have run for a group that has wanted "romance". If it ever happened perhaps it would be an issue. But the beauty of any female NPC is mostly window dressing wasted on my group of orc-killers.>_>
<_<
That's something that wouldn't be out of the ordinary in my campaigns, though given the way Paizo operates I would be surprised to find an orc that was non-evil. But then we've got a non-evil demon in an AP so maybe Paizo is getting past their teenage phases. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, seduction is a very poor mechanic in game. There's nobody involved with a Succubus/Incubus who isn't aware that they are taking on a huge risk and massive detriment with truthfully no benefits... (i.e. there is no actual gratification.) I have never once seen a player succumb to the wiles of dangerous seduction except for failed Charm/Dominate spells.I'm really kind of disturbed right now that people don't see a distinction, with a male seducer, between seduction and assault.
Seduction involves convincing someone to sleep with you -- that is, getting a "yes." Assault involves sexual contact in the absence of a "yes" or even the presence of a "no."
You can absolutely have an evil character who seduces women for nefarious purposes who doesn't commit sexual assault.
That's assuming you know it's a succubus or incubus, and not just an attractive person who's attracted to you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's something that wouldn't be out of the ordinary in my campaigns, though given the way Paizo operates I would be surprised to find an orc that was non-evil. But then we've got a non-evil demon in an AP so maybe Paizo is getting past their teenage phases. :)I'm either unlucky or lucky enough to never have run for a group that has wanted "romance". If it ever happened perhaps it would be an issue. But the beauty of any female NPC is mostly window dressing wasted on my group of orc-killers.>_>
<_<
It's not a teenage phase, I think, so much as that when you're creating a world, that "show, don't tell" principle is important, and if you say orcs are mostly evil, then start out with a bunch of non-evil orcs out of the gate, that sort of undermines the idea that orcs are usually evil. The idea that a particular orc is exceptional for being non-evil has more weight if the orc characters you've shown up to that point have been predominantly evil.
I can't believe I read this whole thread!
A few things to add to the discussion. First I think some of the problems with having seduction (of anyone by anyone) in the game has to do with real life relationships. I am married and if a GM tries to have anything sexual happen to my or my wife's characters it doesn't go well. I think that sexuality in game is fine and can really add to some people's experience of the game, but you have to know the people playing and what they are comfortable with. Any time someone takes away control of my character I get uncomfortable, whether with physical force or magic. I am not the only person with issues like these. Lots of people playing the game suffer from real life traumas and don't need to be set off.
On the topic of why there are less sexualized men in published material. I think a better balance might be to move toward more approachable attractive NPCs of all races/orientations/sexes/body types/ages (of consent, don't get yourself in trouble) and away from overt aggressive sexuality of all types. I know from experience that if any NPC approaches our group with sexy times on the agenda that at least one if not all the PCs are gonna resent them. Suitor NPCs are competition for suitor PCs and nobody likes the competition.
I wonder what a general survey of Pathfinder players would reveal demographically. I can't imagine only 5% females. I would think that the population of players has become significantly older, more married, less heterosexual, and more racially diverse in addition to being much more female. Please do one and share all the data you can, some of us are statistics nerds who would really like to know.
Modules Overlord
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an honest question: What would you be looking for to feel something had met this criterion? Would a non-evil female orc ally that doesn't mention romance in any capacity could if she could serve as a love interest? Would it need to call her out as potentially available? Would some description need to mention she's specifically interested? Would the plot need to revolve around her romantic status? Would she have to have art?
To be clear, any of those is a perfectly reasonable metric, depending on what it is you're looking for. I'm just genuinely curious.
And in fact, that would seem to even more appropriate for an incubus kind of creature. Seduction is luring you down the path of Lust. Rape is just a thing being done to you.I'm really kind of disturbed right now that people don't see a distinction, with a male seducer, between seduction and assault.
Seduction involves convincing someone to sleep with you -- that is, getting a "yes." Assault involves sexual contact in the absence of a "yes" or even the presence of a "no."
You can absolutely have an evil character who seduces women for nefarious purposes who doesn't commit sexual assault.
Except that in mythology, an Incubus most times was not a seducer. They either came to women in their dreams, used magic to draw them to tragic ends or just took them, in their sleep, and then left before morning. (In most cases as a means to explain away unwanted pregnancies.) So having them being a hyper attractive person who seduces (which takes time), is counter to the historical portrayal of an incubus.
So in this ONE case, I don't think Paizo's portrayal is largely incorrect. Incubi were not romance novel cover models, who would seduce women. Having them be muscle, or grunts, while not perfect, is much closer to the mythology.