Are there male harpies

[Thomas Jones]

I remembers reading in Mythical Monsters Revisited that all harpies were female and reproduced by mating with males from other races. Yet in the recent Sand Point supplement there is a male harpy.

What is up with that?
Is there an official position on this subject?

[thistledown]

There is also a male harpy in one of the second ed playtest scenarios

[CorvusMask]

Yeah, Paizo has changed their stance on one gender monsters lately, the new stance is that either all creatures have both genders or they have equivalent that is the opposite gender(such as Satyrs and Nymphs)

[Zapp]

I must say after comparing the respective PF1 and PF2 monster entries for Harpy, I much prefer the PF1 entry. It's just... so much more evocatively monstrous.

I understand the notion it's inherently misogynistic to have a female-only evulz race, but I don't see that excusing the disneyfication of the entire race.

Meaning that if female harpies needed humanoid males to procreate, why couldn't they have written male harpies to need humanoid females to procreate?

After all, having harpies procreate the "normal" way removes the entire reason why Harpies are found near civilization! Harpies become a much more normal monster when it just wants to do what every other monster wants to do, i.e. kill you. Ultimately, we end up with a much less interesting monster entry.

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

I must say after comparing the respective PF1 and PF2 monster entries for Harpy, I much prefer the PF1 entry. It's just... so much more evocatively monstrous.

I'm unsure how a meandering description that spends the first three paragraphs politely describing how they sing and how they live near and trade with humans and how they collect and wear baubles is more evocatively monstrous than a description that calls them filthy and feral looking human/bird hybrid murderers in the first two sentences.

[Zapp]

dirtypool wrote:

Zapp wrote:

I must say after comparing the respective PF1 and PF2 monster entries for Harpy, I much prefer the PF1 entry. It's just... so much more evocatively monstrous.

I'm unsure how a meandering description that spends the first three paragraphs politely describing how they sing and how they live near and trade with humans and how they collect and wear baubles is more evocatively monstrous than a description that calls them filthy and feral looking human/bird hybrid murderers in the first two sentences.

Huh? How was that unclear?

I'll try again - PF1 harpies have a real Fascinate effect: " if everyone succumbs to their captivating song, the party won’t be able to defend themselves, and may be slaughtered like livestock" while PF2's condition has been nerfed into oblivion (it ends as soon as anyone, not just the fascinating Harpy, attacks you).

Harpies also have a real reason for encountering people, since they need them for procreation.

The various bits of "urban harpies", and cruel harpies playing with their food for weeks are also much cooler.

In comparison the PF2 text reads more vanilla, and much more puranitical. All traces of its Greek roots are gone. There just isn't anything that stands out: they come across as a smelly monster humanoid like a flying troglodyte or something, and nothing more.

All the tragedy and terror is just... shrug. It's a primitive humanoid that lives in groups. It kills and eats people. So what? There's dozens of ugly humanoids that do that already.

Is it an especially bad monster? No. But is it anything special?

Not any more.

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

Huh? How was that unclear?

Perhaps the lack of clarity is because you used the word "evocative" to define the difference between a bland 25 paragraph narrative description that reads like an encyclopedia entry and a 2 paragraph description filled primarily with color. There is little evocative language in the PF1 writeup while there IS in the PF2 write up.

Zapp wrote:

PF1 harpies have a real Fascinate effect: " if everyone succumbs to their captivating song, the party won’t be able to defend themselves, and may be slaughtered like livestock" while PF2's condition has been nerfed into oblivion (it ends as soon as anyone, not just the fascinating Harpy, attacks you).

Why would any other creature be in a position to attack if you were under the thrall of a harpies song? The song is to lure you away from what you're doing to them, if a Harpy lured you into a trap where something else could attack you and spoil their meal - they deserve to have their meal poached.

Zapp wrote:

In comparison the PF2 text reads more vanilla, and much more puranitical.

There is nothing puritanical about that write up.

Zapp wrote:

Is it an especially bad monster? No. But is it anything special?

Not any more.

Was it ever?

[Mark Seifter]

The PF1 entry in the link above has the entry from Mythic Monsters Revisited. Of course a multi-page revisited article will be longer than a Bestiary entry. If you want to compare, the actual PF1 Bestiary entry from harpy is here.

[Bryan Stephens]

I think monsters who are single sex are fine in mythical worlds. I mean, magic is weird.

[Tender Tendrils]

I don't think changing a monster away from being a species that reproduced almost entirely though sexual assault is being "puritanical" - being puritanical is the opposite of being sex positive - sex positive does not mean "being okay with sexual assault". Anyone who wants their escapist fantasy to be full of that stuff is someone I don't want to be in a room with for my own safety.

[Claxon]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

I don't think changing a monster away from being a species that reproduced almost entirely though sexual assault is being "puritanical" - being puritanical is the opposite of being sex positive - sex positive does not mean "being okay with sexual assault". Anyone who wants their escapist fantasy to be full of that stuff is someone I don't want to be in a room with for my own safety.

I think this is unfair statement.

No one alive today created the original myth of harpies, but I agree with the above poster that washing away that aspect of the myth reduces the unique nature. It's supposed to be terrifying and monstrous, and sexual assault is both of those things.

Now, if a particular individual takes issues with those things then they can be removed from individual games to facilitate a good and fun time for everyone involved.

But to imply that someone is a bad person for wanting the lore to remain consistent for a monster to commit monstrous acts...I don't know. It just rubs me the wrong way.

[Rysky]

Yeah I think you’re bad if you want rape to stay a building block of a creature or worse add it in. “I’d supposed to be terrifying and monstrous” And you can’t have it without the rape? We’re you planning to have rape occur in-game? If it was just for emotional torque it doesn’t add anything, it just sets people off. You’re not a good storyteller for using it. It’s lazy, crude and vulgar to provoke an uncomfortable response, which is separate if you want to include “terrifying” as a thing.

Being a single gender specifies/ known for sexual assault isn’t a “unique nature”. It adds… absolutely nothing.

Also if you wanna use the myth to defend it your dead on arrival, the Harpies of myth were wind spirits that stole food and carried people off to suffer punishment by the Furies. No rape, that’s a DnD/Pathfinder addition.

[Claxon]

Rysky wrote:

Yeah I think you’re bad if you want rape to stay a building block of a creature or worse add it in. “I’d supposed to be terrifying and monstrous” And you can’t have it without the rape? We’re you planning to have rape occur in-game? If it was just for emotional torque it doesn’t add anything, it just sets people off. You’re not a good storyteller for using it. It’s lazy, crude and vulgar to provoke an uncomfortable response, which is separate if you want to include “terrifying” as a thing.

Being a single gender specifies/ known for sexual assault isn’t a “unique nature”. It adds… absolutely nothing.

Also if you wanna use the myth to defend it your dead on arrival, the Harpies of myth were wind spirits that stole food and carried people off to suffer punishment by the Furies. No rape, that’s a DnD/Pathfinder addition.

That's interesting. To be honest I'm not one to really read the original writings around these mythical creatures, but much more likely to read modern stories with the creatures. I'm not sure when this bit was added it, but I must admit that it's a part of all the incarnations I'm familiar with.

As to your other questions, no generally something like rape isn't something I would explore in a game. But I also don't have a problem with it being part of the setting and backstory of a creature. And of course you can have something be monstrous without it being a rape monster, but we also already have a lot of those. This particular aspect of harpies separated it from other monsters.

I disagree that it adds nothing. If nothing else your response to it seems to signify that such a creature is more offensive and reprehensible than one that does not possess such traits.

I'm not saying one should include a topic such as rape lightly, it can easily offend or hurt individuals so you must be mindful of the audience.

However, the prior assertion that someone is a monster (pad person) for not agreeing with it being removed is really what I take issue with the most.

[Kelseus]

Rysky wrote:

Also if you wanna use the myth to defend it you're dead on arrival, the Harpies of myth were wind spirits that stole food and carried people off to suffer punishment by the Furies. No rape, that’s a DnD/Pathfinder addition.

This part here. While the ancient Greeks were pretty into determining the parantage of a specific monster, they weren't that interested in biological reproduction as a means to propagate the species. That is a problem with modern geek culture needing our make-believe fantasy game to "make sense" and be "realistic" from a pop understanding of ecology and speciation.

If you don't like male harpies, you can just

A) not include them in your game
B) not consider harpies' biological reproductive process
C) just say they engage in Parthenogenesis and lay eggs that hatch without the need for fertilization by a sperm.

The idea of a monster that wants to swoop down, carry me away, and then literally consume my flesh is terrible enough. You don't ALSO need throw in a mandatory pre-meal sex assault on top of it.

[Rysky]

“but we also already have a lot of those”

As in, every other monster in existence aside from less than a handful? Rapist isn’t a cool or attractive quality for a monster, or even “threatening” from a gameplay stand point. It’s just crude and triggering for the players, low effort.

“This particular aspect of harpies separated it from other monsters.”

In what tangible appreciable way that mattered in the slightest?

“I disagree that it adds nothing. If nothing else your response to it seems to signify that such a creature is more offensive and reprehensible than one that does not possess such traits.”

Uh yes, a rapist is offensive and reprehensible. That should be rather obvious. Nothing of value or interest is lost if you have them not be a rapist.

“However, the prior assertion that someone is a monster (pad person) for not agreeing with it being removed is really what I take issue with the most.”

Why are you defending so hard for rape to remain in a fantasy game is a question you should be asking yourself. There’s no moral high ground or positive you can claim for this. There’s certainly no good intentions for defending or introducing rape in a story.

[Claxon]

I believe we're not going to find common ground on this, so I've decided there's nothing more for to gain from this discussion. So I'm out.

[CorvusMask]

I think the main problem with "one gender only species that is hostile to others but needs them to reproduce" is that when they aren't insect like parasites laying eggs, it creates lot of weird questions most people don't like to think about. And while pathfinder does have ogres, I'm not sure its intended to be question you think of with harpies and medusas and such.

Main weird thing is that it creates assumption that "cultural norm for reproduction for this creature is rape". Like yeah you could go with "good aligned harpy wouldn't do that" but its still creepy thing to world build around.

Like you could assume that "maybe they breed with other male monsters" (sidenote: bestiary had weird lore of dread corbies being born from dire corbies mating with harpies which raises lot of weird questions), but like it kinda requires jumping through hoops to avoid gross stuff.

You could of course also assume something like "nah even though they are evil they do still court other people normally like normal evil people do", but 1e kinda just dances around subject.

(on sidenote, this retcon does mean that harpies can no longer breed with any other creature so I imagine that might turn some characters romancing friendly harpies and having kids non canon)

I do think there is genuinely interesting story potential in "one gender race" trope and I don't think paizo "needed" to remove all of them, but I find their reason completely understandable and I don't see any real problem with it. And its honestly just easier this way than dancing around it.

Like thing about ogres is that whenever you use them, it feels kinda gross and forces you to emphases something like "they are gonna eat you if you lose" because uh as much as some people think otherwise, pathfinder doesn't really suit for "grimdark and edgy shocking content" games that well :P Not that it can't be done well, but it creates lot of strange implications when "this creature is rapist" is its defining trait.

Like main reason why warhammer got away with really gross stuff is that its wargame tactical game, there is different level of distance from in universe in that game.

[Kasoh]

I guess for the monstrous monster enthusiasts, there's still the Ulat-kini (skum).

[Deserk]

I actually kind of like there being more genders to the classically one-gender type creatures and beings of myth (nymphs, satyrs, etc.), and by extension the treatment of harpies in PF2. But it would be good if they could put in a reasoning as to why there has been a perception of harpies only being thought of as an only female race. Could be that male harpies are for some reason very rarely seen by adventurers (maybe they are the ones that generally raise the young while the females hunt?), and that's why they have been thought of as such previously. It would help create better continuity with PF1, if they are going to alter something that was already established in the previous version.

[lowfyr01]

@CorvusMask: "this retcon does mean that harpies can no longer breed with any other creature so I imagine that might turn some characters romancing friendly harpies and having kids non canon"

There does it say that harpies can no longer breed with other creatures? It just put one more option on the table.

[TwilightKnight]

Rysky wrote:

Yeah I think you’re bad if you want rape to stay a building block of a creature or worse add it in. “I’d supposed to be terrifying and monstrous” And you can’t have it without the rape? We’re you planning to have rape occur in-game? If it was just for emotional torque it doesn’t add anything, it just sets people off. You’re not a good storyteller for using it. It’s lazy, crude and vulgar to provoke an uncomfortable response, which is separate if you want to include “terrifying” as a thing.

I agree that I don't want to hear about PCs being raped or even descriptions of NPCs being raped off camera. However, I do not equate that to the mythology of a monstrous beast. If a harpy's ecology is that they are all female and procreate by violating male human/oids I don't have an issue with it as it adds to the level of terror these creatures impose on their potential victims. IMO, there is a difference between the mythology of the game and what actually occurs or is described during gameplay. I don't find it any different than an NPC being described as having committed felonious crimes and brutality up to and including murder in their past. However, that does not mean your actual gameplay has to expose the players directly to those actions. YMMV

[Rysky]

Murder and Rape are two very different things.

Also you don’t want to hear or know about rape occurring/occured… but you’re fine with rape monsters existing and using them in game and having the looming threat of rape present. Which is it.

“However, that does not mean your actual gameplay has to expose the players directly to those actions.”

If you throw a rapist at the party you are doing just that.

[TriOmegaZero]

TwilightKnight wrote:

I agree that I don't want to hear about PCs being raped or even descriptions of NPCs being raped off camera. However, I do not equate that to the mythology of a monstrous beast.

It sounds like Paizo has gotten away from harpies and other creatures as monstrous beasts.

[Kevin Mack]

On the one hand I dont mind paizo introducing male versions of a creature and moving away from the whole rape part of there background. On the other hand I do wish they were more consistent in enforcing this (Why is rape as part of a monsters background bad but making a serial rapist c/n and in charge of there own country completly fine?)

[Rysky]

Where is that?

[CorvusMask]

I will add that I don't think "harpy", "medusa" and "lamia" are strictly speaking "rape monsters" (thats what ogres are, like sure you could say ogres are just man eating incestual hillbillies, but uh, 1e really heavily leans in the rape angle for their lore) in terms of being monsters defined by act, but 1e's trend of "let's make evil aligned monsters super duper evil" did harm here as well. (like how bugbears in 1e are "every single bugbear is culturally a serial killer that takes trophies of their victims, thats why they are evil" :p)

Like, campaign setting book mythical monsters revisited could have explored more on subject without going to gross directions, but because 1e evil creatures were written with goal of "look at how evil they are!" this is what book said about 1e versions:

Mythical Monsters Revisited tells that harpies basically have cultural standard of devouring their mate after mating <_< And because they eat intelligent creatures anyway, its basically same situation as with ogres. Urban harpies on otherhand avoid eating their mate... When the mate is so impressive that impressiveness outweights shame of not eating them.

Medusa on otherhand basically just use trickery and disguises after seducing someone rich enough to bleed them dry to appeal to medusa's greed.

...Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. My reaction is mostly "So why exactly do medusa's have to rely on disguises? I mean sure petrification is scary and all, but I'm plenty sure in this world there are people into snake hair". And they in general have "gold digger" flavor given to them <_< Which as "general cultural trait of species" is pretty unfortunate :P Meanwhile with harpies its similarly kind of "okay so writer just had to add that no man would be willing to romance harpy unless they are either thrill seeker, masochist or extremely confident".

[Rysky]

“So why exactly do medusa's have to rely on disguises?”

Because the writers for that were cowards. COWARDS.

[CorvusMask]

Rysky wrote:

“So why exactly do medusa's have to rely on disguises?”

Because the writers for that were cowards. COWARDS.

...I actually completely agree with that xP

Damn them pretending that monster girl fetish doesn't exist in the setting, we all know how anime pathfinder is according to forum ;D

[pixierose]

Rysky wrote:

Where is that?

I believe they are referring to Shorshen and new Thassilon. Although from what I can tell ( and I could be wrong), ther eis no evidence of rape, sexual assault, or use of enchantment magic to facilitate such things.

I believe she did hang out with vampire and succubis( creatures both known to do dubious things), and she was an expert in enchantment magic(which could theoretically be viewed as an allegory for such things) but I can't find any evidence of her actually doing such things.

[Kevin Mack]

pixierose wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Where is that?

I believe they are referring to Shorshen and new Thassilon. Although from what I can tell ( and I could be wrong), ther eis no evidence of rape, sexual assault, or use of enchantment magic to facilitate such things.

I believe she did hang out with vampire and succubis( creatures both known to do dubious things), and she was an expert in enchantment magic(which could theoretically be viewed as an allegory for such things) but I can't find any evidence of her actually doing such things.

and had harems but yes she was the one I was refering to and while it never specifically sets it out her description in the dead heart of xin where it mentions "Her eagerness for all manner of debauched perversions. An unabashed libertine, Sorshen’s carnal appetites were legendary" and "Subtle, treacherous, and controlling, Sorshen excelled at identifying and exploiting the lusts of her rivals, and what she couldn’t attain through seduction or skillful politicking, she used her magic to take." in conjunction with the type of magic she specilised in I dont think it's all that a long shot to assume.

[James Jacobs]

pixierose wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Where is that?

I believe they are referring to Shorshen and new Thassilon. Although from what I can tell ( and I could be wrong), ther eis no evidence of rape, sexual assault, or use of enchantment magic to facilitate such things.

I believe she did hang out with vampire and succubis( creatures both known to do dubious things), and she was an expert in enchantment magic(which could theoretically be viewed as an allegory for such things) but I can't find any evidence of her actually doing such things.

Sorshen being chaotic neutral now means, among other things, that she's no longer engaged in the evils she was 10,000 years ago when she was chaotic evil. Part of telling a redemption story is that the character being redeemed needs to have been evil before, and now that she's not, she's not evil any more. Don't assume that what we wrote about her practices in the ancient past of the setting hold true for the modern era. Where she's chaotic neutral, no longer uses enchantment to mind control slaves, has abandoned the title "runelord", and is working to build a nation that can exist alongside others peacefully.

[James Jacobs]

Kevin Mack wrote:

pixierose wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Where is that?

I believe they are referring to Shorshen and new Thassilon. Although from what I can tell ( and I could be wrong), ther eis no evidence of rape, sexual assault, or use of enchantment magic to facilitate such things.

I believe she did hang out with vampire and succubis( creatures both known to do dubious things), and she was an expert in enchantment magic(which could theoretically be viewed as an allegory for such things) but I can't find any evidence of her actually doing such things.

and had harems but yes she was the one I was refering to and while it never specifically sets it out her description in the dead heart of xin where it mentions "Her eagerness for all manner of debauched perversions. An unabashed libertine, Sorshen’s carnal appetites were legendary" and "Subtle, treacherous, and controlling, Sorshen excelled at identifying and exploiting the lusts of her rivals, and what she couldn’t attain through seduction or skillful politicking, she used her magic to take." in conjunction with the type of magic she specilised in I dont think it's all that a long shot to assume.

All in the ancient past when she was chaotic evil. Not in the present when she's chaotic neutral. We may have made that change quickly in print, relatively speaking, in the course of an adventure path, but in-world, that transition is one that played out in her runewell over the course of ten thousand years of self-refelction, soul searching, regret, shame, and hope that she can turn over a new leaf.

[James Jacobs]

In any event, this thread's kinda run its course years ago, thread-necromancy notwithstanding. I don't have the power to lock threads, but we very much have male harpies in our game now. See the illustration of the male harpy in the 2nd edition bestiary for proof if you want.

So let's all just move on to other topics, please.

[Sara Marie]

Closed the thread.