| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it say something that goblins are now a playable race, but Orcs, who are traditionally associated with African peoples, aren't, and half-orcs are only playable because they're half-humans?It does not. They considered making it Orcs but went with Goblins due to greater brand recognition. PC rules for Orcs seem pretty likely pretty early.
I'll also add that orcs have a much darker, more triggering history on Golarion. Paizo is probably going to try and distance themselves with it in 2e-- it wasn't alluded to in the playtest write up for half-orcs, for example. But that probably requires working around the edges for a bit to distance them from that reputation. This point hasn't been directly stated by Paizo, but baby eating pyromaniacs are more palatable than orcs. This is also reflected in how society views them. Goblins are a pest. Orcs are something they give 13 year olds knives to kill themselves with rather than be captured by.
I would be hesitant to subscribe the worst of toxic masxulinity to Orcs. Orcs have always had a racial component to them that i don't think even paizo has been able to seperate from completly. And much like how(at least in america) society tends to perscribe sterotypes of hyper toxic masculinity to african americans and other non-white men, I think explictly going down the route "those orc men are the absolute worse" would be a bad idea.
That being said in general I am in favor of more unique gender representation among the non-humanoid races. They may not even prescribe it any humanoid concept of gender or sex. Some animals in nature can reproduce asexually, some fungi can ave hundreds of "different sexes," some creatures can change biological anatomy, and they may just have different cultures that have different or no gender norms or identities.
This, I wasn't really taking into account though, and feels like a fair point against the toxic masculinity thing.
So one thing about like highly gendered creatures (like satyrs) could we possibly handle this just by having their species just display an extreme form of sexual dimorphism? Like this is a thing that happens in nature, but doesn't seem to happen enough in bestiaries.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most interesting answer is to have a variety of things. Like, hags are just all female and weird, harpies and dryads have male versions that you don't see as often, maybe satyrs and nymphs are oddly dimorphic.
I maintain that one of the greatest books Paizo has ever published is Misfit Monsters Redeemed, and I think Paizo is at its best when they treat each monster as a unique case.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've often taken the stance that certain closely related Male only vs. Female only concepts are simply the respective sex of the other, and they vary greatly between them much in the same way sexes within a species can vary greatly physically.
For instance, I had always considered Nymphs and Satyrs this type of relationship. This is also true for the Incubus/Succubus (which do vary physically but appear in the same entry).
Yeah, I liked the notion that Satyrs were essentially the fey 'boys' to the nymph and dryad 'girls,' but also have no problem with there being female satyrs and male nymphs and dryads.
I think I prefer succubi and incubi just being two names for the same sexless shapeshifting demon that uses sex (and gender) as a weapon to corrupt and destroy humanity, but doesn't particularly cotton to all that nonself itself. No 'some are girls and some are boys' or 'there's an entirely different race of incubi who are all about rape.' Yikes. I'm all for mature games, but I draw the line somewhere before 'rape demons.'
As for other 'only female' monsters, I'm fine with male hags, male medusa, male lamia, etc. (D&D already has male sphinxes, but, again, split them off into different sub-species from the female sphinxes, which is weird.) The game has already deviated far from lore by having a *race* of medusa, or gorgons being armor-plated bull monsters with a petrifying breath, so I'm cool with them going one foot further and having some medusas being boys (but otherwise being mechanically identical, no need for 'maedar'). Ditto for monsters traditionally only shown as male. Female redcaps? Why not!
Indeed, I kind of like the idea of male hags. A different name than 'hag' might be warranted, but having creepy old *men* who practice forbidden arts and grow corrupted and wicked sounds fine to me. A lifetime of spite and resentment, and you to could become the fantasy equivalent of Emperor Palpatine, all withered and cackling and oozing with fell power!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, I kind of like the idea of male hags. A different name than 'hag' might be warranted, but having creepy old *men* who practice forbidden arts and grow corrupted and wicked sounds fine to me. A lifetime of spite and resentment, and you to could become the fantasy equivalent of Emperor Palpatine, all withered and cackling and oozing with fell power!
And claws!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Female redcaps? Why not!
Female redcaps are already canonical. Some show up in Reign of Winter.
Indeed, I kind of like the idea of male hags. A different name than 'hag' might be warranted, but having creepy old *men* who practice forbidden arts and grow corrupted and wicked sounds fine to me. A lifetime of spite and resentment, and you to could become the fantasy equivalent of Emperor Palpatine, all withered and cackling and oozing with fell power!
I have no objection to a creature like this existing, but it should be unrelated to hags on a genetic level due to the aforementioned Changeling connection and breeding issues.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a funky issue.
I think there's room for monsters with a single gender. Monsters that aren't a true species and don't biologically reproduce sexually. Or that don't have the exact same two genders as humans. Just like I think there's room for monsters that have three or four genders. Or are asexual.
I don't think we need male and female versions of every monster in the Bestiary.
But I also don't think they need to go out of their way to invent more mono-gendered monsters. So it's almost easier to just accept the mythological monsters that are often portrayed possessing a single gender, or at the embodiment of gender tropes—like the satyr and the nymph—that trying to invent new monsters and have them being just masculine or feminine. Inventing new monsters is always problematic as you're trying to generate something in a weekend and have it possess the cultural resonance and memorability of a creature that has been portrayed in art for a couple thousand years.
I don't think anything is gained by having satyrs being an independent species of fey rather than a particular form fey spirits choose or assume because it fits their personality.
After all, that's part of the mythological role of those monsters. Satyrs are basically the embodiment of toxic masculinity. Pulling that away from the monster diminishes their role. It feels like making trolls less hungry and bestial. Removing riddles from sphinxes.
Others, like the medusa, can probably work well with either gender. While originally a single gender, most of the hook of the medusa is tied to vanity and angering the gods. And that can work just as well with men.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Male hags are an interesting example of what I was talking about.
The idea of hags as being a solely female "species" that reproduces by tricking other beings into mating with them, with the female offspring being hags while the male offspring remain their previous species is interesting. It makes hags more than just ugly, old spellcaster humanoids.
And it ties hags into the mythological forest witch story. Hansel and Gretel. Baba Yaga. Circe.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SolitarySorceress
That's an added story and adventure hook.
"Why did my wife leave with our child?"
"I was abandoned as an infant? Who were my parents?"
Or the hook of a hag parlaying with the PCs, offering knowledge or a magical item if one adventurer spends the night with them.
But if there are male hags, that vanishes. Because suddenly they're just another humanoid fantasy race, albeit one with spells. There's no reason for them to seek out other races to breed with. (If they're an independent species, why aren't their children half-hags? Would all their children be hags then?)
And the iconic mythological and folkloric ties are weakened. Because if there are dude hags, it's less apparent that the race is meant to be the old forest crone archetype.
That said, there's always room for unique exceptions.
The child of the hag that is taken and raised, presumed to be a future hag, but is really a trans male and doesn't transform into a hag. The intersex hag that is human during the day and magically transforms into a hag at night. Or even the full on male hag that somehow inherits the magic of his mother.
Because you can do all sorts of unique things with individuals and singular characters.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diego your avatar is very adorable.
Trigger warning, I am not a mythology expert and may overlook key details in talking about fantastical creatures. Apologies to those who are wiser.
That said, fictional creatures are fictional. Taking gorgons (Medusas) for one example, unless their reproductivity is ingrained into their myth, are they actually female? In reality, snakes have binary biological sexes, but plenty of organisms don't. Seahorses are interesting, and some fish change individual sex during their lives. Fittingly, aquatic life is kinda fluid.
So are gorgons in fact female, or do their physical characteristics just come across as feminine if viewed through a traditional human aesthetical sense, such as those of adventuring parties that may prioritise stabbing the creatures while avoiding becoming fine works of masonry over making rigorous taxonomic observations? Butterflies are biologically female or male, and the same goes for scorpions, but if you're fighting a pair of giant ones and they aren't both "it", you could guess which is "him" and which "her" in your allies' shouted tactics, even if the shorthand lacks for scientific foundation. As far as I can tell, gorgons could be asexual, hermaphrodites, fluid in gender or even something fantastical (not real).
Mythologically, the three gorgons—of which medusa was one—weren't locked into a single gender to the same degree as nymphs/ dryads/ satyrs.
But they also weren't a species: they were unique offspring of Echidna and Typhon, who looked nothing like gorgons. (They also sired the Sphinx and Cerberus).But there's also been legends that the gorgons were mortals cursed by the gods.
Either way, they weren't really a "species". They didn't have a culture. There weren't male gorgons because they were semi-unique monsters. In the same way there isn't a "female Dracula" because the individual is male.
Even going with the "cursed by the gods" origin, the gorgons could be asexual, or gender neutral. They could be "feminine" (being created from women) but not biologically female, as they might lack the actual female reproductive system. They might not breed true.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Be advised I haven't read the whole thread closely and I'm pretty skeptical of PF2e.
That said, the fact Paizo has a history of consistently going out of their way to be inclusive to gamers of all kinds and subverting negative gaming tropes is one of the reasons they're my favorite RPG publisher. Not the only only reason mind you.
Without getting into politics, I do want to clarify that these are just my personal opinions and I'm not deluded enough to think I know best for all tables:
I don't think that toxic masculinity, sexual violence, misandry, and the like necessarily need to be a core part of a fantasy world that's meant to appeal to a wide audience and can be maturely handled in a system that answers pretty much every problem with violence.
Personally I like monsters that don't reflect human sex and gender. The tri-gendered Shirren from SF and aboleths who I believe are hermaphrodites both come to mind. I love hags and changelings despite their lore coming from a really negative place. Removing the element of gender/sex from their ecosystem would ruin them. Which is not to say I'm against their being male hags, just that the fact that hags have a strange and often predatory relationship with humanoid races makes them fascinating to me.
I'd agree there are plenty of single sex races that are only so because they were in mythology. But really that just makes the exceptions more interesting. I enjoyed seeing the male dryad in Hell's Vengeance. I would like to see more intersex, genderfluid, and nonbinary characters and races and so far Paizo has done good job with this, in my not-so-humble opinion.
I think there is some concern of Paizo sanitizing their setting and systems (which are more closely tied than say 5e). There's a lot of dark corners of Golarion that distinguishes Golarion from the near infinite settings that I find boring and interchangeable. I don't think that welcoming marginalized groups to the table takes away from this- it paints a richer tapestry. After all, tooth fairies just want to tear the teeth out of your head regardless of your gender or orientation.
For the record, I include plenty of dark stuff at my table. I deal with stuff like sexism, racism, torture, and straight up horror. I also make sure my players are comfortable with this. Not everyone is, and not everyone finds this fun. What's cool about Golarion is there is room for all kinds of players.
I guess all of this is a roundabout way to say that I trust Paizo to make the right decision on this. And that being inclusive can only improve gaming.
Apologies for this long, incoherent post.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Male dryads are just plain weird. As that implies the trees they are an expression of also have gender.
(Arguably, dryads should probably be closer to hermaphrodites, like the vast majority of trees.)
Plus... if dryads reproduce by sexual reproduction, how so they couple? They're bound to stationary trees. There's seldom two dryads that close.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2nd edition is a chance for Paizo to reinvent themselves without living in the shadow of 3.5, but I don't think this is a new trend so much as an an opportunity to expand upon what's already been built. Plus this is a 2e thread.
Like I said before, the male dryad is in Hell's Vengeance, not Hell's Rebels. I haven't read the Sandpoint book because until recently I was in a RoftRL game.
In regards to Dryads, they're fey with strong connections to nature, not plants so their sex isn't necessarily related to how plants reproduce. Actually, I'm not sure that fey actually reproduce in most cases unless it's crossbreeding with mortals?
That said, I think it's still a cool idea.
I am all for male Dryads and Medusae.
I would like male Hags if, and only if, hags are written correctly!
Do Not give Hags a lost list of powers! They are supposed to be monstrous witches...so let them have the Witch class without too may excess abilities. They are just fey who embody the randomness and cruelty of nature (in other words, they opposite of Dryads). If they are redeemed, they are not good but they are no longer evil...and they are called Crones.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean lots of trees produce either (and exclusively) "male" flowers and "female" flowers, they are called dioecious trees. Which is to say that only the "male" trees produce pollen and only the "female" trees produce fruit. It's not even an unusual phenomenon- Ash, Juniper, Aspen, Gingko, certain Maples, Willow trees and more behave like this.
So it wouldn't be weird if Dryads come in male, female, and hermaphroditic variants... because that's what trees do.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see how botany should inform our views about dryads. They are not trees. They are not plants at all. If you tell me you'd expect ghorans to come in the types of sexes available to plants - whether that be only an hermaphroditic one, a male and female one, all three, more - I would understand and agree. But dryads needn't cleave to what's scientifically possible for a plant - they're fey. Sure, they're strongly associated with trees. They meld with trees. But they're faeries, i.e. creatures originating from the First World. They don't have to be the same sex of their tree, that's written nowhere - and classic dryads in that case would be "wrong" since they, unlike their trees, were all females.
We're talking about a category of forest fey, we're not writing a biology essay. Fey can be any sex we want. I propose we keep having female, male, and intersex dryads, similarly to the humans they're modeled after.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this falls into "Do whatever you want for your home games" category.
I've had male succubi before, however it's not something I'd push on Pathfinder as a whole. Just to be clear I have no problem with Paizo saying they may exist. The changing of the default sex is what I'm saying should be decided on a group by group basis.
As for political things such as toxic masculinity I don't want Paizo making it official. It serves no purpose, and there is no reason to single orcs out for this especially since they could potentially be a PC race.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I heard from JJ ask thread was that they are going for "either both genders or counterpart of opposite gender" with incubus/succubus and satyr/nymph being given example of latter. (medusa and lamias are examples that will be able to be male in future, harpy and dryads are already example of that happening)
I'm kinda wondering what you guys think about latter approach?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I heard from JJ ask thread was that they are going for "either both genders or counterpart of opposite gender" with incubus/succubus and satyr/nymph being given example of latter. (medusa and lamias are examples that will be able to be male in future, harpy and dryads are already example of that happening)
I'm kinda wondering what you guys think about latter approach?
I'd prefer both gender. It can just be mentioned in the text. I don't see a need for a whole new statblock for a the opposite sex version of the same creatures.
I also don't want monsters changing to new monsters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So exactly the same out come as Possible Cabbage's logic?
We're talking about a category of forest fey, we're not writing a biology essay. Fey can be any sex we want. I propose we keep having female, male, and intersex dryads, similarly to the humans they're modeled after.
No, not the same logic.
Possible Cabbage is saying trees come in female/male/hermaphroditic sexes, and therefore it would not be surprising for dryads to appear as all three sexes.
Roswynn is saying dryads are not trees or even plants, but instead are magical fairy spirits and therefore are not limited to tree sexes. Dryads should reflect humanoid sexes and humanoid genders, and not be limited to tree sexes.
The end result may look similar on the surface but the background logic for the move away from all female dryads and similar monsters is very different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, this topic to my knowledge hasn’t been broached at my table. If it had than no one revisited the topic. Personally I am rather neutral on the whole idea. If my current players want differently gendered monsters I wouldn’t have a problem with making those changes.
It’s just not important to me, perhaps that makes me a horrible person, if so than people who think so are more than welcome to their opinions. Its definitely an interesting topic and have enjoyed reading other people’s views.