Male versions of archetypically female monsters

[Caterpillars]

Jester David wrote:

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.

Perhaps they are actually fungi, which have biological gender defined by "is this fungal spore genetically different from my fungal spore?" leading to each individual fungus is its own "gender" (gender for lack of better term, when we are way past a binary and into 1000s+ of options).

Or msybe dryads, like many grain crops, are wind pollinated.

[thejeff]

Caterpillars wrote:

Jester David wrote:

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.

Perhaps they are actually fungi, which have biological gender defined by "is this fungal spore genetically different from my fungal spore?" leading to each individual fungus is its own "gender" (gender for lack of better term, when we are way past a binary and into 1000s+ of options).

Or msybe dryads, like many grain crops, are wind pollinated.

Or you know magic.

Futzing around with psuedoscientific justification for mythology is rarely interesting, unless you're going to go all the way and structure the whole setting that way. Even then it's often pretty awkward.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, the thing about fae is that fae are generally created by someone powerful enough choosing to "shape" the first world. Since the first world was the "dress rehearsal" for reality a lot of ideas in the launch version are going to be reflected somewhere in the beta, and anything created after the great abandonment could conceivably have just taken inspiration from where they can get it.

I'm not even sure fae reproduce through mechanisms other than shaping, and (if sufficiently powerful) should presumably be able to change their physical characteristics based on whatever they are feeling today.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm not even sure fae reproduce through mechanisms other than shaping,

Dunno about all/most, but at least some do.

Asexual fey reproduction:

Polevik wrote:

As with many creatures of the First World, their cycle of reproduction is somewhat bizarre; poleviks reproduce only after their death. As a polevik’s body begins to rot, one of his unique fungal infestations begins to consume his flesh and eventually grows into a colony of large toadstools. After a period of 1 year, the stalk of the largest toadstool bursts open and gives birth to a new, fully grown polevik.

Nasty asexual fey reproduction:

Morgodea wrote:

Morgodeas reproduce by inserting a single egg into a comatose addict. Within days, the egg develops into a larva, which burrows its way into the brain and consumes it, and then begins to merge with the brainless body. Throughout this time, the parent keeps its young hidden away in a foul place, while the body emits a pheromone to attract cockroaches from the surrounding area to inhabit the corpse—laying eggs and multiplying by the hundreds—while feeding from the jelly produced by the growing larva. After 4 weeks, the body reawakens as an adult morgodea, already host to a large swarm of the insects and covered in porous, waxy flesh that weeps its own supply of morgod jelly.

Finally, sexual fey reproduction:

Zephyr wrote:

Zephyrs are spirits of the sky and storm who sometimes slip through from the First World in places where long-lasting weather patterns scour the land. These fey reproduce sexually, but require a strong thunderstorm or another extremely high-energy system for successful conception.

[PossibleCabbage]

But I mean, I figure a significant number of Fae came into being since some powerful fae decided "Know what this place over here needs? Huldras!" and then willed it into being.

Since if they die on the first world they just come back somewhere else generally as the same thing with their personalities and memories intact, so there's not really need to sustain the population via reproduction on their home plane. So most fae reproduction is plausibly just an adaptation to living on the prime material.

[Caterpillars]

Or you know magic.

Futzing around with psuedoscientific justification for mythology is rarely interesting, unless you're going to go all the way and structure the whole setting that way. Even then it's often pretty awkward.

I like to think of pseudoscientific justification as a way to hang the world together. Internal consistency helps to hold together the imaginary reality we create at the table, so why not consider how these creatures/creations are made and reproduce?

[thejeff]

Caterpillars wrote:

Quote:

Or you know magic.

Futzing around with psuedoscientific justification for mythology is rarely interesting, unless you're going to go all the way and structure the whole setting that way. Even then it's often pretty awkward.

I like to think of pseudoscientific justification as a way to hang the world together. Internal consistency helps to hold together the imaginary reality we create at the table, so why not consider how these creatures/creations are made and reproduce?

Considering the way they're made and reproduce can be cool - see the examples Fuzzy-Wuzzy gave. Or hags - we've long known how hags reproduce and it's got plenty of story potential, but focusing on the genetics of why they only have female children doesn't add anything.

Nor does making dryads, who started mythologically as tree spirits, into fungi.

[PossibleCabbage]

It makes sense to expand the acceptable sexes/genders for magical creatures to reflect the actual folklore that inspired them, right?

Like Pathfinder describes their Huldra as "from the front, appears to be a beautiful woman" but the Huldra comes from Scandinavian folklore as "Huldra" literally means "the Hulder", which was a kind of forest spirit, the male versions of which were called Huldrekall. Whereas the Hulders lived in the forest and were described as beautiful and seductive, the Huldrekall lived underground and were described as hideous.

Should we just have two different bestiary entries for these things? Should we let the male ones be beautiful sometimes and the female ones be hideous sometimes, so are these just two different (but related somehow) creatures?

[Caterpillars]

thejeff wrote:

Caterpillars wrote:

Quote:

Or you know magic.

Futzing around with psuedoscientific justification for mythology is rarely interesting, unless you're going to go all the way and structure the whole setting that way. Even then it's often pretty awkward.

I like to think of pseudoscientific justification as a way to hang the world together. Internal consistency helps to hold together the imaginary reality we create at the table, so why not consider how these creatures/creations are made and reproduce?

Considering the way they're made and reproduce can be cool - see the examples Fuzzy-Wuzzy gave. Or hags - we've long known how hags reproduce and it's got plenty of story potential, but focusing on the genetics of why they only have female children doesn't add anything.

Nor does making dryads, who started mythologically as tree spirits, into fungi.

We are, in the end, sitting about and playing make-believe on a grand scale. Does it really matter if one uses myths or real phenomena as the basis of the make-believe? Reality is full of extraordinarily odd too-strange-for-fiction stuff.

[Roswynn]

CorvusMask wrote:

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?

This is interesting. I think I like: some monsters get to be also male, like medusas, lamias, harpies and dryads, while others are one sex exclusively - satyrs and nymphs, incubi and succubi - and are either warped mirror reflections of each other or adjacent puzzle pieces, representing something different that paints a whole if taken together.

I do wonder about hags. They're among the monsters I like the least, because they so obviously come from a place of misogyny... and they have no male equivalent. In folklore I guess that would be ogres, with "ogress" just another word for hag, probably, but in Lost Omens/Golarion? If a hag is an evil fey tied to spell-like powers and nature who always looks, in her true form, like a horrible old woman, what *male* fey is the missing piece of the puzzle here?

B/c I hope there is one.

[Roswynn]

Malk_Content wrote:

I didn't say it was the same logic. I was asking if the outcome was the same. Not being 100% on terminology used I was asking if there was a difference between the two outcomes or whether the difference in terminology was merely semantic. Perhaps I should have been more wordy with it, as the shortness makes it look like a curt jab.

The outcome is the same in the case of dryads, Malk. It would be the same in many other cases too, irrespective of what's the most similar/most representative kind of organism related to a type of monster, unless tying the creature to something else results in interesting differences from human biology and culture - for instance a species of stone creatures could all be asexual, and elves could have a much higher number of intersex individuals.

Now that I think about it though it would be interesting to have some creatures share sexual traits with the RL example they're most associated with. Maybe male grippli can transition into females if there are not enough of them already, for instance. At the same time though, while proteans look serpentine, I think that being incarnations of chaos they should shift their sex (and the rest of their physical traits) at a moment's notice and into configuration that just have never been seen in nature, and might be very weird (like Blue and Orange Morality, but for sex, if you like TVTropes).

[scary harpy]

Roswynn wrote:

I do wonder about hags. They're among the monsters I like the least, because they so obviously come from a place of misogyny... and they have no male equivalent. In folklore I guess that would be ogres, with "ogress" just another word for hag, probably, but in Lost Omens/Golarion? If a hag is an evil fey tied to spell-like powers and nature who always looks, in her true form, like a horrible old woman, what *male* fey is the missing piece of the puzzle here?

B/c I hope there is one.

I always thought that the mad scientist was the male equivalent to the witch. An old man wearing a long white lad coat in a lab with bubbling potions in beakers who laughs while creating montrosities and weapons.

[R0b0tBadgr]

scary harpy wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

I do wonder about hags. They're among the monsters I like the least, because they so obviously come from a place of misogyny... and they have no male equivalent. In folklore I guess that would be ogres, with "ogress" just another word for hag, probably, but in Lost Omens/Golarion? If a hag is an evil fey tied to spell-like powers and nature who always looks, in her true form, like a horrible old woman, what *male* fey is the missing piece of the puzzle here?

B/c I hope there is one.

I always thought that the mad scientist was the male equivalent to the witch. An old man wearing a long white lad coat in a lab with bubbling potions in beakers who laughs while creating montrosities and weapons.

The Teson is a fearsome fey creature in some ways very much like the Hag, but in others very different. The Teson are universally male, and are infatuated with magic, especially transmutation magics. Hiding in the deepest parts of the forest, they work on their experiments. One of their favorite past times is finding and capturing vain young women, and altering them in ways to make them grotesque, though not always on the outside. One of the worst things they like to do is mess with the victims brain in such a way that they always perceive themselves to be ugly and unlovable. They are also incredible creators, and some seek a Teson out in order to have them make unique and powerful items.

The Teson reproduce very systematically, creating their child in the lab, before eventually switching their child for someone else's. They also implant a desire to protect the child in the parents that is so strong they end up sheltering the child from all harm, stifling their growth. This leads the child, who wants to expand and explore, to despise their parents. This will quite often, in a moment of anger, lead them to kill their parents. The anger and hate will quite often lead the child to do horrible things to his mother and father - things I dare not speak of on a PG-rated forum.

It is said they're are no female Teson because any offspring that show female traits are kept by the Teson. As they hate women they probably torture the fetus, eventually killing it painfully... Or worse.

(Thank you scary harpy for the seed of an idea. Also, if anyone wonders as to where the name "Teson" comes from, it's Tesla and Edison smashed together. I think this is way more interesting than "hags can sometimes be guys"!)

[Roswynn]

scary harpy wrote:

I always thought that the mad scientist was the male equivalent to the witch. An old man wearing a long white lad coat in a lab with bubbling potions in beakers who laughs while creating montrosities and weapons.

Edit - ninjaed by R0b0tBadgr. Well done, Badgr!

As a trope, certainly. It's a great comparison.

In the Age of Lost Omens narrative, not yet. Anyone can be an alchemist, however unhinged and sociopathic or good-hearted and grounded as they want - humans, elves, goblins, dwarves, any age, any level of conventional attractiveness or lack thereof.

If you're proposing a fey incarnating the "mad scientist" trope, it could be done... although I'm really tired of "mad" villains. Mental conditions are a very real and widespread biological trait and half of us probably register on some spectrum to some extent (I know I do, and some of my players as well). That said, the "amoral", or even better, "unethical" scientist would be definitely more palatable, and retain all the allure of his mad, mad, MAD! cousin. Cackling with glee included. He perhaps won't mutter "They said I was crazy, but I'll show them, I'll show them all!!" to himself... which is a pity... and a relief.

And anyways any GM can eventually come in and interpret the creature as they want, PC be damned if they so choose.

So... yes, absolutely. This would be a great complimentary addition to the hag. A sort of goblin-like hyper-alchemist, perhaps (goblin in the British folklore sense, i.e., an ugly male humanoid, not a PF goblin).

Another one, always from modern times, would be the serial killer. If there's a fey who qualifies, or if the devs could spin one out to stand by the hag, and make it interesting enough, that would be cool.

(It doesn't really matter that there are female serial killers and female unethical scientists in RL and fiction - there were aged unattractive male hedge wizards back in the day, but folklore fixated on the wise women instead. If the hag is only female, we can perfectly have another monster be only male for equality's - and symmetry's - sake).

There's another one I'm thinking of, but first, mild trigger warning for victims of sexual abuse.

I was reading the Gumshoe/Trail of Cthulhu Book of Unremitting Horror. It has some terrific, horrible, incredible monsters. One, called the "Feral Drowner" (and also referred to as a "pooka" in a brief piece of fiction), manifests as a huge feral goat-man who rapes his victims, irrespective of biological sex, and drags them back to his pool, where he drowns them, all the while deriving power from the person's emotions during these activities. I suspect Paizo already statted the pooka and in much less triggering terms, but rape is obviously a very ancient and powerful fear for us women, and a brutish, absurdly strong beast-man would incarnate that type of abuse perfectly. It couldn't be used often (it shouldn't) and it would be better to avoid it completely when playing with past victims, but perhaps something in the concept could still be used to create maybe a less mature (and triggering) beast. I'm just putting it out there.

Not that every monster needs a male and a female (and an intersex!) distinct facet - it's just that there are so many "only female" monsters, it would be nice to level the playing field a bit.

[scary harpy]

Geezers might be a possible name for male hags.

[scary harpy]

For a simple explanation, the male hags, dryads and female satyrs have always existed but almost none have ever left the First World...until now (for some unknown reason).

[Cole Deschain]

scary harpy wrote:

Geezers might be a possible name for male hags.

I prefer "Codger," myself...

[thejeff]

Do we really improve things in any kind of a diversity way by having male stereotype versions of female stereotype monsters?

On the other hand, sticking the same stereotype on the monster whether it's the male or female version can get weird too.

[Saedar]

thejeff wrote:

Do we really improve things in any kind of a diversity way by having male stereotype versions of female stereotype monsters?

On the other hand, sticking the same stereotype on the monster whether it's the male or female version can get weird too.

For me, it is about leaning less hard into the toxic stereotypes about "bad" behavior of women from the cultures those monsters are taken from.

It is a rough line to walk when presenting something monstrous, but I think the conversation is good.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Saedar wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Do we really improve things in any kind of a diversity way by having male stereotype versions of female stereotype monsters?

On the other hand, sticking the same stereotype on the monster whether it's the male or female version can get weird too.

For me, it is about leaning less hard into the toxic stereotypes about "bad" behavior of women from the cultures those monsters are taken from.

It is a rough line to walk when presenting something monstrous, but I think the conversation is good.

Okay I'm lost. It's a bad thing to have monsters (aka bad things 95% of players will be stabbing for their lunch money and feeling good about it) rely on negative stereotypes to be monstrous...so the plan is to add even more monsters that rely on negative stereotypes to be bad but it's okay because it's for the other gender and equality I guess?

That's the thing about this conversation in general that kinda left me lost. That it's a problem that hags are only female or satyrs are male or whatever. I don't think anyone can seriously accuse Paizo of hating any gender if you take a look at their work or catalog as a whole. Monsters are monsters and they do bad things to make us feel good about beating them, good things do good things and we want to help those and there's plenty of both.

[thejeff]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Saedar wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Do we really improve things in any kind of a diversity way by having male stereotype versions of female stereotype monsters?

On the other hand, sticking the same stereotype on the monster whether it's the male or female version can get weird too.

For me, it is about leaning less hard into the toxic stereotypes about "bad" behavior of women from the cultures those monsters are taken from.

It is a rough line to walk when presenting something monstrous, but I think the conversation is good.

Okay I'm lost. It's a bad thing to have monsters (aka bad things 95% of players will be stabbing for their lunch money and feeling good about it) rely on negative stereotypes to be monstrous...so the plan is to add even more monsters that rely on negative stereotypes to be bad but it's okay because it's for the other gender and equality I guess?

That's the thing about this conversation in general that kinda left me lost. That it's a problem that hags are only female or satyrs are male or whatever. I don't think anyone can seriously accuse Paizo of hating any gender if you take a look at their work or catalog as a whole. Monsters are monsters and they do bad things to make us feel good about beating them, good things do good things and we want to help those and there's plenty of both.

It's bad when those bad things rely on negative gendered stereotypes - mostly female ones despite a few like satyrs. It's got nothing to do with Paizo hating any gender. That's not the point at all.

[Tarik Blackhands]

thejeff wrote:

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Saedar wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Do we really improve things in any kind of a diversity way by having male stereotype versions of female stereotype monsters?

On the other hand, sticking the same stereotype on the monster whether it's the male or female version can get weird too.

For me, it is about leaning less hard into the toxic stereotypes about "bad" behavior of women from the cultures those monsters are taken from.

It is a rough line to walk when presenting something monstrous, but I think the conversation is good.

Okay I'm lost. It's a bad thing to have monsters (aka bad things 95% of players will be stabbing for their lunch money and feeling good about it) rely on negative stereotypes to be monstrous...so the plan is to add even more monsters that rely on negative stereotypes to be bad but it's okay because it's for the other gender and equality I guess?

That's the thing about this conversation in general that kinda left me lost. That it's a problem that hags are only female or satyrs are male or whatever. I don't think anyone can seriously accuse Paizo of hating any gender if you take a look at their work or catalog as a whole. Monsters are monsters and they do bad things to make us feel good about beating them, good things do good things and we want to help those and there's plenty of both.

It's bad when those bad things rely on negative gendered stereotypes - mostly female ones despite a few like satyrs. It's got nothing to do with Paizo hating any gender. That's not the point at all.

But it's a monster. It's supposed to be bad. We as players are supposed to feel good about stabbing it in the neck and taking its trinkets. Those evil women in the woods who steal babies and souls are distinctly bad things just like its a bad thing for orcs to do orcy things in their evil patriarchy manner. They're monsters and they aren't the sole representative of their gender in the game universe. What's wrong with a monster being evil?

[Rysky]

Because their evilness relies on caricatures and stereotypes.
.

[Tarik Blackhands]

I'll repeat. So what? Virtually everything in this blasted game is based on a caricature or stereotype; good, bad, and ugly. That's half the point of having races of monsters to begin with.

[Serum]

Classic Monsters Revisited states that the male offspring of hags are born sterile and are otherwise indistinguishable from the father's race. Regardless, they are generally eaten by the hag mother.

The newer Blood of the Coven instead states that, while changelings are always female, that doesn't stop them from expressing masculine identities or being born without any clearly define sexual traits.

[Rysky]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Virtually everything in this blasted game is based on a caricature or stereotype

uh, no

[MaxAstro]

If nothing else, only doing things the stereotypical way is boring AF.

[PossibleCabbage]

Personally, I really like changelings ad I'm largely uninterested in Hags with the exception of "they produce changelings, with the intent of eventually turning into hags". Having hags just being a black hole of feminine malice sets up the basic changeling narrative of "be better than the generation that came before you." Or alternatively fall into despair, give up, and become just as bad as your noteworthy parent.

I feel like that's the only thing about hags I'm really interested in preserving.

[CorvusMask]

If hags were removed completely without anything to replace them, wouldn't that remove the only monster who provides the "creepy weird human eating witch" flavor? Well unless you instead represented those characters only with witch class and avoid using sexy modern popculture witch aesthetic :p

But yeah, to me the interesting thing about hags isn't that they are all old women in appearance, but I don't really know if having hags of both genders or having male counterpart would be the better option.

[Nicos]

Do we have a list of all the single-sex-only monster of PF1?

[Roswynn]

I don't think having male hags is even on the table - at most we could get an always male monster type representing appropriate fears we as women have about men, like the ones mentioned above (unethical scientist, serial killer, rapist...).

[CorvusMask]

Is it kinda weird I never have seen the hags being about fears about women and more about them being just another variety of child eating trolls, boogeymen and such in sense of traditional scary witch?

I mean, obviously they are monstrous old women, but I've just never thought about it like that since I don't really comprehend why someone would dislike old women... I guess if someone had really bad experiences with their grandmother?

[Malk_Content]

CorvusMask wrote:

Is it kinda weird I never have seen the hags being about fears about women and more about them being just another variety of child eating trolls, boogeymen and such in sense of traditional scary witch?

I mean, obviously they are monstrous old women, but I've just never thought about it like that since I don't really comprehend why someone would dislike old women... I guess if someone had really bad experiences with their grandmother?

Not really, especially as the original Hags were Troll Wives. Trolls already were the negative male representation. Also all the things people have being said about hags like "oh its because smart, powerful women must be evil" ignores the myths they were originally from are full of smart powerful women(Freya for example, who was also a master of spells.)

[Roswynn]

CorvusMask wrote:

Is it kinda weird I never have seen the hags being about fears about women and more about them being just another variety of child eating trolls, boogeymen and such in sense of traditional scary witch?

I mean, obviously they are monstrous old women, but I've just never thought about it like that since I don't really comprehend why someone would dislike old women... I guess if someone had really bad experiences with their grandmother?

Essentially, many cultures had a triune goddess manifesting as maiden, mother and crone. That changed with the arrival of Christianity, only the Virgin Mary was tolerated, or various saints, while the old gods and goddesses either melded with saints or became faeries. Hags are the crone aspect of some of these goddesses, but vilified and reduced to a child-eating monster by institutionalized, monotheistic (and of course patriarchal and hierarchial) religion.

Men wanted women to be young, beautiful, not too bright and as submissive as possible. Hags are therefore old, ugly, smart and powerful, and are thus evil and child-eating monsters to avoid.

It's also a way to other the village wise women who healed people outside of the confines of the Church and make them appear less pleasant - which brings us to "witches" and so on.

[Rysky]

A way that could presents the new hags (that incorporates males as well) is have them have knowledge of forbidden magic/rituals and thus corrupted by it. It fits with them thus far.

[David knott 242]

The night hags (who are outsiders with the Evil subtype) put a system into place to ensure that hags are and remain evil. The influence of the night hags, their coven mates, and deities such as Gyronna keeps most hags evil. The main flaw in the system is that their changeling offspring are not inherently evil, but they do have to buy into that system to gain the powers of hags.

So, while it is very difficult for a hag to become non-evil, it is possible -- probably more difficult than it is for an orc raised in a traditional orc society but easier than for a demon or other outsider with the Evil subtype.

[ChibiNyan]

Just remember not to tell people their culture and beliefs are wrong and need to be revised. Would it be ok to censor these myths? Clearly there's some belief in this thread that they're no longer acceptable.
It's similar for people who enjoy Golarion. Are they wrong for liking certain things in it? It's easy to discredit other's opinions if they don't align with yours, but it's also easy to go to far.

This is why I recommend leaving monsters and places as they are. If you wanna cater to a certain demographic without annoying people, the best bet is to create new content with them in mind, not revise history. Ret-conning is a big deal to some, specially if they don't see the benefits of it.

[thejeff]

ChibiNyan wrote:

Just remember not to tell people their culture and beliefs are wrong and need to be revised. Would it be ok to censor these myths? Clearly there's some belief in this thread that they're no longer acceptable.

It's similar for people who enjoy Golarion. Are they wrong for liking certain things in it? It's easy to discredit other's opinions if they don't align with yours, but it's also easy to go to far.

This is why I recommend leaving monsters and places as they are. If you wanna cater to a certain demographic without annoying people, the best bet is to create new content with them in mind, not revise history. Ret-conning is a big deal to some, specially if they don't see the benefits of it.

Mostly we're talking about modern variations on centuries old folk beliefs that aren't really anyone's living culture.

Harpies? Satyrs and nymphs? Hags?