Male versions of archetypically female monsters

[Doktor Weasel]

My main take on this is just asking what is gained and what the cost is. The costs certainly aren't much, although I do think we lose something with male hags vs the way their reproduction is portrayed now with a father of a different race and changelings as a proto-hag. That's a cool concept, regardless of the intent of those who came up with the concept of hags centuries ago. So it'd be a shame to lose it. A trans-male changeling can be a cool character concept, we actually had one in our Skull and Shackles campaign (he eventually got an item to permanently be physically male, none of his party members ever found out his secret, or would have cared, but it mattered for the character). As for others, it does feel like a retcon. I thought satyrs, dryads and harpies were described as reproducing with other species. Of course this doesn't mean that there won't be the occasional one born of the other sex, but that's more a mutation than the standard. Retcons aren't always bad of course, but is the justification strong enough to really warrant it? Well, that's going to be a "Your millage will vary" kind of thing, with everyone having their own answer. I actually kind of like that there are some mono-gendered species, because it feels more alien and fantastic. Extreme sexual dimorphism is also interesting, like the Lashunta. Even if the original concept may have been a heterosexual male fantasy about hot amazons whose males are all ugly, so they'd be attractive in comparison. The original idea might have been problematic, but that doesn't mean the result is necessarily bad.

As for sucubi/incubi, I always figured they didn't really have a true sex so much as manifested traits to go about their business. They are shape changers, and spiritual beings who don't really need biology. Female sucubi and male incubi might be considered the default appearance, but they're whatever they need to be at the moment.

[thejeff]

Davido1000 wrote:

So we are flagging people who disagree with having an opinion now, why even start a forum post unless you just wanted confirmation Bias.

There's been 4 pages of disagreement and back and forth, with very little flagging. I disagreed with the OP on many things, but wasn't flagged for any of it. It's pretty clearly not any disagreement or differing opinions that leads to flagging.

Which means it's very likely the nature of the opinion, not merely disagreement.
Generally an argument like this about flagging is a rhetorical trick to protect opinions the poster agrees with, but doesn't want to openly defend.

[Set]

Malk_Content wrote:

Not really, especially as the original Hags were Troll Wives.

That would be an interesting tweak on it, if Hags were literally just a female Troll. (Maybe 1 in 10 has the magical potential, the 'average' troll female just being a troll, statistically.)

Green Hags would be seen as runt-y, but magically potent, while Annis Hags are almost as physically potent as the troll menfolk, and Sea Hags are the 'troll wives' of the Scrag/Aquatic Trolls?

[nick1wasd]

I find this general thread to be just talking in circles about "well muh representation", "but muh lore" and "waahh, I don't wanna learn new canon except when it interests me". At this point, what I've gathered is

• Hags are meant to be female, because there's a massive pile of reasons for it to be so (you want a male version? Badger has you covered)
• Harpies, fae, and all other vaguely magical but not SUPER magical races, it doesn't really matter if there is or isn't a male/female variant, cest la vie and all that
• Gorgons, Scyllia, Lamia, and the sex outsiders (might I add, I thought the succubi/incubi thing was a devil/demon type dichotomy). It can be reasonable to keep them gender locked, but there are also grounds but not keeping them that way

Am I missing anything? Because I feel this thread is walking a very similar path to "Chewing on Champions" and we all know how that ended (hint: the adults locked the playpin)

[Serum]

I'm not even sure succubi have a gender. They present as whatever is expedient to achieve their goals. You could extend that to incubi.

[Deadmanwalking]

Serum wrote:

I'm not even sure succubi have a gender. They present as whatever is expedient to achieve their goals. You could extend that to incubi.

This does require a mechanical change since incubi can't shapeshift at the moment. I'm still in favor of it.

[MaxAstro]

nick1wasd wrote:

I find this general thread to be just talking in circles about "well muh representation", "but muh lore" and "waahh, I don't wanna learn new canon except when it interests me". At this point, what I've gathered is

• Hags are meant to be female, because there's a massive pile of reasons for it to be so (you want a male version? Badger has you covered)
• Harpies, fae, and all other vaguely magical but not SUPER magical races, it doesn't really matter if there is or isn't a male/female variant, cest la vie and all that
• Gorgons, Scyllia, Lamia, and the sex outsiders (might I add, I thought the succubi/incubi thing was a devil/demon type dichotomy). It can be reasonable to keep them gender locked, but there are also grounds but not keeping them that way

Am I missing anything? Because I feel this thread is walking a very similar path to "Chewing on Champions" and we all know how that ended (hint: the adults locked the playpin)

Excellent summary, thread over. :P

...Also, in replying to your post, I learned how to use the "list" tag, which I did not know before. So thank you. :)

[PossibleCabbage]

So to pivot back to the topic. One of the reasons that Hags are loners (except for their covens) is that patriarchal and hierarchical societies will cast out women who do not serve the purposes of those above them in the hierarchy, in particular because those women are powerful and knowledgeable. So the archetypical crone monster is someone who goes off on her own and seeks power where she can find it.

I would say the inverted gender version of this is not like a hag so much as it would be something like a conquerer worm. Since powerful men can advance in patriarchal hierarchies largely without fear of repercussions beyond "someone is always coming for your spot." So perhaps the archetypical "dude crone" is someone who has thrived within the system and has turned to dark powers in order to keep their position at or near the top (possibly largely to prevent anybody else from knowing they are the true power.)

Could this be made identifiable as a "male hag analogue"? We could preserve "hags reproduce via changelings" by having the masculine and feminine versions of this phenomenon hating each other to an extreme degree.

[Sam Phelan]

In the middle of moderation review currently. Locked thread during this process to avoid additional posts referencing content in review. Remember that posts which reference removed content are also removed as replies.

[Sam Phelan]

Removed a significant portion of conversation, replies, and tangents.

Our goal for content on Paizo.com is to support an environment for gamers where people can feel welcome, included, and safe in a community of diverse people with shared interests. Sometimes there will be circumstances in which expressing the opinions formed by your personal, lived experiences contributes to an environment on our forums that is harmful to others. Often this is done unintentionally, and even out of a desire to learn and grow. It is essential that we acknowledge and address the gaps in our consideration of other people.

There are philosophies represented here that we see with some frequency, and which asked marginalized peoples to justify or explain their experience exhaustively for others to acknowledge the problems they face because of prejudice and bigotry. This questioning brings with it additional trauma to folks who already have experienced pain because of a systemic lack of understanding, acceptance, or intolerance. We have made a decision, as a moderation team, not to support discussion which questions the validity of marginalized experiences or demands that marginalized people must endure intolerance while they educate or explain their existence to the people that have contributed, intentionally or otherwise, to their marginalization.

Finally, the habits of personally attacking other posters, and the general tone of frustration and anger directed at others is not a productive tone for conversation. The discussion of moderation that occurred in this thread is not the appropriate place for that discussion. The flagging choices you make are seen only by moderation, and it does not help the direction of the thread to discuss them in this setting. If you have concerns with the moderation process, you can contact us through [e-mail].

The thread will remain locked, as the topic is still actively heated at the time of moderation, and will benefit from time to process the changes that can be made in addressing this topic.