| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has come up in another thread that some of us think having male dryads, harpies and so on would be very cool. It has also come up that others don't feel the same way.
I personally think limiting a species of monster to all female specimens tends to problematic. Why can't dryads - forest fey - be both male and female (and actually, intersex too, since that's a thing that does happen?). What about harpies? We're already seeing a tendency in Paizo material to include rappresentations of both conventional sexes in monsters - why not extend the treatment to nymphs, satyrs, banshees, scyllae and so on?
If we limit species of monsters to only one sex we're tacitly saying something, I feel. Harpies are caricatures of savage women with enchanted singing. Because we need more parodies of savage people, and men singing can't be enchanting. Ask boy bands and their fans about it.
Dryads are your typical beautiful female forest spirit, as if a forest or any other kind of geographical feature could only have female spirits - nature is feminine, or at least its beauty is. Nymphs are all about beauty - and all about feminine beauty. Why not have terribly beautiful male nymphs as well? It's like us women don't really have a weight in the discussion of what is considered beautiful - all beautiful/charming/pretty monsters are females. If we're seduced by a supernatural creature... maybe it could be an outsider of some sort. Or we must be homo/bi-sexual and fall for the female nymph. A heterosexual cisgender man can form a couple with a dryad... a hetero cis woman has a satyr to fall back on. What if I want a love story with a beautiful male forest spirit, or a man wants a fun romp with a pipe-playing goat-lady?
I do understand that traditionally harpies are females, satyrs are males, sirens and hags and Scylla and the Hellenic sphinx are female. But those were myths and folklore produced by a patriarchal society whose heroes were all manly male men. Homosexual men had no place in most of those cultures (explicitly, that is - even Odin, being a sorcerer, was derided in the Lokasenna, because in the Norse world only women could practice magic and being a homosexual man was the archetypal shameful secret. Bad, as it were).
Then we have hags... a whole type of monsters who are caricatures of ugly old ladies practicing magic, i.e. everything men always hated in a convenient package to shame similar women in human society. I'm not gonna advocate for male hags... because I honestly can't imagine them. But if someone somewhere manages to disassociate the archetype from femininity I'd be very happy to give it a whirl.
Succubi. Now, originally succubi and incubi were shapeshifters who could change sex at will, and did. Strangely enough an example from Christianity, no less, that was less problematic than the artificial division happening from Gygax onwards between succubi and incubi. Now we have rapist incubi and abusive succubi, which again brings its own big can of worms with it. Again, I'm not sure I want this fixed, not because I can't imagine sex-changing lust demons (5e did it, and did it well), but more because with Nocticula's ascension to the Lost Omen pantheon we're gonna either need a significant retcon or some very ingenious bit of writing. I could accept succubi as they are right now, but I would like more incubi at the forefront too, and their vileness to be more notorious and hated by everyone - a lot of products focus on succubi and all the myriad ways you can present an abusive woman, a real "femme fatale" (which is a trope many of us women ardently dislike for various reasons), but the demonic side of male sexuality is almost never explored.
Another idea - let's use orcs to explore toxic masculinity. Not that it isn't being done already, just that highlighting how the patriarchal, aggressive, machistic sides of Avistani orcs hurt themselves, their women, and other cultures, well, could be interesting.
So why using mythic/folklore monsters who are a single sex in the source material and changing them so they can be something else, other than that? Hell, also b/c we can. We have elves who aren't actual Tolkien/Norse/celtic/Santa Claus elves, we have gnomes and goblins and halflings who aren't earth elementals or mischievous fey or hobbits straight from Hobbiton, we need to make the ancestries and creatures and ideas of Golarion more uniquely Golarian, why not having male harpies and dryads - will the Homer police come arrest anyone?
Anyways, this is just an idea. I know Paizo is moving towards more diverse representation in their lines, and they were already quite good since the beginning, so I'm very trusting of the developments for 2e and I think even if everything's not perfect for me I'll still be a huge fan of Golarion b/c among other things you simply don't find all this inclusiveness very easily in rpgs, fantasy ones most of all (Rivethun culture, seriously). I just hope that those of you who would prefer their satyrs male and their harpies female will tolerate this kind of content and keep playing PF (or simply assign your favorite genders and sexualities to the npcs you'll run at your table - it's not like you're bad people for wanting to stick to the old archetypes in a fantasy rpg as long as you don't take it as edutainment and you try to be a little critical of your choices).
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we know male harpies and dryads are gonna be a thing in PF2. I'm cool with this.
Generally, I'm cool with magical monsters being single gender as well, simply because magic is a sufficient explanation for this...but it tends to get weirdly one-sided with the vast majority of seductive ones being female and similar issues. That I'm not cool with at all, so the change seems generally positive to me.
On Incubi/Succubi...Succubi are in fact shapeshifters and can assume the shape of either gender at will to better fulfill their goals. That's actually canonical and always has been. I think making Incubi the same and noting that the stereotypes of being male/female are just stereotypes would basically solve this issue without violating any existing canon.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal feelings on this are that some of these, like harpies, dryads(trees have genders!), and the like are perfectly sensible to have male and female variants.
Diverse representation is a good thing, but, shoving it into every possible facet isn't inherently good just because of that.
I think we shouldn't have a large number of "Only this gender" races, but it's fine that some exist, as long as it's not overly problematic in its use. And there's places where there's room for exploration with "only one gender" type races. Changelings, still being a traditional humanoid race, always born female in pathfinder, is fine, because there's explorable space in that and it's not overly problematic in its implementation imo.
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).
This is very much in line with say, the variance between insect and bird species with respect to the sex causing major physical differences.
There probably isn't an equivalent for all these sex specific monsters, so in those cases it makes sense to offer both as options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...stuff...
I agree with all of this. Just because something is historically done doesn't mean we can't be better in spaces where it is problematic. A+, as usual, Roswynn.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On orcs and toxic masculinity: it kind of feels like orcs already represent the worst parts of it. As I recall, orc women are bad in pretty much the same ways, which makes it not feel explicitly patriarchal. But I think you can probably see it as coded as pure toxic masculinity in much the time way as Steven Universe codes issues like transphobia. It eschews the typical gender forms while nonetheless very clearly hitting the same subject matter. Now, Steven Universe is ostensibly more geared towards children than Pathfinder is, but I think plenty of young people play tabletop RPGs, especially less heteronormative ones. Seems like leaning into that approach could be worthwhile.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seconding what Rysky said. With male members of what were previously depicted as all female species introduced, we are overdue for female members of the supposedly all male species.
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).
This is very much in line with say, the variance between insect and bird species with respect to the sex causing major physical differences.
There probably isn't an equivalent for all these sex specific monsters, so in those cases it makes sense to offer both as options.
This approach works from an in-world perspective - once you've decided these have to be actual races of creatures and not something more spiritual.
It often falls down hard on the caricature grounds. Having satyrs and nymphs be the male and female parts of the same race just reinforces the stereotypes of the two creatures.
And then oh god there are the sphinxes.
Oh sure, I just hadn't really given it much thought if we're being totally honest.
I had never seen anything that explicitly stated that a male nymph or female satyr couldn't exist either.
Because we often play in homebrews, almost none of the creatures follow the rules (sexes and physicality be damned). The creature is precisely what it needs to be for the circumstances.
Because of that, we've never ran into an issue.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I agree with your interesting overview of monsters and gender.
It all comes down to what you want from your fantasy game. If you want the "reality" of the game world to be based on modern sensibility and political correctness (I'm not being cynical here, PC is a good thing.), then applying both (or All or NO) genders to all monsters is an obvious choice.
My personal tastes are different though. I like my fantasy worlds to have all of these: 1.People 2.Monsters/Exotic creatures 3.Spirits
For (1) people, which includes humans, dwarves and so on- sexuality can be any or all genders.
For (2) monsters, I like there to be creatures that have gender or don't, reproduce asexually or not, all females, have 3 distinct sexes, spores or any other combination you can think of. They are as complex or simple as you want them to be.
Harpies used to be in this group. I have no problem if harpies are now People and have males and females.
For spirits (3) I like to imagine beings who are not mortal and do not necessarily reproduce the way humans do. Succubus, dryad and satyre go here. Since lots of these beings represent an ideal, a force or a concept I think there IS some room for gender specific spirits. Satyres in my opinion represent masculine sexuality in the cisgender testerony sense. I agree this shouldn't be too common, and I would love there to be an androgynous spirit, a gender fluid spirit and more!
If dryads symbolize the forest, then by all means make them male or asexual too. But if Nymphs represent a certain concept of femalehood, then I would like them to be female.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah Ancient Greece was interesting and in some ways horrible to say the least... It was both very patriarchal and approving of bisexuality. Women had almost no rights outside of the home and were the cause of most of humanity’ woes. Men were expected to marry and have children but what they did on the side and particularly before marriage was pretty open. Hell, pederasty was more or less expected between adolescent boys and men in their early twenties. Hell I’m forgetting which one it was but the undertone of one of Plato’s writings seems to be his hurt over Socrates turning him down.
I am also in the “be careful about the connection between orcs and toxic masculinity” camp. There has historically been a tie between orcs and people of African descent. Also I believe even Tolkien said that one of if not the biggest regret he had about his work was making orcs out as irredeemably evil.
Otherwise I am fully in support of gender bending mythological creatures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is a female satyr who behaves like the male version more interesting or just a male fantasy? "debauched and hedonistic" women who "adore wine, music, and carnal delights" just pander to a different stereotype.
Satyrs were also known as horribly smelly and somewhat rapacious. A hairy, sweaty, drunk goat woman trying to hump a tree is probably not going to pander overly to male gaze, even if she doesn't feel like wearing a shirt.
Someone else mentioned Changelings further up, and I think a male Changeling could make sense... the sex of the baby is determined by the sperm, after all. Hags would just kill any male offspring, since they couldn't grow up to be hags.
Overall interesting thread. I think Roswynn said mostly everything better than I could so far.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I ran Raiders of Shrieking Peak, my players' reaction was basically, "Wait, a male harpy? There are male harpies? Huh. Cool. Let's kill him."
That was about the end of it. XD
I totally apologize for The Greece derail but I missed my edit window by a few minutes and wanted to make an addendum of note in case of future disagreements. I admit that I was largely speaking of Athens. My knowledge of the other city states is significantly more limited. I’m sure there’s a decent amount of overlap but each was pretty distinct and I won’t argue over those.
|
|
| 7 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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is a female satyr who behaves like the male version more interesting or just a male fantasy? "debauched and hedonistic" women who "adore wine, music, and carnal delights" just pander to a different stereotype.Someone else mentioned Changelings further up, and I think a male Changeling could make sense... the sex of the baby is determined by the sperm, after all. Hags would just kill any male offspring, since they couldn't grow up to be hags.
What if all Changelings have some form of androgen insensitivity? That way even XY Changelings would develop feminine traits. Blood of the Coven mentions that Changelings can be born with indeterminate sex characteristics, and some Changelings grow up to adopt masculine gender identities, you just won't have a cis male Changeling.
What if all Changelings have some form of androgen insensitivity? That way even XY Changelings would develop feminine traits. Blood of the Coven mentions that Changelings can be born with indeterminate sex characteristics, and some Changelings grow up to adopt masculine gender identities, you just won't have a cis male Changeling.
I was personally under the impression that male changelings never happen simply because hags murder any male children they have, since they are useless to them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if all Changelings have some form of androgen insensitivity? That way even XY Changelings would develop feminine traits. Blood of the Coven mentions that Changelings can be born with indeterminate sex characteristics, and some Changelings grow up to adopt masculine gender identities, you just won't have a cis male Changeling.I was personally under the impression that male changelings never happen simply because hags murder any male children they have, since they are useless to them.
I'm pretty sure Hags are not checking the chromosomes. Certain intersex conditions can result in a child having entirely female secondary sexual characteristics while still being genetically XY. Could this person become a hag? I figure there's magic involved in the transformation anyway.
"Hag genes cause androgen insensitivity" is an interesting twist; I like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if all Changelings have some form of androgen insensitivity? That way even XY Changelings would develop feminine traits. Blood of the Coven mentions that Changelings can be born with indeterminate sex characteristics, and some Changelings grow up to adopt masculine gender identities, you just won't have a cis male Changeling.I was personally under the impression that male changelings never happen simply because hags murder any male children they have, since they are useless to them.I'm pretty sure Hags are not checking the chromosomes. Certain intersex conditions can result in a child having entirely female secondary sexual characteristics while still being genetically XY. Could this person become a hag? I figure there's magic involved in the transformation anyway.
"Hag genes cause androgen insensitivity" is an interesting twist; I like it.
While I agree, I will also note that there is an established magical bond between a changeling and her hag mother that drives her to become a hag - if this bond goes both ways, it's entirely likely that hags simply check "Do I feel a mystical bond with this baby? No? Oops, maybe next time."
IOW, it seems plausible to me that hags don't at all care about sexual characteristics of their child, but rather are directly examining "suitability for becoming a hag" - whatever determines that.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hags, man. Hags.
"Ugly old woman who knows things AND IS THEREFORE EVIL AND EATS BABIES."
I mean... thematically? I love me some Hags. Van Richten's Guide to Witches is a personal favorite holdover from the 2nd edition days.
But... the lack of a corresponding male archetype beyond "guy's a wizard/witch" says more about the folklore than about the monster in the game.
Combined old age, ugliness, and knowledge presented as an inherently Bad Thing on a male character isn't a thing that happens nearly as much in most of the folklore I've studied...
Thing is, a "Male Hag" would be... like, an Ogre Mage or something.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, the timing of this conversation is very ironic; I'm literally running an encounter with a coven of hags for my players this very night. XD
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugly old women who know things are even worse when they get together and cooperate! IT IS KNOWN!