| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are several modules or APs I've looked and come across an NPC that immediately makes me go "Oh, this one is an author's favorite."I don't understand the point of this complaint. If an author doesn't have a favorite NPC in an adventure they write... they're not really into writing that adventure and I like to think that the authors we hire to write adventures have passion for the subject.
In every adventure I write I put a lot of myself into the NPCs... the allies and the enemies alike, and I often have multiple NPCs who vie for the role of "favorite."
And when I read another's adventure and they have lovingly detailed and interesting NPCs... that adds to the game for me.
While this is correct, I think the OP is more concerned that (some) writers may not be as willing to kill of a favorite NPC. And while that is understandable in a RPG the need to kill of a NPC should be driven by story and (most likely) optimal adventure enjoyment, not any attachment to the NPC.
I am not sure it is a particular PF issue, but RPG settings are rife with this type of NPC (at least D&D and most other games I played).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are several modules or APs I've looked and come across an NPC that immediately makes me go "Oh, this one is an author's favorite."I don't understand the point of this complaint. If an author doesn't have a favorite NPC in an adventure they write... they're not really into writing that adventure and I like to think that the authors we hire to write adventures have passion for the subject.
In every adventure I write I put a lot of myself into the NPCs... the allies and the enemies alike, and I often have multiple NPCs who vie for the role of "favorite."
And when I read another's adventure and they have lovingly detailed and interesting NPCs... that adds to the game for me.
While this is correct, I think the OP is more concerned that (some) writers may not be as willing to kill of a favorite NPC. And while that is understandable in a RPG the need to kill of a NPC should be driven by story and (most likely) optimal adventure enjoyment, not any attachment to the NPC.
I am not sure it is a particular PF issue, but RPG settings are rife with this type of NPC (at least D&D and most other games I played).
Umm, are you sure that is what they are referring to. I mean, I haven't seen lot of truly recurring evil NPCs and if they aren't hostile NPCs, then usually you aren't supposed to kill them in first place :P Because murderhoboing isn't the default way to play games no matter what internet says.
Like, your intepretation is that they are talking about npcs with plot armor like Harlequin from Shadowrun right? But as I said earlier in thread, I can't think of any characters from paizo with same type of "Mordenkainen appears to do something awesome or give you a quest and then leaves, if you try to kill him, he destroys you, if you do kill him, he doesn't die" shenanigans.
I kinda have this feeling that if reader knows that a character is old pc or has been mentioned a lot in forums or blog or pathfinder tales book(or is one of those rare npcs that appear in multiple aps), they suddenly start interpreting everything involving character in completely different way that is divorced from what the npc actually does in the adventure
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, i expected a similar traitment, with the same scope and epicness, for Zutha.
Instead of that, he's destroyed like a minor treat, without any consideration for the strength and weaknesses of his Phylactery.
Zutha got a novel dealing with him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are several modules or APs I've looked and come across an NPC that immediately makes me go "Oh, this one is an author's favorite."I don't understand the point of this complaint. If an author doesn't have a favorite NPC in an adventure they write... they're not really into writing that adventure and I like to think that the authors we hire to write adventures have passion for the subject.
In every adventure I write I put a lot of myself into the NPCs... the allies and the enemies alike, and I often have multiple NPCs who vie for the role of "favorite."
And when I read another's adventure and they have lovingly detailed and interesting NPCs... that adds to the game for me.
I guess I see where you're coming from, but I think it's a difficult line to walk in an AP format, where so much information has to be condensed so heavily. There have been times when I've seen someone in an AP or module and it's obvious that the author really likes this character, but there isn't room to flesh them out and present them to the reader in the way that the author sees them. By necessity, an AP that isn't a doorstopper needs to adapt a "tell, don't show" account of its characters and events sometimes, but when too much of this is focused on a single character one ends up asking "What's so great about this guy, and why should they be stealing the spotlight from my PCs?" I think the larger the role they play in an adventure that isn't an antagonist that is eventually thwarted, the greater the risk of their appearance seeming to chiefly serve as self-gratification for the writer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think getting back to the OP’s post was that yes, the edginess of the old 3.5 setting has been dulled a bit. But this is a natural evolution of the game system’s growth in popularity and the intent to maximize and broaden its appeal to everyone. Paizo has attempted to promote changes in gender views, ethnic representation, and cultural roles in many of its products and has toned down its presentation of edgier topics (especially in the context of many societal issues of today).
Personally, I preferred the older version of the setting in several features as I felt those aspects added additional conflict and greater realism (lol, in a fantasy game) to the setting. But I can definitely see Paizo’s attempt at inclusivity to represent a specific side to some of the current cultural and societal positions. However, these changes have been ongoing in the setting since it’s inception and are not as a result of Pathfinder 2E. I think the only reason folks see them more prominently now is that everyone has the new books and will compare it to the 10+ years of products which include changes in artistic/stylistic presentation.
This is not a bad thing as long as the presentation of an issue or topic comes off as sincere and not as an attempt to pander to specific groups. Will these positions create meaningful change to the demographics of gamers in general or is it something that is applicable only to fans of Paizo products? I personally have seen changes over the years in who plays RPG’s in general (the growing acceptance of gaming nerds is a welcome prospect) but I think its too early to see if these changes stick to the hobby or if they fizzle out after a generation or so like many other fads in greater society.
As a player or GM, you either have to accept these changes, ignore them or decide that the company has drifted too far for you. As a fan and consumer if you start disagreeing with the flavor of the setting/system that no longer makes it enjoyable then it’s time to move on. However, if you decide to stick with it, you play it as presented or you make changes in your home games. I think many GM’s make changes from published products all the time (I know I do, even to AP’s), sometimes this is a GM tailor-making his campaign to his or his players tastes and character background or being cognizant of any actual issues that may arise in his group. You can bring back the edginess to your home games, but playing in public there is an expected limit of grittiness that Paizo expects GM’s to adhere to in order to make the game enjoyable for all.
|
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't miss gratuitous use of the word 'whore' to describe women who aren't actual prostitutes (like the newly-renamed 'Night Queens' of Hell, or the 'Harlot-Queen of Geb,' so-called by the colossal misogynistic losers who A) got her killed in the first place by summoning her to fight something even her boss and elder god couldn't decisively destroy, and B) picked a fight with the guy who retaliated by looting the tomb of the goddess they'd gotten killed and raised her up to be his undying queen in the first place).
Other than the move away from that, which I approve of, I hadn't really noticed any dulling of 'edge.' Not that I'd mind either way. I will use or not use whatever level of edge or blunt serves my target audiencek, so long as the level of 'edge' doesn't creep into levels of immaturity and sensationalism to make even me uncomfortable reading the subject matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't miss gratuitous use of the word 'whore' to describe women who aren't actual prostitutes (like the newly-renamed 'Night Queens' of Hell, or the 'Harlot-Queen of Geb,' so-called by the colossal misogynistic losers who A) got her killed in the first place by summoning her to fight something even her boss and elder god couldn't decisively destroy, and B) picked a fight with the guy who retaliated by looting the tomb of the goddess they'd gotten killed and raised her up to be his undying queen in the first place).
Oh yeah, that was a really unfortunate set of name choices, and I'm happy to see them go. I think the intent for the Whore Queens was partly to show the misogyny of Hell. It's Hell, having negative traits like that is to be expected. But it was a bit much. Arazni's title was much worse. She's the victim there, multiple times over (including a non-consensual 'marriage') and to top it off she's the one who gets an insulting title.
Creative Director
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't miss gratuitous use of the word 'whore' to describe women who aren't actual prostitutes (like the newly-renamed 'Night Queens' of Hell, or the 'Harlot-Queen of Geb,' so-called by the colossal misogynistic losers who A) got her killed in the first place by summoning her to fight something even her boss and elder god couldn't decisively destroy, and B) picked a fight with the guy who retaliated by looting the tomb of the goddess they'd gotten killed and raised her up to be his undying queen in the first place).Oh yeah, that was a really unfortunate set of name choices, and I'm happy to see them go. I think the intent for the Whore Queens was partly to show the misogyny of Hell. It's Hell, having negative traits like that is to be expected. But it was a bit much. Arazni's title was much worse. She's the victim there, multiple times over (including a non-consensual 'marriage') and to top it off she's the one who gets an insulting title.
Those names WERE intended to portray the awful way men in position of power abused those women, but I absolutely agree that it came across not in the way that it was intended, and as such we've moved away from those names to names THEY prefer, rather than names given to them.
Arazni is a tricky one—she was always intended to be a woman who got treated awfully but then rose up to regain her power and agency, but we took too long to get around to telling that story. Now, fortunately, we have. Sometimes it takes a bit longer than I'd like to correct errors and mistakes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there even a reason for Hell to be misogynistic? Gender in the conventional humanoid sense didn't even exist before mortals came around, and even if gods have gender it seems to be much more an aesthetic choice than a biological/psychological trait.
Misogyny in real life comes from men's desire to control women's ability to bear children. This doesn't really apply to beings who can literally create "offspring" with miraculous magic -- a powerful devil of any sex or gender could create devils in its own image with mortal souls of any sex or gender.
Hell being misogynistic actually sounds like one of those "edgy" things for edginess's sake that lead to the edgy old names for the Queens of Night. The name itself isn't the problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there even a reason for Hell to be misogynistic?
His name is Asmodeus, and Hell existed before he got there, but he's been running it ever since.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there even a reason for Hell to be misogynistic?His name is Asmodeus, and Hell existed before he got there, but he's been running it ever since.
Well sure, but the question still remains as to why.
In my own home games I've always portrayed Hell as oppressively sexist, but against ANYONE that has a gender expression, period. It always made more sense to me that a primordial being that hates the diversity of expression and identity of mortals would hate the division of gender as well, and does so by oppressing all gender identities. One of my villains that left quite an impression on my players was a misanthrope half-devil who not only scoffs at mortals and their obsession with identity and expression, but also hates themself for being born (hence the product of an expression of desire) rather than created in a perfect form in Hell.
It's probably also a personal bias though. I'm agender myself and there's a tiny amount of catharsis that comes from powerful villains that represents a role reversal of the norm....
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there even a reason for Hell to be misogynistic? Gender in the conventional humanoid sense didn't even exist before mortals came around, and even if gods have gender it seems to be much more an aesthetic choice than a biological/psychological trait.
Misogyny in real life comes from men's desire to control women's ability to bear children. This doesn't really apply to beings who can literally create "offspring" with miraculous magic -- a powerful devil of any sex or gender could create devils in its own image with mortal souls of any sex or gender.
Hell being misogynistic actually sounds like one of those "edgy" things for edginess's sake that lead to the edgy old names for the Queens of Night. The name itself isn't the problem.
The reason is that archdevils have classically been portrayed as masculine in the game, so we ran with that theme taken into that particularly evil trope of misogyny.
Hell and its portrayal in popular culture is pretty much the DEFINITION of "edgy" though, so I'll take complaints that hell is edgy for edginess's sake in this case as a compliment, I suppose!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there even a reason for Hell to be misogynistic? Gender in the conventional humanoid sense didn't even exist before mortals came around, and even if gods have gender it seems to be much more an aesthetic choice than a biological/psychological trait.
Misogyny in real life comes from men's desire to control women's ability to bear children. This doesn't really apply to beings who can literally create "offspring" with miraculous magic -- a powerful devil of any sex or gender could create devils in its own image with mortal souls of any sex or gender.
Hell being misogynistic actually sounds like one of those "edgy" things for edginess's sake that lead to the edgy old names for the Queens of Night. The name itself isn't the problem.
The reason is that archdevils have classically been portrayed as masculine in the game, so we ran with that theme taken into that particularly evil trope of misogyny.
Hell and its portrayal in popular culture is pretty much the DEFINITION of "edgy" though, so I'll take complaints that hell is edgy for edginess's sake in this case as a compliment, I suppose!
Again, the question of why here isn't asking about the creative decision, but rather the lore reasons. Why does Asmodeus hate women when he existed BEFORE there even were women?
I don't consider it too edgy as in it makes me uncomfortable. I see it as too edgy because it feels unnecessary and arbitrary, as if it's just there to appeal to conventional ideas of evil rather than a lore-justified aspect of the setting.
|
Creative Director
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the question of why here isn't asking about the creative decision, but rather the lore reasons. Why does Asmodeus hate women when he existed BEFORE there even were women?
He didn't exist before women. Pharasma for sure predates him. I'd say Desna and Sarenrae do as well, to be honest. Asmodeus is nothing if not a master spinner of propaganda, and the notion that he was the first is not true as far as I'm concerned, but I do love the idea that he thinks he is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the question of why here isn't asking about the creative decision, but rather the lore reasons. Why does Asmodeus hate women when he existed BEFORE there even were women?He didn't exist before women. Pharasma for sure predates him. I'd say Desna and Sarenrae do as well, to be honest. Asmodeus is nothing if not a master spinner of propaganda, and the notion that he was the first is not true as far as I'm concerned, but I do love the idea that he thinks he is.
Female deities are not the same thing as women, though. I can't see anything that would make Pharasma or Sarenrae different if they were portrayed as male rather than female, besides how mortals would view them. On that note it always seemed to me that mortals conflate their own flawed concepts of gender with beings that greatly exceed them.
Also, and this is just me, but I get really tired of how oppression in fantasy still takes on the same forms as in reality against the same groups.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had figured that Hell was misogynistic largely because Hell is entirely about hierarchies, and in fact runs on kyriarchy (i.e. a social system which runs on domination, oppression, and submission.) So you can't have a way in which two beings in Hell are different without sorting them into "one is higher up on the ladder than the other one." Asmodeus is on top of the heap, so if we're sorting people via "this one has a different characteristic than that one", then whichever characteristic is most embodied in Asmodeus is considered preeminent. Also, Asmodeus's personal preferences are going to filter down into the system because that's the benefit of being on top.
I mean, as a practical matter if your entire system is maintained by the domination and oppression of others, then this is much easier to do if you're sorting people into groups based on characteristics that are considered less desirable, and are thus considered "fair game" for their "betters."
I mean, this is Hell we're talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had figured that Hell was misogynistic largely because Hell is entirely about hierarchies, and in fact runs on kyriarchy (i.e. a social system which runs on domination, oppression, and submission.) So you can't have a way in which two beings in Hell are different without sorting them into "one is higher up on the ladder than the other one." Asmodeus is on top of the heap, so if we're sorting people via "this one has a different characteristic than that one", then whichever characteristic is most embodied in Asmodeus is considered preeminent. Also, Asmodeus's personal preferences are going to filter down into the system because that's the benefit of being on top.
I mean, as a practical matter if your entire system is maintained by the domination and oppression of others, then this is much easier to do if you're sorting people into groups based on characteristics that are considered less desirable, and are thus considered "fair game" for their "betters."
I mean, this is Hell we're talking about.
The problem is that gender isn't even something that matters too much if you're a devil. New devils spawn from lawful evil souls, not from devils mating with each other.
And if Asmodeus ranks beings based on how close they are to himself, then what about other arbitrary devil traits like horns? Red skin? Hooves and tail? You don't see anything about "blue and green devils are downtrodden while red devils are privileged". Which would be the case if Hell's hierarchy is based on each devil's resemblance to Asmodeus on top of their power.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it counterproductive to blame Hell's misogyny on Asmodeus, because in reality social heirarchies and oppressions are never just reducible to the whims of the boss(es).
Thing about that is though that Asmodeus is the one who picks the leadership positions in the hierarchy :P
The problem is that gender isn't even something that matters too much if you're a devil. New devils spawn from lawful evil souls, not from devils mating with each other
Also "misogyny" is irrational, so it doesn't make sense to argue about logic of it. In case of Asmodeus it seems to be mostly because he is such an egomaniac that he doesn't like someone else(Pharasma for example) being in higher position of power or status than he is and he gets petty vengeance in his own ways for it.
Like, I think its always been kinda clear that Hell's misogyny is mostly because of Asmodeus with devils following in suit trying to please him. Asmodeus doesn't care about whether devil is blue or not, but he clearly does take care to avoid giving female devils certain positions of power. Only high ranking devil that isn't Queen of a Night that I can think of is single Malebranche
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But devils have access to a lot of high level magic... powerful female devils could easily get a male form if they want. If the answer really is just Asmodeus's pettiness and devils wanting to gain his validation, it would only make sense that ALL devils above a certain power would just become male. There's no reason for the Queens of Night to keep their feminine forms.
Imagine if you live in an oppressive society where the leaders hate hair. Would you really keep your hair and try to fight against all odds to succeed? Or would you find the first chance to depilate yourself?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But devils have access to a lot of high level magic... powerful female devils could easily get a male form if they want. If the answer really is just Asmodeus's pettiness and devils wanting to gain his validation, it would only make sense that ALL devils above a certain power would just become male. There's no reason for the Queens of Night to keep their feminine forms.
Imagine if you live in an oppressive society where the leaders hate hair. Would you really keep your hair and try to fight against all odds to succeed? Or would you find the first chance to depilate yourself?
All devils don’t want Azzy’s validation though, hence the Queens of Night being a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again there's the question of what gender even means to deities and outsiders. I've never really heard a satisfactory answer for beings that aren't directly formed from mortal souls. Deities in Golarion are real and tangible rather than personified aspects of nebulous supernatural forces; it can't just be a writing convention or mortals attributing their own perceptions to these beings, since there's a whole list of powerful Monitors that are explicitly agender or genderfluid.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But devils have access to a lot of high level magic... powerful female devils could easily get a male form if they want. If the answer really is just Asmodeus's pettiness and devils wanting to gain his validation, it would only make sense that ALL devils above a certain power would just become male. There's no reason for the Queens of Night to keep their feminine forms.
Imagine if you live in an oppressive society where the leaders hate hair. Would you really keep your hair and try to fight against all odds to succeed? Or would you find the first chance to depilate yourself?
Queens of Night taking on male form wouldn't really make sense considering their entire deal is that they carved out a space for themselves in hell separate from Asmodeus' hierarchy.
Like, better question would be why Asmodeus hasn't fought against Queens of Night for undermining his hierarchy since it doesn't seem like he had much trouble with driving away Asura Ranas and other infernal demigods.
That is something I'm not sure I get since you can only answer it in few ways. Aka, either he can't do so, or he benefits from having Queens of Nights around so for pragmatism he doesn't move against them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again there's the question of what gender even means to deities and outsiders. I've never really heard a satisfactory answer for beings that aren't directly formed from mortal souls. Deities in Golarion are real and tangible rather than personified aspects of nebulous supernatural forces; it can't just be a writing convention or mortals attributing their own perceptions to these beings, since there's a whole list of powerful Monitors that are explicitly agender or genderfluid.
I don’t really see what needs explaining. Gender isn’t about reproduction. Some outsiders are male, some female, some are any of the genders that exist in the multiverse (quite a lot!) A deity having a gender is no more in need of explanation than any other trait. A deity who is vengeful is no doubt different than a vengeful mortal. Being a compassionate outsider isn’t identical with the empathy a human may feel, but it’s of the same category even if the expression is necessarily different in scope or degree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the question of why here isn't asking about the creative decision, but rather the lore reasons. Why does Asmodeus hate women when he existed BEFORE there even were women?He didn't exist before women. Pharasma for sure predates him. I'd say Desna and Sarenrae do as well, to be honest. Asmodeus is nothing if not a master spinner of propaganda, and the notion that he was the first is not true as far as I'm concerned, but I do love the idea that he thinks he is.On a broader world-building level, one could ask why the gods themselves are even gendered. Not only do they not necessarily need it for reproduction, but it kind of implies that male and female gender, in forms that make sense to humans, are fundamental to existence.
There are a handful of deities outside of that, I believe, but it does seem to be the default, despite there being races that aren't human-style binary genders in the world. Though they do appear to be the most common, so I suppose you could argue they share the same reason, whatever that is in world.
Of course, the Doylist answer is that they're that way because we're human and it's what we relate to.
I think it does imply that gender is a real thing. Is that an issue? (I’ve generally assumed there are transgender, genderfluid or nonbinary outsiders. I’ve also presumed there are some with no gender. Do you see something problematic in that?)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well gender is a real thing, but only in relation to a combination of biology, psychology, and societal norms. Ancient Gods that existed before gendered mortals clearly won't be affected by any societal gender roles, so that leaves the biological and psychological part, which...kind of needs a physical body with a brain to make sense. Gender isn't sex, but I have a hard time seeing how it would make sense devoid of sexual traits.
I can see deities of certain gendered concepts having gender; a goddess of motherhood would probably be female, and a god of fatherhood only makes sense as male. But most concepts, like alignments, natural phenomena, and magic, don't lean any way. So I find it strange that non-embodied beings that represent these things can have a gender that's understandable by humans, if they have one at all. Think of it this way: gender can be as "inherently real" as sunlight. But if the goddess of femininity isn't assumed to have any relationship with sunlight by default, why should the god of sunlight (Sarenrae in this case) need to be associated with femininity?
I'm fine with gender being an independent concept from bodies and minds only if at least a significant minority of those genders aren't male or female. Dealing with binary essentialism is pretty tiring in real life, and I (and many other gender-nonconforming individuals) don't want any of that to exist in my escapist fantasy. I don't mind transphobic/sexist NPCs or cultures because people like that realistically exist. It just annoys me when "cosmic" male/female genders are the norm when these entities don't have the same social or biological contexts that mortals exist in.
Maybe gender was already a thing for most of the various deities, back where and when they came from.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion deities are very Greek in their presentation; they really aren't all that different from mortals, they make imperfect decisions and are quite human in their personalities. Some of them used to be mortals, even - I'm sure Cayden isn't gonna stop being a dude after he stumbled through the Test of the Starstone.
Hell itself is a quintessential manifestation of what is Lawful and Evil - crooked hierarchies that should not exist is basically their entire deal, and misogyny is about as quintessential of a crooked hierarchy as there is. It should come as no surprise that they make distinctions where it doesn't seem rational that such a distinction should exist. In turn, you can expect genderfluidity to be accepted and embraced more commonly in the Good-aligned planes (hi, Arshea).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion deities are very Greek in their presentation; they really aren't all that different from mortals, they make imperfect decisions and are quite human in their personalities. Some of them used to be mortals, even - I'm sure Cayden isn't gonna stop being a dude after he stumbled through the Test of the Starstone.
Hell itself is a quintessential manifestation of what is Lawful and Evil - crooked hierarchies that should not exist is basically their entire deal, and misogyny is about as quintessential of a crooked hierarchy as there is. It should come as no surprise that they make distinctions where it doesn't seem rational that such a distinction should exist. In turn, you can expect genderfluidity to be accepted and embraced more commonly in the Good-aligned planes (hi, Arshea).
I explicitly mentioned gods and outsiders who were once mortal as the exception. There's still over half the core deities who don't fall into that category.
Golarion's deities aren't actually that similar to any real world pantheon, since each deity is pretty distinct in their cosmic origin rather than being each other's family. They also have explicit cosmic alignments of good and evil, and good deities literally cannot do anything with evil intention (and vice versa for evil deities), so they don't have remotely the same level of human-like flaws. There's also the fact that they are tangibly real and not up to mortal interpretation at all, whereas if you read Greek mythology you would see that many deities are portrayed differently depending on author, and often used to speak the opinions of the author himself. I'd say that makes them distinct enough from Greek gods.
If the hierarchy of Hell is literally just arbitrarily unjust, there's no reason why it would resemble any real world form of oppression, or if its oppression is even uniform at all. So why not hell-spawn devils oppressing mortal-soul-spawn devils? Fallen angel devils oppressing Hell native devils? Magic-using devils oppressing martial devils, or vice versa? All of those make far more compelling stories, because again, the gender of an outsider is purely aesthetic for the vast majority of the times. Real life oppression targets arbitrary traits that the victim CAN'T change and is often important to them. That just doesn't appear to be the case for the gender of devils.
I also don't think nonbinary representation should be restricted to Good deities who's domain is explicitly nonbinary representation. While I appreciate the character of Arshea, there are far more binary deities whose concerns don't have a lot to do their own binary genders at all (which goes back to my previous question of why they even have genders). The Monitor demigods, in my opinion, are a far better example, as many of them are agender or genderfluid simply because they are, and their primary concerns have very little to do with that part of their identity. I think I've also mentioned before that I enjoy villains who not only fit my identity, but also reverse the traditional roles of oppression, if only because it shows a fantasy world where people of my identity can achieve a level of power that allows them to be oppressive.
In the end it doesn't really matter. I'll continue to portray Hell as a place that oppresses all mortal identities including all genders, taking a page from 5e where devils are genderless and only take on gendered forms to trick or mock mortals. My game doesn't have to be the same as the published setting, and that's the beauty of being a game master. But at the same time I understand that Paizo is trying very hard (and is largely successful) at representing all identities within its player base, and I hope that my concerns are at least somewhat taken into consideration.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be shocked if devils were allowed to change any aspect of themselves (gender included) without explicit permission (which is inevitably difficult and painful to acquire).
I'd be equally shocked of several of the prejudices you suggest aren't in play as well, but Hell is all about complicated hierarchies with multiple dimensions (the better to allow people to manipulate the system with legalese), so multiple intersecting prejudices on as many different axes as possible (including the utterly pointless) seem perfect for Hell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be shocked if devils were allowed to change any aspect of themselves (gender included) without explicit permission (which is inevitably difficult and painful to acquire).
I'd be equally shocked of several of the prejudices you suggest aren't in play as well, but Hell is all about complicated hierarchies with multiple dimensions (the better to allow people to manipulate the system with legalese), so multiple intersecting prejudices on as many different axes as possible (including the utterly pointless) seem perfect for Hell.
That's how I'm actually portraying them, except with agender sexlessness being top dog rather than male. Chalk it up to personal preference, I guess, but if anything that would also create the maximum amount of oppression seeing as most mortal souls that end up in Hell are still binary. (also Mephistopheles, the personification of Hell itself, has a masculine appearance but is explicitly genderless as per the writeup in Breaking the Bones of Hell, so I took a bit of liberties from there, but I digress). I also portray devils as having a strict hierarchy of fallen angel > hellspawn > converted outsiders of another race > mortal-spawn, which is why I used that as my example. I'm just not seeing that mentioned nearly as much in canon as the sexism thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Asmodeus being male is why men are canonically on top of the hierarchy. Really, all things that are on top of the hierarchy are probably 'being like Asmodeus' in some sense (or at least, 'being like Asmudeus says he is').
And we get more stuff on the Devil prejudices that apply to non-Devils simply because very few stories actually involve extensive interactions between Devils where you care about the interpersonal details between them. How they interact with humans and encourage humans to interact with each other is much more generally relevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asmodeus being male is why men are canonically on top of the hierarchy. Really, all things that are on top of the hierarchy are probably 'being like Asmodeus' in some sense (or at least, 'being like Asmudeus says he is').
And we get more stuff on the Devil prejudices that apply to non-Devils simply because very few stories actually involve extensive interactions between Devils where you care about the interpersonal details between them. How they interact with humans and encourage humans to interact with each other is much more generally relevant.
Except I don't see devil sexism applying to mortals that much at all. Cheliax, the country that worships Asmodeus and Archdevils, is actually less sexist than Taldor (at least from the their imperial inheritance laws). The most misogynistic culture in the setting are orcs, who would probably be on the absolute bottom in Hell's hierarchy just by virtue of their chaotic alignment.
Meanwhile, how devils relate to each other, and other outsiders, can be easily shown at the table, if the game features a decent amount of planar content. I can easily picture a called erinyes or contract devil immediately bossing around the caller's imp like it's their own slave, and the imp obeying the called devil before its mortal master. Any summoner that meets a devil with their non-devil eidolon present could probably sense the devil's utter disdain, if not disgust, at the eidolon. So on and so forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it counterproductive to blame Hell's misogyny on Asmodeus, because in reality social heirarchies and oppressions are never just reducible to the whims of the boss(es).
It is almost certainly different when the same boss is in charge for tens of thousands of years. Normally we can point to a lot of weird stuff in social hierarchies as "the whims of someone long dead" (e.g. why women's pants lack useful pockets) but big A is still going strong after all these years.
|
It is almost certainly different when the same boss is in charge for tens of thousands of years.
We can actually test this claim. Egypt's pharaohs up through the New Kingdom were supposed to be the same divine person incarnated in different mortal bodies. And the state pursued similar policies throughout that time notwithstanding a few reformers from time to time. Yet social change still occurred, at its own pace, sometimes with the reformations, sometimes in spite of them.
|
|
That's only a test if you accept that they actually were the same divine person in reality.It is almost certainly different when the same boss is in charge for tens of thousands of years.We can actually test this claim. Egypt's pharaohs up through the New Kingdom were supposed to be the same divine person incarnated in different mortal bodies. And the state pursued similar policies throughout that time notwithstanding a few reformers from time to time. Yet social change still occurred, at its own pace, sometimes with the reformations, sometimes in spite of them.
As far as the vast majority of the population who never interacted with him personally at any point in their lives was concerned, he was.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, in reality no matter what the Pharoahs or their subjects believed, the Pharoahs were not the same person over and over again. They were different people who had different preferences and whims.
In the reality of the diagesis, Asmodeus is one of the oldest beings in the universe and has ruled the same plane continuously for the majority of that existence.
The difference is that the Pharoahs were lying and/or mistaken. Asmodeus lies about a great number of things, including "being the first being in the universe" but he's not lying about "he's been in charge of Hell for a long, long time."
As far as the vast majority of the population who never interacted with him personally at any point in their lives was concerned, he was.That's only a test if you accept that they actually were the same divine person in reality.It is almost certainly different when the same boss is in charge for tens of thousands of years.We can actually test this claim. Egypt's pharaohs up through the New Kingdom were supposed to be the same divine person incarnated in different mortal bodies. And the state pursued similar policies throughout that time notwithstanding a few reformers from time to time. Yet social change still occurred, at its own pace, sometimes with the reformations, sometimes in spite of them.
But the beliefs and desires of the ruler they were subjects of were actually changing.
I miss slutty Succubus, inbreed Ogers and childrien-eaters Goblins.
I remember a description in Inner Sea Gods of Zon-Kuthon ritual that was just so horrible and gore. Basically a rich cultist is flayed, and all his organs are removed (eyes, limbstongue...) so he's just a torso in permanent agony at the end.
Yeah I like my Golarion gritty and mature, sometimes. Not always, because it does not make any sense, but on some monsters, or gods, I like the opportunity to create sensible and mature stories.
Dealing with rascism, inbreeding, deviant sexuality, drugs, slavery... These are goods things to fight as an hero, and great things to do as a vilain. Because it is a game we can explore these things. One of my friend is a police officer, and he likes dealing with hard content with his big holy axe in way he can not in real life. Another friend of mine got PTSD from assault, and bullying bullies is great fun for him too.
So yaah, sometimes, bad is good in a story.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 2E bestiary still calls out incest as being prevalent for ogres, so that is still true for the new edition.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
matureAt some point in my life, "mature" came to mean "adolescent." I was not consulted about this, it just happened.
I'm not sure what linguistic shift I'm more bothered by- that one, or how "literally" means "figuratively" about 50% of the time now.