I hadn't really given this much thought until I wanted to join a Wheel Of Time roleplay a while back where, as a break from the norm, in that lore women are the only ones who are able to use magic and said magic is on demi-god levels, pretty much rendering any male character a non-combatant. I felt strange and kinda sucky, but to do anything else would completely ruin the lore, I wasn't too fussed because its a rarity but it did make me start to appreciate that women must be quite limited rping as so many rps feature combat in some capacity, how far do you go before infriging on lore/history in the process?

I'm generally of the opinion that if there was at least one known example, such as women samurai or Joan of Ark, then I'm cool for it too slide for everyone, but I'm don't know if other characters making a big deal about that oddity would be annoying to the player. Where I would draw the line is that I really dislike the sterotypical fantasy warrior woman, I'm fine with the female knight being able to match the blokes blow for blow, but its breaking it for me if they're do so with the slim physique of a supermodel. I guess that is a little unfair as muscular/scarred men are generally considered attractive but I think things would get too divorced from reality otherwise.

This is all coming from a guy who doesn't like rping as the other gender, interested in what people think.

I do a lot of historical RPing and in those I tend to prefer sticking to the confines of the period. For example, you won't find a woman on the battlefield during the American Civil War, unless she had a very convincing disguise(even then if she got caught there would be trouble). I'm not a huge accuracy Nazi when it comes to facts in a historical RP, but there's some important conventions that just can't really be broken and gender roles is one. In fantasy RPs I'm much more flexible. If you want to have a badass female knight then go for it, haha xD.

I'd say it all depends on one thing, really. And that is culture, regardless of what world it's in.

If the role play takes place in a setting that is similar to or is what we call the Western world, women will be less respected. If you look at the history of the Western world, for the most part, females were restricted to knowing how clean, cook, grow vegetables, and how to please their husbands. So the likelihood of a female warrior in a medieval Europe role play will be lower, but not impossible, as some groups back then were known for the ferocity of their women. Outside of Western culture, however it was a whole different ball game for females.

In African kingdoms, women were allowed to become successful members in the business world and could deal great influence on trade. Many African/Native American people used to trace their lines through their mothers, not fathers. In ancient Nubia, queens were actually more important than the kings, which says a lot about how women were treated outside of Western culture. Unfortunately, however, a lot of that has been changed and lost since the Western world forced it's way into people's lives.

So to put it shortly, it depends on how close the role play is to real life, and also the cultural settings. I hope I answered your question correctly.

As for female warriors in fantasy settings, by the way, I think a lot of it is blasphemy. I say this because half (And half is probably a big underestimate) of the female warriors in fantasy run into a tornado of blades with no armor but on their tits and ass, and somehow don't get their stomach sliced open. People have complained that it's hard to find a picture for their fantasy female characters because all they find are slutty drawings.

Realistically, if any chick tries going to war dressed like that, they are liable to get captured and raped in my book. There's my input on that.

In my experience it's a lot, lot harder to create a game that doesn't have gender equality. While we do all play pretend, a lot of people feel uncomfortable writing or reading it. Same way; when I established a setting that is zealously religious; there were far more atheist PC's than NPC's. People will take modern conventions with them into roleplays regardless of setting. Sometimes even without intending to. Be it gender roles, be it belief system (or lack thereof.) The fewer reference points people have, the harder it becomes for them to RP. It's fandom vs. original all over again yo.

Generally, I wouldn't dare to create an RP with gender discrimination in casual and I would think really hard about it whenever I try that in advanced. Is this element worth the hassle? Is my game attractive enough to deal with the loss of players based on the setting's gender equality? Will I feel like explaining people I'm not sexist just for creating a sexist setting? If the answers to this are yes, then let's go. If any of them is no, well, gender equality it is.

Done right, gender imbalance would be good in an RP.

On average, women have a harder time becoming quite as good as men for say, combat. The average woman is, undeniably, somewhat less physically strong than the average man. But this does not mean its impossible. We love stories where there's female characters that are strong in various ways.

If men and women are exposed to the exact same physical strength requirements, fewer women will pass through than men. But when it comes to mental strength, its much harder to say, if not impossible.

When it comes to fantasy RP settings, we can say this:
We hate the concept of Chainmail bikini armor.

We don't mind if there's female (or male) warriors who are dressed in loincloths. Its not good defense, but it can be explained away. Chainmail bikini on the other hand, that shows they have the skill to make metal armor, yet choose to make armor that doesn't cover what armor ought to cover. That, is unforgivable in a character. They only deserve to be killed if they do that.
On the other hand, we don't mind it if a writer wants the armor to be "feminine", so long as it does not compromise its capability to offer protection. As such, while breasts on armor would look feminine, there should not be any cleft in between them. All that would allow, is a path for unfriendly weapons to slide directly in towards a vulnerable spot, rather than out and away from the chest. If a suit of armor should have "boobs", it should be a single bulge for both, so that anything striking that point will slide out and away. If you want to accentuate them as more separate, there is always enameling and such.

Mind you, in settings that aren't quite so focused on bladed weaponry, armor requirements are less strict on this front.

Short Answer: Wherever you wish.

Fantasy has the wondrous quality of being allowed to bend the rules, historic or modern. You can use gender roles as a plot element, even.

Not much to say on this topic.

Brovo said
Short Answer: Wherever you wish.Fantasy has the wondrous quality of being allowed to bend the rules, historic or modern. You can use gender roles as a plot element, even.Not much to say on this topic.

Pretty much this.

Though, when it comes to fantasy RPs, not every civilization is going to follow the Western example (or at least it shouldn't--at least in my book). The civilization may even be comprised of a nonhuman species that has an alien psyche.

In several past RPs, I;ve used a species of bipedal, digitgrade wolf people that were completely immune to fear and--as a result--favored chaos over order. This made them incapable of adopting human-engineered concepts like strict gender roles or government. In fact, the very notion of gender roles and an all-encompassing administrative body was completely alien to them. Sexual dimorphism wasn't very noticeable in their species either; females and males were difficult to tell apart from one another from a distance, though both possessed roughly equal physical capability.

Is this like, where is the line between perpetuating a horrible thing that drags us down still today in Roleplay, or using such to create learning lessons while also mirroring the beast? Ah, also a bit of how much can history bend despite its more overt failings -- good question, all of it.

In my roleplays I intentionally target social norms that reproduce inequality. I use authors like Brent Weeks, brave enough to not only make women more magically inclined, but to place greater ability and value onto people of colour, as reference in my own creations. In my fantasies, women are often matriarchs or have strong representation on shared governance systems. Additionally, these women often are 30-70, powerful, across the board in relation to physical appearance, and, frankly, I use heroic women as inspiration for their attitudes and actions. I also include patriarchal powers, because equality does not mean dominance, but I recognize that men are already viewed as powerful creatures (they really don't need a title to be considered able to change the world).

Historically speaking, I would play with inequality to make a point. I'm doing this in a novel I'm working on and, honestly, it exposes this new perspective to a times we all think we know. By posing a question in a historical roleplay, such as a changing the gender power dynamics in medieval times for example, is a way to explore those worlds too, not necessarily changing history in some sweeping motion.

Hm... I'm feeling super unclear this morning. I'll probably check this out again after work to make sure that all made sense.

ASTA said Pretty much this. Though, when it comes to fantasy RPs, not every civilization is going to follow the Western example (or at least it shouldn't--at least in my book).

It's fine. I agree. I think everyone agrees.

ASTA said The civilization may even be comprised of a nonhuman species that has an alien psyche.In several past RPs, I;ve used a species of bipedal, digitgrade wolf people that were completely immune to fear and--as a result--favored chaos over order. This made them incapable of adopting human-engineered concepts like strict gender roles or government. In fact, the very notion of gender roles and an all-encompassing administrative body was completely alien to them. Sexual dimorphism wasn't very noticeable in their species either; females and males were difficult to tell apart from one another from a distance, though both possessed roughly equal physical capability.

Sexual Dimorphism is actually a significant part of the reason why primitive human societies ended up the way they did, so yeah, congratulations. That was actually pretty smart of you to account for that.

I have nothing much else to say.

Uhm. Hm. Lack of criticism. This is abnormal for me. NEXT POST!

ShonHarris said Is this like, where is the line between perpetuating a horrible thing that drags us down still today in Roleplay, or using such to create learning lessons while also mirroring the beast?

Actually it's more about where to draw on the line on genders in general. His example of a female knight going toe to toe with a male knight and doing fine, so long as they don't also look like some kind of skinny supermodel while the men are all scarred muscular hulks, for example. Basically where to draw the line between empowerment and just plain absurdity. Which, really, is "any line you like", depending on what you want to do.

ShonHarris said Ah, also a bit of how much can history bend despite its more overt failings -- good question, all of it.

Quick note: History doesn't have failings. History is merely the chronicling of events based on the perspectives of those who lived within those times and what physical evidence remains of it all.

ShonHarris said In my roleplays I intentionally target social norms that reproduce inequality.

That's cool, so do I. :)

ShonHarris said I use authors like Brent Weeks, brave enough to not only make women more magically inclined, but to place greater ability and value onto people of colour, as reference in my own creations.

That's... Uhm... Okay.

ShonHarris said In my fantasies, women are often matriarchs or have strong representation on shared governance systems. Additionally, these women often are 30-70, powerful, across the board in relation to physical appearance, and, frankly, I use heroic women as inspiration for their attitudes and actions. I also include patriarchal powers, because equality does not mean dominance, but I recognize that men are already viewed as powerful creatures (they really don't need a title to be considered able to change the world).

Oh boy. Heart's in the right place but not the execution on this one. Making one group superior to another group in order to erode the reverse superiority reflected in history or other sources of fiction doesn't help paint any kind of image of equality. It's just inequality on different parties. I also have powerful female characters in my fantasy literature and role plays. Renalta is ruled by two queens, for example... But I don't define their rule by their gender. Other characters might note that it's unorthodox for a pair of women to rule a kingdom, some might even disdain it, but they themselves are not defined by the fact that they're women. They're defined by the fact that they're caring, intelligent, and strong, each in their own way, that compliments one another. Essentially: They're good rulers for their lands, gender be damned, and that is why they are in power, despite what any opposition might think.

And no, they don't need special matriarchal powers for that. They just need to be strong people. Same with male leaders in the world, no special powers of patriarchy for them, just some mix of characteristics that makes them suited for the job at that current time.

ShonHarris said Historically speaking, I would play with inequality to make a point.

Historically speaking, I would play with inequality because it's... Accurate... Sure you can have a female mercenary but a lot of people are going to look on that as being bizarre, some with outright hostility. Whether or not you consider that right or wrong is irrelevant to the fact that it happened.

ShonHarris said I'm doing this in a novel I'm working on and, honestly, it exposes this new perspective to a times we all think we know.

Out of curiosity, how does it expose a new perspective, what perspective would that be? I do like a good read so I hope you wouldn't mind indulging my curiosity.

ShonHarris said By posing a question in a historical roleplay, such as a changing the gender power dynamics in medieval times for example, is a way to explore those worlds too, not necessarily changing history in some sweeping motion. Hm... I'm feeling super unclear this morning. I'll probably check this out again after work to make sure that all made sense.

Changing the gender order against what our ancestors did as a result of sexual dimorphism would be a sweeping change to the state of the planet. It's often why stories which want to empower women in a medieval setting adventure to a fantasy land, like Game of Thrones, or Lord of the Rings.

Brovo said
Quick note: History doesn't have failings. History is merely the chronicling of events based on the perspectives of those who lived within those times and what physical evidence remains of it all.

I see what you mean and would agree if history weren't recorded by humanity. As an idea history should not have failings, as it should be an objective account of what happened. However, history is recorded and in a sense sculpted by people, each group, and within reach group each individual holding their subjective wants and passions. History is absolutely chronicling of events based on the perspectives of those who lived, but if those who lived held a perspective not actually the truest account -- just the only surviving one-- then really history is an attempt at objectivity that can be bought and manipulated by influence. Physical evidence is also a great way of finding objective truth, but many peoples have destroyed any remnants or accounts of their enemies, either leaving gaps or placing false histories. So, I would say that history should be a like science in that it should be objective, but history has really proven that there is often more to it than what's visible at the surface -- ironically, history shining light on history.

All that just to say, I agree with you abstractly, but in reality, I would say history does have failings in relation to the people and peoples it describes. We look with a modern eye and I don't think it's necessary to remove judgement of our predecessors simply because we're born later.

Brovo said
That's cool, so do I. :)

I know! Besides the imaginative worlds and evolving plots, that's another thing I enjoy about your roleplays.

Brovo said Oh boy. Heart's in the right place but not the execution on this one. Making one group superior to another group in order to erode the reverse superiority reflected in history or other sources of fiction doesn't help paint any kind of image of equality. It's just inequality on different parties. I also have powerful female characters in my fantasy literature and role plays. Renalta is ruled by two queens, for example... But I don't define their rule by their gender. Other characters might note that it's unorthodox for a pair of women to rule a kingdom, some might even disdain it, but they themselves are not defined by the fact that they're women. They're defined by the fact that they're caring, intelligent, and strong, each in their own way, that compliments one another. Essentially: They're good rulers for their lands, gender be damned, and that is why they are in power, despite what any opposition might think.

And no, they don't need special matriarchal powers for that. They just need to be strong people. Same with male leaders in the world, no special powers of patriarchy for them, just some mix of characteristics that makes them suited for the job at that current time.

I agree with you and see how my lack of elaboration could be misconstrued. I did not mean suggest that male dominance would be solved by simple exchange, resulting in female dominance. What I meant to say, is that media representation already favours a specific group of people based on a specific set of characteristics. The roleplays I take part in and create are media, though not that broadcasted compared to film or published literature. Because of this I constantly try to flip our expectations to create questions. I recognize that creating a world that reflects history is safe as it abides by our records -- not fault on me, logically. I recognize that creating a world where things are pretty balanced tempts a few questions and gets things flowing -- bit riskier, but I'm not exposing myself to get those questions. Finally, I recognize and prefer to create worlds that have elements that are drastic, overt when they appear, and bring big questions. I do not have a quota for how many female bodied leaders should be in my roleplays, but I consider what powers my ideas reflect in history and fiction and how they might've been different were a few apparent characteristics flipped -- would it really be different? I see a lot of characters who are male and white, and I know in the shared lore common today this fits the profile for a hero in most of fiction. I get that. So I want to see if anything changes when the heroes don't match up with that expectation any more.

See I agree with you that a character is interesting because of their character, not because they lack specific genitalia and rule. My way of engaging that topic is to change the common lore though. The heroes could be white males, absolutely, but the canon I personally create is apt to be more diverse with a range of populations based on the world's history and challenges. So yes, yes, a thousand times yes to what you're saying. I just choose to go about a bit differently, not thinking that reversing majorities magically changes everything, but creating a world where the lore reflects our own in substance, just not appearances.

Brovo said Historically speaking, I would play with inequality because it's... Accurate... Sure you can have a female mercenary but a lot of people are going to look on that as being bizarre, some with outright hostility. Whether or not you consider that right or wrong is irrelevant to the fact that it happened.

I think that's something that I love about the Assassin's Creed label. While I wish they'd push more boundaries, one they do well with is casting gaze upon times and cultures we don't usually talk about. Often these cultures look different than what we'd expect. Inequality is a big problem in history. Specifically, in the histories certain countries we tend focus on more. Power dynamics are created by society though, and the -isms are social constructs. That means certain societies may have inequality, to many of us meaning women, people of colour, and non-hetero individuals have are usually undervalued. Other societies may have inequality that looks very different, perhaps even the opposite of all that. I do enjoy stories that remind us that history is more complex than white people being the age-old oppressors despite borders and passing millennia. Inequality has formed favouring different groups, including the overvaluing of women rather than men, and some cultures even placed women as the dominant hunters as we've placed men. So, historically is a weird term. The Minoan cultures are believed to have been a matriarchal society with the suggestion women were seen in a way we see men. Other cultures have done this too. That's also history, perhaps centuries of it, but we're not approaching all this from the perspective that could be solid belief.

So when I say I'd play with inequality to stimulate questions, that's what I mean. I should've spoken more about that before. We really approach all this from a small perspective amplified some by books and studies and cultural teachings. Our experiences too, all that's valid, but we really need also consider that history does hold more than we have as of now -- personally, I mean, but also as a world. We keep focusing on certain aspects of history and it's like we just expect the whole world was like medieval times in Northern Europe. Inequality can mean different things and I think recognizing it when it doesn't look so obvious, especially through roleplay, teaches us and actually creates a more creative story.

Brovo said
Out of curiosity, how does it expose a new perspective, what perspective would that be? I do like a good read so I hope you wouldn't mind indulging my curiosity.

The story is something I've been working with off and on for years. That may sound silly, but I've been careful to obtain as much perspective as I can around the time and the topic. I'd like to avoid specifics in a general forum, but I'd be happy to share with you the premise through PM. I'm not sure it'd be good form to air out an idea I've put so much into, and will continue to, on an easily searchable forum -- not that's probably worth stealing.

Very generally, the perspective is that of a young mixed boy living in a time and setting where racism exists as we think of it now, as well as in a form that recognizes more than visible extremes of colour. The story covers a lifetime, well, and more, and includes the ways we change in our perception of the world, morality, and sexuality. I'd like to engage with topics surrounding gender-queer individuals in times where we presume such was not a topic. The character's race will be a factor, but considering the time and situation not one that takes over the story. That said, so far, I have not ignored the life of one who cannot hide their characteristics in a world where certain characteristics are worthy of harsh repercussions. As a whole, the story actually surroundings a series of events this character witnesses, but the events reflect a greater problem building in teh world. As they grow up their recognition of the bigger problems grows too, so the story expands from personal experiences and anguish to a greater, loftier issue that reflects those of today. All this is very vague, and I know it might not be super helpful, but I would be happy to share with you a premise that doesn't describe just about every action/adventure story ;).

Brovo said
Changing the gender order against what our ancestors did as a result of sexual dimorphism would be a sweeping change to the state of the planet. It's often why stories which want to empower women in a medieval setting adventure to a fantasy land, like Game of Thrones, or Lord of the Rings.

That's sort of a slippery slope, right? Change one king to a queen and suddenly the entire state of the planet changed. At some point or another I'm certain a king died and, in that time, a queen was at least a figure-head ruler until a male heir or some other solution came around. And no, this is not a request for specific examples suggesting such thing unthinkable. Gender order is established in a certain form by certain societies. In those societies Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings pull most from, absolutely, changing the gender order would be pretty drastic. But what happens when say 'oh hey, what about those societies or those mythos that actually set the same expectations? What happens when suddenly we choose to focus on a time in history that defies what we've grown to expect and use that as a springboard for a roleplay or narrative. Or, even better, what happens when we use a time and an event we know largely from one perspective and find sources from the other, perhaps the society that was nearly wiped out, and use their perspective and order to build a story from. Absolutely, gender order was probably similar in many areas, but it wasn't everywhere, and it wasn't always exactly the same. So it's not ground-breaking, and absolutely not history-breaking, to highlight parts of history that have wonderful story potential, and happen to not follow the gender order we see as historically common.

Again, I agree with you, I just think it's maybe more valuable to use stories and histories that are just as valid to introduce ideas that are relevant to today.

ShonHarris said I see what you mean and would agree if history weren't recorded by humanity.

"History is merely the chronicling of events based on the perspectives of those who lived within those times and what physical evidence remains of it all.



Perspectives are verified to physical evidence left behind. Fields like Archeology contribute to this immensely. There are some assumptions made based on quality of character, such as when Alexander the Great or Caesar makes a claim about a conquest, and it's verified by several other sources of the times, it probably happened. This is why the Bible isn't considered historical literature: Many of the events contained within have no physical evidence, or worse still, contradictory evidence, such as the Egyptians recording no great flood, pestilence, frogs, mass first child deaths, or even a mass slave escape by Jewish peoples.

History isn't perfect, but it's as close to it as we can make it, and is constantly edited and repaired as more information is discovered about our pasts. Ergo why Archeology is a science.

If anything, history reveals nobody is particularly squeaky clean. Nobody.

ShonHarris said As an idea history should not have failings, as it should be an objective account of what happened. However, history is recorded and in a sense sculpted by people, each group, and within reach group each individual holding their subjective wants and passions. History is absolutely chronicling of events based on the perspectives of those who lived, but if those who lived held a perspective not actually the truest account -- just the only surviving one-- then really history is an attempt at objectivity that can be bought and manipulated by influence. Physical evidence is also a great way of finding objective truth, but many peoples have destroyed any remnants or accounts of their enemies, either leaving gaps or placing false histories.

I don't hear about placing false histories. Ancient peoples didn't tend to care for such things. They just cared to have the land, slaves, and less enemies.

ShonHarris said So, I would say that history should be a like science in that it should be objective, but history has really proven that there is often more to it than what's visible at the surface -- ironically, history shining light on history.

That's what history does though. Because history is based in the sciences. Science changes opinions on things when new evidence is revealed about it. That's literally how it works. Honestly. :-3

ShonHarris said All that just to say, I agree with you abstractly, but in reality, I would say history have failings in relation to the people and peoples it describes.

... Generally, yes? History's goal isn't to identify the true nature of people as that task is impossible even now save to perhaps psychologists. It's to identify the best truth we can. Stuff like Joan de Arc's witch trials. We have her word and the church's word. One truth and the other truth. History's job is to do the best it can in representing what the truth of it all was. It's not perfect because information is missing and some information is misleading, and that's how it works... But then, history often provides different versions of the same tale or conflict for everyone to read. Mein Kampf is for sale after all.

ShonHarris said We look with a modern eye and I don't think it's necessary to remove judgement of our predecessors simply because we're born later.

Except yes it is. They literally didn't know better. This is like being condescending to a child because they aren't born knowing calculus and Shakespeare. Well, older peoples weren't born knowing what we know about genders and the sciences and social revolutions. There was no feminism as we know it, no social justice, most of the time there wasn't even the shrewdest sense of equality but plenty of people who felt righteous and indignant towards those around them. That was all they knew. To them, the world was flat, God was real (to the point of killing anyone who disagreed or decrying them as insane), there was no sovereign rights of a country that couldn't easily be annihilated even against first world powers with sufficient Cassus Belli, the diplomatic consequences of war were often totally irrelevant in the eyes of the rest of the world powers, world powers constantly shifted in strength...

It was a chaotic time. To judge our ancestors for what we know now is to damn the ignorant for their lack of knowledge... In doing so, we are jackasses laughing at our reflection in the mirror, as we'll be mocked soon enough by our descendents for how backwards we were.

We can learn from them only if we first accept them for what they were. Primitive, and living in terrifying times.

ShonHarris said I know! Besides the imaginative worlds and evolving plots, that's another thing I enjoy about your roleplays.

The only way to learn from the past is to explore it in all of its beauty, and all its flaws. That is the only way to further illuminate the wall.

ShonHarris said I agree with you and see how my lack of elaboration could be misconstrued. I did not mean suggest that male dominance would be solved by simple exchange, resulting in female dominance. What I meant to say, is that media representation already favours a specific group of people based on a specific set of characteristics.

They're what the industry calls the FOTM, or flavour of the month. Things come and go as society changes and people grow weary of old archetypes and want to see new ones. ex: Disney princesses used to be portrayed along the lines of Sleeping Beauty--something to be won, a damsel in distress in every traditional way. Now they're more like Mulan or Merida, strong women who take charge of situations and move forward, or like Tiana, someone who is deliberately non-white in a traditionally white-dominated role (princess).

Even in ye olde times, the idea of what should and shouldn't be portrayed in the media, what was and wasn't popular, changed as society did and people's tastes did. This ranges wildly, from a True Roman to a Powerful Celtic Warrior, to an honour-bound knight, and onwards through to a gentleman with a pistol and a learned mind. A war hero, a medic, a healer, the rise of the anti-hero to surpass their traditional cousin of the ideology hero, and so on.

Hell, even in The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones we have examples of non-whites getting clear character development, and women in powerful roles such as knights. Battlestar Galactica featured Starbuck (albeit not the best example imho), and so on.

Expect more as time passes. It's very much a generational thing, just like hair or clothing styles.

That being said, there's no reason to exclude traditional or FOTM choices. They only service to enrich the tool box. One can even use them to validate new forms: Having a party which contains the traditional mentor, the middle aged war veteran, with some younger woman or otherwise who becomes a fighter over the course of the story... Kind of like boxing. This also tends to be the more accepted and believable method of portraying a world: Because that's the world we live in today.

I'm not trying to say that your way is wrong, just that there are other ways to do it that might get better results. :-3

ShonHarris said The roleplays I take part in and create are media, though not that broadcasted compared to film or published literature. Because of this I constantly try to flip our expectations to create questions. I recognize that creating a world that reflects history is safe as it abides by our records -- not fault on me, logically. I recognize that creating a world where things are pretty balanced tempts a few questions and gets things flowing -- bit riskier, but I'm not exposing myself to get those questions. Finally, I recognize and prefer to create worlds that have elements that are drastic, overt when they appear, and bring big questions. I do not have a quota for how many female bodied leaders should be in my roleplays, but I consider what powers my ideas reflect in history and fiction and how they might've been different were a few apparent characteristics flipped -- would it really be different?

It... Actually is very different even simply flipping the gender on a historical piece. There are reasons why Elizabeth and Isabella are known as remarkable women, and why that's one of their most memorable traits. According to biology, men have more testosterone. Testosterone inspires aggression. Men also evolved to be more disposable than their female counterparts: A few men with several women can continue the species, or tribe. Several men with few women is a species-ending event, or at least a death knell to the tribe. Ergo men, with their increased aggression, developed a need to prove themselves worthy. To gain power, respect, adulation, and so on. Women became the caretakers because they were the ones who had to carry children within them, and being wired to be less aggressive, tended to be better suited to be caregivers.

Entire societies and cultures built up around this biologically wired tendency.

So yes, to change just the gender alone in a historically based piece is enough to destabilize all of history. Because it goes against our instincts that our primitive ancestors depended on. It's also why a lot of conservatives tend to resist change: It goes against every intrinsic feeling they have.

It's a very difficult topic to appropriately broach and explore, especially if one wants to do it realistically, which is another reason why a lot of people tend to go to fantasy. It's an easier method to explore such topics without making something unbelievable out of it. Because once you break suspension of disbelief, it's over, your audience is gone.

ShonHarris said I see a lot of characters who are male and white, and I know in the shared lore common today this fits the profile for a hero in most of fiction. I get that.

And that sucks, but it's changing, slowly. When generation Y takes the helm of the film industry expect to see a lot more LGBT and female empowerment characters, as well as some minorities getting more spotlights. Another generation after that and things should ideally stabilize quite nicely, but I still encourage you to definitely continue what you're doing. "Wait, Brovo, didn't you just say--" yes, that the traditional archetypes shouldn't be taken out back and shot just because they're usually white and male, but that's no reason to not make a Hispanic heroine, or a black captain, or a so on and so forth. The more of these appear, the better, until things stabilize. (Note: Equalizing doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, perfect-- a 60/40 split that flips on its head from time to time would be perfect for FOTM reasons and will likely be what ultimately happens given enough generational change.)

ShonHarris said So I want to see if anything changes when the heroes don't match up with that expectation any more.

It changes as much as the author and audience wish it to. The magic of fiction is that the words will always reflect what you will them to. I can think of no better example than comic books and their evolution through the decades. The golden, silver, and bronze age of comics each showed entirely different flavours of the exact same characters, right from their origins to their potential endings. Batman had a corny 60's TV show, which contrasts heavily against the new film series that puts him through a lot more pain and depicts him in a more human light, entirely destroying the corniness that the 60's show had, and that's honestly probably the worst example I can think of.

ShonHarris said See I agree with you that a character is interesting because of their character, not because they lack specific genitalia and rule. My way of engaging that topic is to change the common lore though. The heroes could be white males, absolutely, but the canon I personally create is apt to be more diverse with a range of populations based on the world's history and challenges. So yes, yes, a thousand times yes to what you're saying. I just choose to go about a bit differently, not thinking that reversing majorities magically changes everything, but creating a world where the lore reflects our own in substance, just not appearances. I think that's something that I love about the Assassin's Creed label.

Footnote: Assassin's Creed is probably not the best example of racial diversity in gaming, but then, Battlestar Galactica's Starbuck is not the best example of a strong female character, so yeah, I get what you're saying.

ShonHarris said While I wish they'd push more boundaries, one they do well with is casting gaze upon times and cultures we don't usually talk about. Often these cultures look different than what we'd expect.

They also butcher history for the sake of entertainment value. Again, not the best example, but I get what you're going for.

ShonHarris said Inequality is a big problem in history.

Inequality is a core part of the history of our species. Whether that be racial, sexual, financial, or otherwise.

ShonHarris said Specifically, in the histories certain countries we tend focus on more.

Certain countries get more focus because certain countries held more weight in the world and certain countries have more people who can actively consume the products produced by writers and others of the like. You see a lot of stories focused around the United States for example, or the perspective of your traditional white hero from the USA, because for a long time (read: decades) the USA was (and still is) a powerhouse economically speaking and in the way it affected history, especially recent history. The GDP of the United States alone is only surpassed by the entirety of the European Union, and even then, not by much. That speaks volumes about it, leave alone the fact that it's the birthplace of what we consider modern cinema and entertainment to be. (ex: Hollywood & significant portions of the film industry, music labels, entire genres of music, and so on.)

Ergo, it's not too surprising that most stories tend to be from a USA-centric standpoint, and emphasize points that the US culture deems integral or important, like freedom, civil disobedience, loyalty, patriotism, firepower, and so on. These stories had an effect within the United States' sphere of influence during the Cold War while most first world nations were rebuilding from the aftermath of World War 2, which in turn affected their cultures and start-up local industries which aped the successes of American cinema.

It's only been recently that other countries have even really gotten anywhere near a fair share of the spotlight because it's only been recently that Globalization and the Internet has finally had its effect of blurring national boundaries. (Even then, I have to admit that I'm getting tired of shit like the latest Call of Duty game making a villainous threat out of South America... Really? South America? That's where we're gonna go now to make mook villains Activision? Brilliant.) There's also the fact that the world has a mind numbing amount more people than it has ever had before and gained those people at a very dramatic pace over the last 60-ish years of our 200,000 years of history as a species. With more people comes more voices in a louder chorus which cannot be ignored from a much greater number of identified cultures and social groups.

ShonHarris said Power dynamics are created by society though, and the -isms are social constructs. That means certain societies may have inequality, to many of us meaning women, people of colour, and non-hetero individuals have are usually undervalued.

Because by mostly random chance...
#1: Europe historically outperformed its "competitor continents" by constantly molesting itself with wars that it needed to think of better ways to defeat itself with. Europe happens to be filled with mostly white people, and being primitive with the total lack of understanding about biology, while they recognized other coloured peoples as being humans, they weren't the same in appearance. Which they used as a justification naturally because we humans are really good at making life miserable for ourselves.

#2: Men has testosterone and are more disposable biologically than women. Ergo development of the culture that men had to prove themselves worthy of power, women had to be care takers because they were too valuable to lose, as cold as that is to say. Totally irrelevant now, but still holds to the foundation upon which our culture came, and such instincts do still exist within us.

#3: As above with the babies: Homosexuals do not reproduce. This is bad for a tribe. Also as above with people of colour: Fantastic dehumanization tactics employed by twisted bastards who needed scapegoats, mostly the religious surprisingly, as the Greeks had no problems with it. (Though the Romans did.) I haven't done enough research to confirm that though. Take it with a grain of salt.

Most power dynamics nowadays are societal based though, definitely.

ShonHarris said Other societies may have inequality that looks very different, perhaps even the opposite of all that. I do enjoy stories that remind us that history is more complex than white people being the age-old oppressors despite borders and passing millennia.

Well, another big problem that just came to mind: Most of the Americas (perhaps all of them) do not have written histories. They never invented writing. Ergo the only side of history we have is verbal accounts written by white men whom at the time viewed them as a lesser, savage people.

It's perhaps one of the worst parts of history to try and understand from the "people of colour" perspective. No written history. :(

So far as I'm aware, Africa has the same problem.

Asia did manage writing though, and we do actually have a lot of stories from their perspective. So nyeh. Hm.

ShonHarris said Inequality has formed favouring different groups, including the overvaluing of women rather than men, and some cultures even placed women as the dominant hunters as we've placed men. So, historically is a weird term.

A big issue with this though is a lot of history from tribal cultures that may have actually been this way are skewered with their own mythos and legend. Take the Greek example of Themiscyra. Some are convinced it was a real place. We haven't found any concrete evidence of that with archeology, though. The point being this: It's hard to define what is true about a culture if there are no archeological or written documents to truly support it. Then, even if said culture did exist, if we know very little about it, portraying it accurately is a near impossible task, as is making the public care about it. (Because we are such an egocentric society, honestly. The ethnocentrism is something that still needs to be worked on, but, generational thing, it'll probably be one of the last things to go, if it ever truly forever perishes from human society.)

ShonHarris said The Minoan cultures are believed to have been a matriarchal society with the suggestion women were seen in a way we see men. Other cultures have done this too. That's also history, perhaps centuries of it, but we're not approaching all this from the perspective that could be solid belief. So when I say I'd play with inequality to stimulate questions, that's what I mean. I should've spoken more about that before. We really approach all this from a small perspective amplified some by books and studies and cultural teachings. Our experiences too, all that's valid, but we really need also consider that history does hold more than we have as of now -- personally, I mean, but also as a world. We keep focusing on certain aspects of history and it's like we just expect the whole world was like medieval times in Northern Europe.

Because medieval Europe has a written history, detailed in a manner that few, if any, can match, and Europe ended up dominating the world in terms of culture and power for a very long time by human civilization standards. Ergo our focus upon it.

ShonHarris said Inequality can mean different things and I think recognizing it when it doesn't look so obvious, especially through roleplay, teaches us and actually creates a more creative story.

Inequality is hard to represent truly. It usually goes too far or not far enough, or portrays it in a way that always makes the character who has such views out to be evil. For every one knight that may wish to save women because he truly and sincerely believes they're fragile flowers that need to be protected and cared for (admirable but blatantly sexist), you'll have a hundred piggish knights that just want to rape and pillage "cuz' reasons". It does make stories more creative, but consistently representing it poorly one way or the other doesn't do anyone any service, leave alone those still experiencing it day to day.

ShonHarris said The story is something I've been working with off and on for years. That may sound silly, but I've been careful to obtain as much perspective as I can around the time and the topic.

That's not silly. That's actually very respectable, a thing called "research" and appreciated by all.

ShonHarris said I'd like to avoid specifics in a general forum, but I'd be happy to share with you the premise through PM. I'm not sure it'd be good form to air out an idea I've put so much into, and will continue to, on an easily searchable forum -- not that's probably worth stealing.

It's fine, I understand.

ShonHarris said Very generally, the perspective is that of a young mixed boy living in a time and setting where racism exists as we think of it now, as well as in a form that recognizes more than visible extremes of colour. The story covers a lifetime, well, and more, and includes the ways we change in our perception of the world, morality, and sexuality. I'd like to engage with topics surrounding gender-queer individuals in times where we presume such was not a topic. The character's race will be a factor, but considering the time and situation not one that takes over the story. That said, so far, I have not ignored the life of one who cannot hide their characteristics in a world where certain characteristics are worthy of harsh repercussions. As a whole, the story actually surroundings a series of events this character witnesses, but the events reflect a greater problem building in teh world. As they grow up their recognition of the bigger problems grows too, so the story expands from personal experiences and anguish to a greater, loftier issue that reflects those of today. All this is very vague, and I know it might not be super helpful, but I would be happy to share with you a premise that doesn't describe just about every action/adventure story ;).

It was helpful enough and told me all I needed to know: That it's a story featuring a minority character in a world not friendly to minorities is the brief of it.

ShonHarris said That's sort of a slippery slope, right? Change one king to a queen and suddenly the entire state of the planet changed. At some point or another I'm certain a king died and, in that time, a queen was at least a figure-head ruler until a male heir or some other solution came around.

Elizabeth and Isabella come to mind. Joan de Arc as well. I'm sure I could think of more if I gave myself more than 60 seconds. (I make it a rule of thumb that if I can't think of an example for something in 60 seconds or less that either I'm uneducated on the topic or there is a serious, critical problem I haven't noticed yet.)

ShonHarris said And no, this is not a request for specific examples suggesting such thing unthinkable.

oops.

ShonHarris said Gender order is established in a certain form by certain societies. In those societies Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings pull most from, absolutely, changing the gender order would be pretty drastic.

Actually I used GoT and LoTR as examples where the gender order did end up being defied for the sake of empowering women, and in a good way to boot.

ShonHarris said But what happens when say 'oh hey, what about societies or mythos that actually set the same expectations? What happens when suddenly we choose to focus on a time in history that defies what we've grown to expect and use as a springboard for a roleplay or narrative.

You get Pocahontas?

ShonHarris said Or, even better, what happens when we use a time and an event we know largely from one perspective and find sources from the other, perhaps the society that was nearly wiped out, and use their perspective and order to build a story from.

You mean like the Gauls? (Actually this has been happening a lot lately.)

ShonHarris said Absolutely, gender order was probably similar in many areas, but it wasn't everywhere, and it wasn't always exactly the same.

No, it wasn't, but the general rule of thumb: People write what's familiar. To most people, that is the standard gender order, the regular dichotomy we've come to know throughout human history. (Or at least the European-dominated version of it.)

ShonHarris said So it's not ground-breaking, and absolutely not history-breaking, to highlight parts of history that have wonderful story potential, and happen to not follow the gender order we see as historically common. Again, I agree with you, I just think it's maybe more valuable to use stories and histories that are just as valid to introduce ideas that are relevant to today.

Certainly, but then you have to sell it, and that's where it gets tricky...

Joytex said Where I would draw the line is that I really dislike the sterotypical fantasy warrior woman, I'm fine with the female knight being able to match the blokes blow for blow, but its breaking it for me if they're do so with the slim physique of a supermodel. I guess that is a little unfair as muscular/scarred men are generally considered attractive but I think things would get too divorced from reality otherwise.

That's usually people living out ideals or trying to make a character that gets attention (and it does work, in some cases). A lot of RP protagonists have a tendency to be young, able, and attractive.
But anyone doing that work isn't going to have a supermodel figure. If anyone is expected to be considered seriously as a notable combatant, they need to have the set up skills, experience, etc. to meet it. It's the same as expecting a long starved kid, nothing but bone and skin, to take down a bear. Unless the RP's IC has certain rules that change up what should be expected, and there are different factors in what makes a good close-range fighter/tank/etc..

In a lot of my stories there's magic, and favoring men and women equally that would remove a lot of possible discrimination. It wouldnt make much sense to use a man without magic in favor of a woman with magic, so that got them more representation in battle, which often extends to other areas.

As for chain mail bikini, I do have one character with it where it makes a lot more sense given her situation (wings and tail so she can't wear normal armor, was raised in the wild so doesn't like clothing very much), but pretty much the rest of my characters wear full armor or normal clothing in situations mostly involving magic where amor doesn't help block very well and just slows them down when they need to dodge magic instead or just use magical spells to defend themselves.

I've had this problem in doing RP's that deal with historical settings or even modern-day settings. I had one RP where I cut off the number of female characters for the RP out of considerations of realism. It doesn't come up often, but if I am doing an RP that involves a squad of modern day PMC types, which is a very male-dominated environment, I try to play true to the spirit of that, even if it means having to awkwardly explain that the characters are gender-restricted. In one specific RP, I capped off the roster at one female character and played the discomfort involved with that because it reflected a similar situation that prevails in reality. Similarly, in historical RP's, I tend to enforce the gender restriction. None of this actually reflects my personal stance, but I like to play to a sense of realism and the reality is that there is gender bias out there.

On the other hand, I'm cool with female characters pretending to be men to join the fighting as that's happened. I try to bend things to accommodate players.

I'm not sure that's a popular stance, but it's my comfort level -- if I'm doing an RP about WWII Marines in Guadalcanal, the reality is that there won't be women there. On the other hand, I try to do RP's that can accommodate female characters, like the French Resistance in WWII or the Haganah in the Arab-Israeli wars because these are groups that had women fighting on their behalf. In sci-fi environments it's easier, of course. I haven't really had this problem come up lately, but I've dealt with it by taking what I think of as an unpopular stance. On the other hand, if the right player joins up, I'll do my best to loophole it. ;)

I do a lot of historical RP, it's my favorite genre and while I can play male or female, I tend to prefer female characters. I try to keep the role historically accurate as possible, bearing in mind what culture and time period the story is set in. Currently I have a Viking age RP going and my main female character is strong, fiery and tough but she's no raider, nor does she walk around in armor. She use a spear to defend her home and children but is not an active warrior. Her strength lies in her cunning and character, the support she gives her husband who is a warrior and not in her own sword arm. It does not make her boring to play, in fact it's more entertaining because she does have limitations and working around those allows for more creativity than just striking it with an axe.

I don't see a problem with stretching it in a historical fantasy type RP, because it is fantasy. It would depend on the GM's rules and what the world lore allows.

As for gender ratio, it all depends on the circumstances. I like a realistic ratio, if its a war situation, there will be more men than women unless you're on the homefront where it is likely to be the opposite.

With historical RP, I simply suggest doing research into the gender roles of the society you wish to emulate.

As for fantasy, I say do whatever. I mean, I kind of doubt any kind of feudalistic society with hereditary rule would be devoid of sexism, but it's not theoretically impossible. After all, Ancient Egypt had a few female pharoahs.

I don't usually write very low-tech worlds (I do like anachronistic worlds, though. Have like, a revolutionary era America sandwiched between ancient Rome and feudal Japan), so the societies I write are generally slightly above sexism, and when I do write a sexist society, I usually prefer to write matriarchal societies based off of insect colonies.