Of female characters in RPG's

[Cael]

Pun Pun says you are too late.

It's a kobold. By the time it gets to a level of competence the orc has already had him for dinner and second dinner.

Umm... Pun Pun goes off at level 1. Basically the instant you start the game, he is already having Bane for breakfast.

Ah well. Any idiot eating a spell scroll for breakfast is no threat.

Well, it IS a kobold...

 

[Arbiter]

french isn't a real language, stop lying

Someone named Rust(y) is clearly a language expert.

 

[Nazrim Eldrak]

As for the "warrior woman" tomb that was mentioned earlier, that could be many things.

Possibly, but look at this probability chart. It compares my thought process about what historians say to a random guy's opinion.

Interesting...

You have to prove me that the historians are wrong on this one.

Apart from that I love fantasy games where a woman can be a fighter and thus be part of my party. And she should be tough, otherwise she's useless.

 

[Camel]

Sure, Soviets did the same thing. If my memory serves, half of the AA guns in Stalingrad had women's crew. But I never heard about German women made into soldiers, while there are some examples of Soviet women in the army

AA operators are still combatants that can die in combat, just like regular artillery crews.

Infantry commanders loved using AA guns against enemy tanks thanks to their long barrels which provide high velocity for AP shells and high accuracy. Acht-acht 88mm flak cannon is famous more for being anti-tank gun rather than flak.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

As you said: A male warrior is like many others.

Bit of a superficial reduction innit?

 

[Cael]

As you said: A male warrior is like many others.

Bit of a superficial reduction innit?

If the shoe fits... :D

 

[Lord_Potato]

Some contemporary revisionist historians believe that shields maidens did in fact exist.

FTFY.

Female Soviet snipers did exist, so why not shield maidens in less civilized times?

Lighter equipment. And it's easier to fire a sniper rifle than to attack enemy with spear and shield, overcome his defense and slay him.

Besides, despite what movies tell you vikings fought methodically. Usually they formed a shieldwall in which they protected each other's flanks. If shieldwall broke,they were as good as dead. Well, due to lower strength and endurance a woman would be a natural weak link in the shieldwall and the best place to tear it apart.

 

[NecroLord]

Yeah women do have their uses.
They can help relieve stress overnight.

 

[Brancaleone]

'Cattivo' in the modern sense comes from a specific expression, captivus diaboli ("prisoner of Satan"), and it means straight up "evil/bad/of bad quality". By itself, the older meaning is closer to 'wretched/worthless'. And the other occurrence of cativo in Fiore is lassa la sua daga cativa e vole la tua bona, so literally "he leaves his useless dagger and wants your good one".

The three guys seem to be looking for renown (i.e., that one of them would become the guy who wounded/defeated the master) and they are the ones talking, and trying to pump themselves up, while at the same time knowing deep inside that they are taking a big risk (which would explain the shift from 'it will be a miracle if he gets away alive' to 'may God make him miserable'). First thing the master does, is dashing their artificial confidence: they are 1) inferior fencing material and 2) have very little knowledge. Then he appears to be goading them into either giving up ("come who knows or can", i.e., since you deep down you ) or to prove they actually have some skill by attacking him one at a time (a uno a uno). Which is why he then says that even if they were one hundred, he would still not take a single wound: i.e., his guard would block any kind of technique (point, edge, throwing). It is true that he subsequently uses the plural (e cum quelo passar io me covro rebatendo le spade, ve trovo discoverti, e de ferire ve faro certi), but it is also a forced choice, sintactically speaking, in order not to make the period a nightmare, and it does not necessarily mean that he's referring to the three attacking him at the same time (which would make the 'one hundred' reference a ridiculous boasting, in case they were meant to attack all at once, and would also defeat the 'prove me wrong about you not having any skill by attacking me one at a time'). I have the impression that the episode is more about "no matter what technique is used, either lunging, slashing or throwing, I won't be wounded" rather than "no matter the number of attackers I will fuck them all up".

Firstly, I appreciate the nuanced response.

Some contentions: Fiore saying they're inferior fencing material and then that they have very little knowledge, seems sort of redundant if he's talking purely in terms of material quality, rather than material and moral, since it's because of their lack of knowledge that they're inferior fencing material. He tells them to "come at me bro" one by one, which doesn't necessarily mean they're going to sit tight and wait their turn rather than just trickling in at him in fairly rapid succession. All three defensive actions that Fiore performs could span the course of a minute or so, if these guys are as trash as he says. With regard to his boast about taking on 100, I thought that part was just him talking mad shit. Three at once I'd consider the limit, and even then the defender will probably receive mortal wounds (unless he really is a master).

But mostly I look at the art and the main issue I have is that if this is indeed just about "no matter the technique used, I'll beat it with my own technique" there's already dozens of other images depicting 1v1 fighting in the manuscripts. The same guard could be conveyed in any of those rather than a random pic of a "3v1 kinda, sorta, not really." Splitting those images up, few that they are, would not have broken the page space bank, so I choose to assume that these are examples of him implying he can go up against multiple foes when pressed.

Anyway, this is way off in the weeds now. If I'm wrong about what I'm seeing in Fiore, mea culpa, however he is not the only source that we could use. A German source MS 3227a (Other Masters Section) apparently talks at length about fighting 4-6 peasants from the Iron Gate guard. The translation is by Hans Stoeppler. Full transcript here, keyword search for Iron Gate. It should be noted that previous advice in the manuscript tells you to exercise prudence and avoid doing it, but regardless it exists as an addendum.

Whoever wrote this paragraph (be it Fiore himself, or a specialist being given instructions by Fiore, or whatever) had some studies under his belt, since it is actually pretty decently constructed, rethorically speaking. Being bad and having little knowledge refer to two different aspects, and it's actually mirrored in the following sentence, when he says "let come, one at a time, whoever knows how to do [it] and can [do it]". But they have little knowledge, i.e. they do not know, and they are low quality, i.e. they cannot. All this I don't take to be indicative of the threat represented by the three, rather as a morale-sapping technique by the master (and to ensure that they will focus on proving their skill, i.e. attacking one at a time, a uno a uno).

It is a three against one, the question is: is it a three vs one at the same time, or a semi-honourable three against one in sequence? Beating [a large number of] opponents in quick sequence is actually a mighty feat in several martial arts, so it wouldn't detract from the master's boasting, or from the challenge presented by the three. So the main thing would be: what are the three after? If they just want the master dead no matter what (but they say they want to wound him), of course they would attack at the same time. Which would also make their announcement of the various techniques pointless (just surround and lounge roughly at the same time), and undermine most of the master's subsequent psychological war. But if they are after renown and/or measuring their skill, the rest of the paragraph works much better (rethorically speaking).

There's an interesting bit in the last sentence of the paragraph, which appears to get lost in all of the translations: e pur cum spada a una man faro mia arte is actually closer to "and I will make my art even with a one-handed sword", in the sense of "even though I only have a one-handed sword". But here as well: does he mean that a one-handed sword is not the best weapon against three opponents attacking at the same time, or it's simply not the best defensive weapon for a rapid sequence of fights where the main goal is to come out of it unscathed?

I'm not saying there's a definitive answer: what makes me inclined to believe it refers to a three vs one in (rapid) sequence is the fact that the following text doesn't seem to mention techniques that would be specific against more than one opponent, or stress out the need to engage as quickly as possible and taking no risks, or to change position constantly, or to use the environment in order not to get surrounded, or how to make the opponents hinder each other, and so on. I quickly skimmed the Iron Gate passage (I cannot say in the least if it's properly translated or not, I don't know a word of even modern German), and it seems to touch most of these points (he even advises to do an Horatii vs Curiatii with no shame at all): overall, it seems quite a different scenario. And it's against peasants armed with who knows what, while here, regardless of the master's psy-op, we are talking about three guys who are properly armed and who know how to use swords (if we translate zugadore as "one who knows sword-techniques").

 

[Sarathiour]

Enguerrand de Monstrelet (d.1453), governor of Cambrai

"At length the English gained on them so much, and were so close, that excepting the front line, and such as had shortened their lances, the enemy could not raise their hands against them. The division under sir Clugnet de Brabant, of eight hundred men-at-arms, who were intended to break through the English archers, were reduced to seven score, who vainly attempted it. True it is, that sir William de Saveuses, who had been also ordered on this service, quitted his troop, thinking they would follow him, to attack the English, but he was shot dead from off his horse."

Et fut vérité que messire Guillaume de Saveuses qui estoit ordonné de cheval avecqnes les autres , se des- renga tout seul devant ses compaignons à cheval , cuidant que iceulx le deussent suivir, et ala frapper dedenslesdiz Anglois. Et là incontinent fut tiré jus de son cheval et mis à mort.

You're using an inaccurate translation and therefore are producing an incorrect conclusion. Sir William de Saveuse was riding alone, and then was pulled down from his horse, and put to death once on the ground.

 

[motherfucker]

To this day, I have no idea why D&D insists on keeping it dexterity-based.

I don't remember which game did this(it has to be reasonably recent, like mid-90s and newer), but basically it had both, smaller bows scaled with dex and had fire rate, and large bows + crossbows scaled with str and had high alpha damage

 

[Alex]

To this day, I have no idea why D&D insists on keeping it dexterity-based.

I don't remember which game did this(it has to be reasonably recent, like mid-90s and newer), but basically it had both, smaller bows scaled with dex and had fire rate, and large bows + crossbows scaled with str and had high alpha damage

Sorry, I don't know what game you are talking about. But I think it should be pointed out that in AD&D 2e, dexterity only affected the chance to hit with bows. Strength wouldn't affect damage by default, unless the bow was specifically designed to be used by someone stronger. In that case, you could apply the strength bonus that the bow was made to handle, but it wouldn't be usable by someone weaker.

 

[Brancaleone]

Similar case with shield maidens; there is some evidence of shield maidens existing, therefore there must have been shield maidens everywhere. Instead of, you know, them being exceptionally gifted women when it came to fighting or simply charged with protecting the clan while the men were off raiding.

There's not one single recorded instance of a shield maiden going on out to fight or part of any organized fighting force. The "shield maiden" is a myth brought on by the rare instance of women having to fight to defend while the men were indisposed (either out raiding or whatever). Usually those women would get creamed too.

As for the "warrior woman" tomb that was mentioned earlier, that could be many things. It could have been a woman who died defending her home, or it could have been a woman who was raped and murdered. The woman would have been buried with her murderer's things (after said murderer was dealt with painfully). Or she could have been buried with the weapons/armor of her brother/father if they died out at sea. Point is there's a shitton of reasons a woman could be found buried with weapons and armor in viking culture, and none of them were "warrior woman".

If I'm wrong, I'm open to such things. Find me a recorded instance of a warrior woman in viking culture and I'll step back on this. Lord knows I've never found one :/

https://www.foxnews.com/science/fem...able-grave-sheds-new-light-on-ancient-society

Do you live in the Scandinavian countries? How much do you know about Viking tradition and culture

To quote from the link

" The experts also reiterated the woman’s warrior status. “In our opinion, Bj.581 was the grave of a woman who lived as a professional warrior and was buried in a martial environment as an individual of rank,” they wrote. “To those who do take issue, however, we suggest that it is not supportable to react only now, when the individual has been shown to be female, without explaining why neither the warrior interpretations nor any supposed source-critical factors were a problem when the person in Bj.581 was believed to be male.”

So no one questioned the legitimacy of this being a Viking warrior until it was revealed she was a women. It seems desperate dont you think? She was a warrior and like many other warriors she was buried in the traditional way?

I fail to see anything that demonstrates that the occupant of the tomb "lived as a professional warrior" (a professional one, no less!). The dumb argument "they had no problem when they tought it was a male" misses the nuance between warrior as a class and warrior as a job (whatever they mean with that). It's a tomb with a high-ranking warrior panoply, so it was taken as the tomb of a man whose status was that of a high-ranking warrior, end of the story. I seriously doubt that they went claiming that it was a male high-status warrior "who lived as a professional warrior, this tomb allowed us to reconstruct his entire career, we swear!".

Did anyone bother to measure the skeleton-hand in relation to the sword grip? The so called 'Viking-sword' was meant to have a really constrictive grip, and from what I see the hand of the skeleton is much smaller than the sword grip. A 'professional' would most likely have a sword tailored to his/her hand.

If the axe-head is from a two-handed axe (it looks like, although some bits are missing), it poses another set of problems. A Danish axe required strength and endurance, and it meant forfeiting the shield, i.e., you cannot fight in shield-formation (you also need more space for swinging), and therefore you require heavier armour (you also become the perfect target for arrows). Of the Viking panoply, it's the last weapon you'd give a woman, and you'd give it instead to a big slab of a man with strength and endurance to swing a lot (the axe is also your defensive weapon), to wear heavy armour, and possibly to shrug off the occasional wound. Plus, his role would likely be that of shock-trooper. If on the other hand the axe-head is only indicative of status and was not actually used by the buried woman, the same can apply to the rest of the weapons.

 

[Mauman]

Similar case with shield maidens; there is some evidence of shield maidens existing, therefore there must have been shield maidens everywhere. Instead of, you know, them being exceptionally gifted women when it came to fighting or simply charged with protecting the clan while the men were off raiding.

There's not one single recorded instance of a shield maiden going on out to fight or part of any organized fighting force. The "shield maiden" is a myth brought on by the rare instance of women having to fight to defend while the men were indisposed (either out raiding or whatever). Usually those women would get creamed too.

As for the "warrior woman" tomb that was mentioned earlier, that could be many things. It could have been a woman who died defending her home, or it could have been a woman who was raped and murdered. The woman would have been buried with her murderer's things (after said murderer was dealt with painfully). Or she could have been buried with the weapons/armor of her brother/father if they died out at sea. Point is there's a shitton of reasons a woman could be found buried with weapons and armor in viking culture, and none of them were "warrior woman".

If I'm wrong, I'm open to such things. Find me a recorded instance of a warrior woman in viking culture and I'll step back on this. Lord knows I've never found one :/

https://www.foxnews.com/science/fem...able-grave-sheds-new-light-on-ancient-society

Do you live in the Scandinavian countries? How much do you know about Viking tradition and culture

To quote from the link

" The experts also reiterated the woman’s warrior status. “In our opinion, Bj.581 was the grave of a woman who lived as a professional warrior and was buried in a martial environment as an individual of rank,” they wrote. “To those who do take issue, however, we suggest that it is not supportable to react only now, when the individual has been shown to be female, without explaining why neither the warrior interpretations nor any supposed source-critical factors were a problem when the person in Bj.581 was believed to be male.”

So no one questioned the legitimacy of this being a Viking warrior until it was revealed she was a women. It seems desperate dont you think? She was a warrior and like many other warriors she was buried in the traditional way?

If I rolled my eyes any harder they'd fall out of my head.

Let me put this into the simplest terms I can so you get it.

I....don't give....a shit....about burial mounds/tombs. Like I said, there's a bunch of different reasons a woman could have been buried like that.

SHOW ME A RECORD OF ONE GOING ON A RAID OR FIGHTING IN SOME SORT OF ARMY.

It's that simple.

Oh, and while I don't live in Scandanavian countries, my ancestors came from there.

Also, I don't give a shit if a woman was a viking warrior or not. I've simply seen no recorded evidence that there ever was one.

 

[Cael]

Similar case with shield maidens; there is some evidence of shield maidens existing, therefore there must have been shield maidens everywhere. Instead of, you know, them being exceptionally gifted women when it came to fighting or simply charged with protecting the clan while the men were off raiding.

There's not one single recorded instance of a shield maiden going on out to fight or part of any organized fighting force. The "shield maiden" is a myth brought on by the rare instance of women having to fight to defend while the men were indisposed (either out raiding or whatever). Usually those women would get creamed too.

As for the "warrior woman" tomb that was mentioned earlier, that could be many things. It could have been a woman who died defending her home, or it could have been a woman who was raped and murdered. The woman would have been buried with her murderer's things (after said murderer was dealt with painfully). Or she could have been buried with the weapons/armor of her brother/father if they died out at sea. Point is there's a shitton of reasons a woman could be found buried with weapons and armor in viking culture, and none of them were "warrior woman".

If I'm wrong, I'm open to such things. Find me a recorded instance of a warrior woman in viking culture and I'll step back on this. Lord knows I've never found one :/

https://www.foxnews.com/science/fem...able-grave-sheds-new-light-on-ancient-society

Do you live in the Scandinavian countries? How much do you know about Viking tradition and culture

To quote from the link

" The experts also reiterated the woman’s warrior status. “In our opinion, Bj.581 was the grave of a woman who lived as a professional warrior and was buried in a martial environment as an individual of rank,” they wrote. “To those who do take issue, however, we suggest that it is not supportable to react only now, when the individual has been shown to be female, without explaining why neither the warrior interpretations nor any supposed source-critical factors were a problem when the person in Bj.581 was believed to be male.”

So no one questioned the legitimacy of this being a Viking warrior until it was revealed she was a women. It seems desperate dont you think? She was a warrior and like many other warriors she was buried in the traditional way?

I fail to see anything that demonstrates that the occupant of the tomb "lived as a professional warrior" (a professional one, even). The dumb argument "they had no problem when they tought it was a male" fails to understand the nuance between warrior as a class and warrior as a job (whatever they mean with that). It's a tomb with a high-ranking warrior panoply, so it was taken as the tomb of a man whose status was that of a high-ranking warrior, end of the story. I seriously doubt that they went claiming that it was a male high-status warrior "who lived as a professional warrior, this tomb allowed us to reconstruct his entire career, we swear!".

Did anyone bother to measure the skeleton-hand in relation to the sword grip? The so called 'Viking-sword' was meant to have a really constrictive grip, and from what I see the hand of the skeleton is much smaller than the sword grip. A 'professional' would most likely have a sword tailored to his/her hand.

If the axe-head is from a two-handed axe (it looks like, although some bits are missing), it poses another set of problems. A Danish axe required strength and endurance, and it meant forfeiting the shield, i.e., you cannot fight in formation (you also need more space for swinging), and therefore you require heavier armour (you become the perfect target for arrows). Of the Viking panoply, it's the last weapon you'd give a woman, and you'd give it instead to a big slab of a man with strength and endurance to swing a lot (the axe is also your defensive weapon), to wear heavy armour, and possibly to shrug off the occasional wound. Plus, his role would likely be that of shock-trooper. If on the other hand the axe-head is only indicative of status and was not actually used by the buried woman, the same can apply to the rest of the weapons.

You are asking people who peddle feeling and faith using totalitarian tactics to think logically and value truth. You are being naive. They are not interested in the truth. They are interested only in what advances their sick agenda.

 

[Krice]

I see female characters as a possiblity, not a threat. They can be used to make the RPG experience "wider" (in lack of a better term) in that you can create character classes that focus on different ways of playing. Also I see female characters as playing "hard" mode, because that's what character classes should be, some of them should be easier and others harder. Trying to balance them can make the game a bit boring.

 

[dumbuglyorc]

Long story short,I wouldn't want to fight alongside a woman in a unit full of men. There can be a real brotherhood in a unit,you watch your comrade's back,train alongside them,eat with them and so on. But here comes a whamen disrupting the whole brotherhood.

By the gods! Serpent ruining a perfect homosexual paradise! The horror! The horror!

 

[KogaClaws]

So, is this thread is going to be about games again, or just boring history now?

Anyways, for me, Drakensang portrayed females best in games I've played in recent memory. Just do what Drakensang did.

 

[Semiurge]

The term "female warrior" is a product of absolute fantasy, and ironically fantasy is probably the place where it should remain. Calling women "warriors" is an insult to all the fighting men who've bled and died throughout the history.

A "warrior" could be considered an insult, but what about "female warrior"? It implies that the female in question has risen well above her station physically as well as socially by breaking expectations. You can't imagine how much work it takes for a woman to become muscular, and even still, most of the muscle is just for show - they're still much weaker than they look. If some noodle-armed nerd who never lifted weights can beat a buff female marine in arm wrestling, then yes. I don't actually know if that is generally true, but I'm willing to bet it is.

I agree that saying an 8 year old boy is stronger than all grown women besides the ones on steroids is untrue but im not sure why so many dexers here are so triggered.

Fine, I may have been a bit off with that - let's call it a 10-12 year old boy then. A prepubescent.

Watch the survivor isle of all men on one isle and all women on the other. The bitches fucked up so bad.

You were being sarcastic, surely? You can't seriously expect those sub-90 IQ thots who've never had survivor training to beat those body building men who mostly have?

If those teams were evenly matched, no one would watch the show because there'd be no eye candy or drama for anyone.

 

[octavius]

So, is this thread is going to be about games again,

There are more important things than games.

Don't be like these guys

 

[NecroLord]

What was that quote...
I can't remember...
Something along the lines of "if the world would be ruled by women,we would still live in huts made of mud".

 

[Dadd]

There's nothing wrong with mud huts.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Who cares about eye candy in that show. Tbh, the show imho is done shitty. It needs to be more gritty without retardo challenges that look like American Gladiator. ZILCH HELP unless they're about to die. AVERAGE PEOPLE NOT STARS. But the show is for reality tv drama bullox soooo.... it'll be total jank.

 

[KogaClaws]

So, is this thread is going to be about games again,

There are more important things than games.

Indeed there are. Didn't claim otherwise. But, this thread is in the General RPG Discussion section. Which is about...discussing RPGs. Which are games.
So, people talking about games, and mainly games, in threads made in a section about games was what I expected. Not history. Oh well.

 

[KateMicucci]

As for the "warrior woman" tomb that was mentioned earlier, that could be many things.

Possibly, but look at this probability chart. It compares my thought process about what historians say to a random guy's opinion.

Interesting...

You have to prove me that the historians are wrong on this one.

Apart from that I love fantasy games where a woman can be a fighter and thus be part of my party. And she should be tough, otherwise she's useless.

Historians are only propogandists and storytellers.