Of female characters in RPG's

[toiletwino]

The way New Vegas handled female characters deserves a mention.

Veronica, Cass, the romantic interest in Dead Money + the brain-surgery gal, the two off-balance super mutants, the slag at the casino, junkyard geezer, scheming/meddling Novac geezer, Arcade. And that's just a portion of the roll call.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

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'd take it to mean that since he's using the longsword in one hand as per the illustrations, (Spada un Mani section) rather than in both it's a another brag of sorts. "I'm doing more with less."

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.

I don't think the three are actually meant to be speaking to Fiore, but rather introducing themselves and their intentions to the reader. It reads like a soliloquy.

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.

You are correct, and I'll concede the point until I see Todd's next round of tests.

I spent a couple hours reading through Froissart's chronicles, and while I've found some translations that say both men-at-arms and horses were pierced by arrows at Crecy, I'm not certain if any are accurate. One was from Geoffrey Brereton in 1968, another from Charles Colby in 1899, and another from John Bouchier, Lord Berners sometime in the 1500s. They also mention cornish/welshmen running in with knives to cut throats in the press. I tried compare against Besançon 864, Folio 138 v, but there are words in there, in middle French ("parmy") I don't understand. Moreover, there seems to be no mention at all of the "welsh/cornish rascals", however subsequent passages about John and Henry of Luxembourg are mentioned in all three. Either the three translations were drawing from some other version of the Chronicles that added more detail or Lord Bernier (or someone even earlier) embellished it.

 

[Brancaleone]

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'd take it to mean that since he's using the longsword in one hand as per the illustrations, (Spada un Mani section) rather than in both it's a another brag of sorts. "I'm doing more with less."

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.

I don't think the three are actually meant to be speaking to Fiore, but rather introducing themselves and their intentions to the reader. It reads like a soliloquy.

To be honest, I'm not 100% sold on the illustrator's accuracy: the three attackers also are depicted with longswords, but they are all holding them one handed, and why should ever they? All the subsequent illustrations show longswords held one-handed (plus one half-sword grip), minus one illustration where for some reason they are holding one handed swords (without the text warranting the change). Besides, the length of the grips vary wildly between illustrations. In any case, he's definitely bragging, whether he refers to the opponents attacking at the same sime or not.

About the exchange, it's not a soliloquy, it's a dramatized piece with a didascalic function: the three are actually talking to the reader, and the master as well is talking to the reader with his reply. But it's written by someone with decent rethorical chops, which is why details and internal consistency are important.

 

[Beans00]

I don't have a problem as long as they aren't cringe.

Most female companions in arcanum were either neutral or cool.

Katja in fallout 1 was cool and also my first boo even if she had a retarded haircut.

Some women in bg1 were ok, others were cringe.

In BG2 almost all were cringe, even some of the ok ones from bg1 they turned cringe

NWN 2 all women were cringe, then again all the men in that game were also cringe.

I'm bored and dont feel like going through every rpg ever with companions so I will stop myself here.

TLDR, if they aren't cringe they're ok by me.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

but they are all holding them one handed, and why should ever they?

You gain a bit of reach from the shoulder holding a weapon one handed. Italian longswords are generally a bit shorter than German ones, they're almost Bastard Swords.

minus one illustration where for some reason they are holding one handed swords (without the text warranting the change).

In image #5? The guy on the right has an arming sword, but it looks like the left is still a longsword. You can just about make out the point off to the far right, the lines are just really faded out. Either way, it would begin from the guard of Image #1, the student simultaneously springing his trailing foot forward, moving offline and throwing a rising beat with the false edge to displace the opponent's downward cut, then letting the sword fall to his face. The guard itself isn't necessarily just a position you start in, sometimes it's a position you just naturally find yourself in after another set of actions. You can switch between one hand or both hands in the middle of combat if you wish.

 

[KateMicucci]

To be honest, I'm not 100% sold on the illustrator's accuracy: the three attackers also are depicted with longswords, but they are all holding them one handed, and why should ever they?

Holding a sword with both hands restricts its reach.

 

[Brancaleone]

but they are all holding them one handed, and why should ever they?

You gain a bit of reach from the shoulder holding a weapon one handed. Italian longswords are generally a bit shorter than German ones, they're almost Bastard Swords.

minus one illustration where for some reason they are holding one handed swords (without the text warranting the change).

In image #5? The guy on the right has an arming sword, but it looks like the left is still a longsword. You can just about make out the point off to the far right, the lines are just really faded out. Either way, it would begin from the guard of Image #1, the student simultaneously springing his trailing foot forward, moving offline and throwing a rising beat with the false edge to displace the opponent's downward cut, then letting the sword fall to his face. The guard itself isn't necessarily just a position you start in, sometimes it's a position you just naturally find yourself in after another set of actions. You can switch between one hand or both hands in the middle of combat if you wish.

So if the master is saying he's going to use his longsword one-handed, he's actually doing it in order to get a reach advantage rather than limiting himself (which would go against all his bragging)? I think not, you can't have it both ways.

Blade length is wildly inconsistent in the illustrations, and even in illustration number 4 the grip of the sword on the left is about half the length of the grip of the sword on the right (plus the blade is much shorter), and in illustration number 6 almost so (with left and right swapped). Trying to infer anything about the types of weapons from the illustrations is a fool's errand, which was my entire point.

By the way, if the master is deliberately choosing to use his longsword one-handed against the three, that makes it even more unlikely that we are talking about a 3 vs 1 instead of three 1 vs 1 in sequence.

 

[Brancaleone]

To be honest, I'm not 100% sold on the illustrator's accuracy: the three attackers also are depicted with longswords, but they are all holding them one handed, and why should ever they?

Holding a sword with both hands restricts its reach.

Fiore himself recommends gripping the longsword close to the pommel when you want to maximize reach with thrusts (although technically this is included in the two-hand section), while all three are gripping close to the crossguard. The one who wants to use the edge wouldn't make use of the entire length of the blade in any case, so it doesn't make sense for him to use his logsword one-handed. And to speak nothing of the one who is going to throw his sword, who is gripping it exactly like the other two. The illustrator is simply giving everybody the same standard weapon and grip, without giving it much thought at all.

Obvious conclusion: the illustrations are not very accurate and/or consistent, and shouldn't be placed much weight upon.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

So if the master is saying he's going to use his longsword one-handed, he's actually doing it in order to get a reach advantage rather than limiting himself (which would go against all his bragging)? I think not, you can't have it both ways.

You gain a bit of reach, you sacrifice a bit of control. It's a give and take scenario and Fiore doesn't think much of these three as he said.

Trying to infer anything about the types of weapons from the illustrations is a fool's errand, which was my entire point.

I infer that they're all longswords, because all of these techniques work with a longsword, but that's not to say some of these also couldn't be done with arming swords. You'd have to verify it, but in his introduction letter Fiore says he knows how to write and draw, so the illustrations might be his own.

Blade length is wildly inconsistent in the illustrations, and even in illustration number 4 the grip of the sword on the left is about half the length of the grip of the sword on the right

I look at the grip of #4 as a perspective thing, the rest is obscured behind the hand.

Fiore himself recommends gripping the longsword close to the pommel when you want to maximize reach with thrusts,

For one or two hands? Not every thrust needs maximum reach and that sort of extended spear thrust can leave you wide open if you miss or the blade gets turned aside. Also if you are going for that, you can allow the grip to slide through your hand to the pommel as you thrust. That he's shown gripped at the guard doesn't mean much.

And to speak nothing of the one who is going to throw his sword, who is gripping it exactly like the other two.

He's in a one handed archer's guard. His wrist is bent upward unlike the middle guy whose wrist is inward, and the forward guy's is straight. I actually think this shows some good detail on the part of the artist.

 

[Brancaleone]

So if the master is saying he's going to use his longsword one-handed, he's actually doing it in order to get a reach advantage rather than limiting himself (which would go against all his bragging)? I think not, you can't have it both ways.

You gain a bit of reach, you sacrifice a bit of control. It's a give and take scenario and Fiore doesn't think much of these three as he said.

Trying to infer anything about the types of weapons from the illustrations is a fool's errand, which was my entire point.

I infer that they're all longswords, because all of these techniques work with a longsword, but that's not to say some of these also couldn't be done with arming swords. You'd have to verify it, but in his introduction letter Fiore says he knows how to write and draw, so the illustrations might be his own.

Blade length is wildly inconsistent in the illustrations, and even in illustration number 4 the grip of the sword on the left is about half the length of the grip of the sword on the right

I look at the grip of #4 as a perspective thing, the rest is obscured behind the hand.

Fiore himself recommends gripping the longsword close to the pommel when you want to maximize reach with thrusts,

For one or two hands? Not every thrust needs maximum reach and that sort of extended spear thrust can leave you wide open if you miss or the blade gets turned aside.

And to speak nothing of the one who is going to throw his sword, who is gripping it exactly like the other two.

He's in a one handed archer's guard. His wrist is bent upward unlike the middle guy whose wrist is inward, and the forward guy's is straight. I actually think this shows some good detail on the part of the artist.

You also sacrifice speed, power, and leveraging the grip (the longer it is, the more this is true). It's not much of a give and take at all, unless you are gripping it one-handed in order to use a shield as well (not that this is within Fiore's scope). In that case, yes, it's a give and take.
But you just have to read the text, where the master is saying that he'll gimp himself by using the sword one handed. Or should we take it that he's saying "and even though I will use my sword one-handed which, oh well, is a give and take after all, it doesn't really change much"?
You keep missing the point of the entire verbal exchange. Go and read the actual text, not crappy translations.

Gripping close to the pommel allows you to gain a bit of reach while extending yourself a bit less.

So now a "one handed archer's guard" is the best grip to throw a sword? Since we are giving so much weight to illustrations, there are specific illustrations in the two-handed section on sword throwing, and guess what, it's nothing like that.

Once again, the three guys' illustration (and many of the others) are simply not very representative of the details of what's going on, and shouldn't be used as the diriment factor on anything. We have no idea on who did what illustrations in which manuscript that has survived, we don't know if any of the oldest ones are copies or not, and so on. You are of course free to infer all you want, but you've already experienced yourself what the result can be.

Now, I understand the allure of overstating the relevance of the illustrations in order to set issues, but there is no real shortcut around the texts in their original form without unreliable intermediaries, be it old Italian, old French, or whatever. I don't know if I've made myself clear.

 

[Reinhardt]

That doesnt mean there is no such thing as female warriors or archers in the history of mankind. I not saying that there were female archers who could use a British longbow because of the upper body strength it requires, I agree there weren't

But there are different kinds of bows that archers can use that women did and can use

A woman can throw a rock and kill a man, no doubt. Does not a warrior make.

A warrior would be someone who has been trained for the role and fought an extended campaign alongside his peers. From my experience, a woman can not be a peer to fighting men. Even in modern warfare.

So lets imagine you have an entire unit (or army) consisting of women. Either they are purely ceremonial (for perverts, which I approve) or then there is some serious desperation. In a desperate situation, you probably are lacking both in time and resources. Training female archers? It took years to train effective archers. A female shortbowman would still be much more ineffective than a man - like in the example I have, you have to be able to fire more than a couple of shots and manoeuvre. That takes a toll even on a strong man.

Unit of spear infantry? About a month of gruelling training. Can you even find an unit worth of women who can hold a spear and a shield at the same time? Highly doubtful. Just like any conscripted peasant, those are not really warriors, but mere fodder for the slaughter machine.

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.

Just to clarify, I do not consider RPA "pilots" to be warriors either.

there is one small thing - most campaigns consisted of just raiding villages or sitting under some castle until army dissolves because of diseases and/or lack of coin to pay soldiers. battles are pretty rare things.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

video games?

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

But you just have to read the text, where the master is saying that he'll gimp himself by using the sword one handed. Or should we take it that he's saying "and even though I will use my sword one-handed which, oh well, is a give and take after all, it doesn't really change much"?

I don't think you're being very fair here. We agree he's gimping himself to make a point that these three are not good swordsman. Whether Fiore acknowledges the fact that he's gaining more reach or not, he is in fact gaining it. Why might they want to beat Fiore one handed? Because they too want bragging rights and they actually think they're capable. I'm saying "it doesn't change much" in regard to the fact he is still gimping himself.

You keep missing the point of the entire verbal exchange. Go and read the actual text, not crappy translations.

Sorry, I can't read middle Italian. The translation I own is Collin Hatcher's, since you didn't like it, I used Kendra Brown's, which you previously said was fine. If you want to link me to something better, I'll try to read it. It needs to be in my language though.

So now a "one handed archer's guard" is the best grip to throw a sword? Since we are giving so much weight to illustrations, there are specific illustrations in the two-handed section on sword throwing, and guess what, it's nothing like that.

Disagree. The two pictures look similar to me.

Spoiler

You are of course free to infer all you want, but you've already experienced yourself what the result can be.

I have no reason to believe the illustrations aren't reliable. They're of the period that Fiore lived, and they were vitally important to recreating his style in HEMA.

 

[Brancaleone]

But you just have to read the text, where the master is saying that he'll gimp himself by using the sword one handed. Or should we take it that he's saying "and even though I will use my sword one-handed which, oh well, is a give and take after all, it doesn't really change much"?

I don't think you're being very fair here. We agree he's gimping himself to make a point that these three are not good swordsman. Whether Fiore acknowledges the fact that he's gaining more reach or not, he is in fact gaining it. Why might they want to beat Fiore one handed? Because they too want bragging rights and they actually think they're capable. I'm saying "it doesn't change much" in regard to the fact he is still gimping himself.

You keep missing the point of the entire verbal exchange. Go and read the actual text, not crappy translations.

Sorry, I can't read middle Italian. The translation I own is Collin Hatcher's, since you didn't like it, I used Kendra Brown's, which you previously said was fine. If you want to link me to something better, I'll try to read it. It needs to be in my language though.

So now a "one handed archer's guard" is the best grip to throw a sword? Since we are giving so much weight to illustrations, there are specific illustrations in the two-handed section on sword throwing, and guess what, it's nothing like that.

Disagree. The two pictures look similar to me.

Spoiler

You are of course free to infer all you want, but you've already experienced yourself what the result can be.

I have no reason to believe the illustrations aren't reliable. They're of the period that Fiore lived, and they were vitally important to recreating his style in HEMA.

Ok, this is getting both bothersome and pointless, since you don't seem to be a learning animal.

Fist: the introduction to the section is a textbook rethorical device. Most likely it is not an episode from Fiore's life, most likely it is not inspired from a real happening, and so on. It is meant to be didascalic, and to provide the reader with a mental image of what is going to be taught. Why do you think the three guys announce that they will limit themselves to a different technique each? Do you really think that in real life they would give such an advantage to a dangerous master they are trying to win against? Not only the master is scary strong, now he even knows that he's getting first a thrust, then a slash, then a throw. Smart move, guys.
Likewise, the master is most likely not Fiore, but an abstraction. And what he says is not Fiore's thought on the three guys (who most likely never existed), it's a rethorical tool meant to show the reader that Fiore's one-hand guard is good against everything, period.
If you cannot even understand this, you'll keep drawing all the wrong conclusions.

Now, it's not that I don't like Collin Hatcher's translation. It's just shit. You are free to keep regarding it as the Rosetta Stone, and you'll keep drawing the incorrect conclusions, as you seem to be fond of doing with other shitty translations as well. You've been told about it several times with the greatest diplomacy possible, and instead of, you know, making a pause and maybe revising some (or all) of your assumptions, you keep doubling down. The very fact that you have no problem in taking whatsisname's claim of having spent 17 years on the subject as a guarantee of competence is extremely telling.

It's not the same grip, since the image you linked is a two handed technique. Sorry, if applies to gripping close to the pommel it also applies here: once again, you can't have it both ways. And there are more illustration with throwing with the fingers around the crossguard: this alone should make you think about taking the illustrations as the deciding factor. And here we come to the point: by far the most charitable interpretation of the illustrator's choices is that he is excessively aware of the fact that this is the one-hand section, and therefore he feels compelled to draw everybody, and not just the maestro/the one performing the technique, with a one-hand grip, even when it doesn't make sense.

You seem to have no idea of all the issues related to the transmission of manuscripts, and how flimsy 'evidence' for their dating typically is; how copyright worked back then (hint: it didn't), how each copy carried a heavy risk of being interpolated, distorted, 'helpfully integrated' or bastardized; of all the cans of worms related to writing directly vs dictating vs giving instructions to write, etc. etc. And that's nothing compared to the problems that illustrations usually raise: if they are added afterwards, if they are from multiple illustrators, if the illustrators receive instructions from the author or simply try to interpret the text by themselves; not to speak about how with each copy, since photocopying wasn't a think yet, illustrations were modified, misunderstood, reinterpreted, 'corrected', 'updated' according to currend trends in armour and weapons (but a lot the times only 'updating' some elements and leaving others untouched, which makes it even more of a mess), and so on, and so on, and so on.
Of course you have no reason to think that the illustrations are not reliable: you are blissfully unencumbered by any of the aforementioned issues.

Finally, I don't give a rats' ass if HEMA 'scholars' share this approach of yours, though I doubt it: the few that I've seen tend to have many more doubts and ask themselves many more questions than you do. Oh, and they seem willing to learn.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

If you don't want to respond further, you can just rate my post retarded and move on. It's fine really.

the introduction to the section is a textbook rethorical device. Most likely it is not an episode from Fiore's life, most likely it is not inspired from a real happening, and so on. It is meant to be didascalic, and to provide the reader with a mental image of what is going to be taught.

Are you sure you're understanding me properly? Because I never said the scenario we've been discussing was a real event, nor did I ever say that any of the four characters were addressing anyone other than the reader. Secondly, the introduction to the section wasn't what I was referring to at all. I was talking about Fiore's dedication of the treatise to Niccolo III, Marquis d'Este at the very beginning before he even goes into the sections.

The very fact that you have no problem in taking whatsisname's claim of having spent 17 years on the subject as a guarantee of competence is extremely telling.

More insults. I used what I had available to me. Consider that I may have taken other recommendations from other people into account when I was looking for a translation rather than just the translator's word, just as I took your translations into account when you offered them.

It's not the same grip, since the image you linked is a two handed technique. Sorry, if applies to gripping close to the pommel it also applies here: once again, you can't have it both ways.

Yes it is. My eyes work as well as yours. One handed or two handed, you have high guards, you have low guards, you a have tail guards etc. There is no reason why the archer's guard can't also exist for both, even if Fiore doesn't spend time on it. He only spends time speaking about one guard in this section.

Spoiler

These are the same guard. Both are good against weapons that are thrown. The first is shown in one handed, the second is shown in two handed. Your assumption that your hands, fingers, toes (or sword point) will always be at the exact same place when you're in any of the guards is faulty.

you are blissfully unencumbered by any of the aforementioned issues.

No, I've taken that into account, I just don't believe the illustrations were made by someone who didn't know what they were looking at. I think they're contemporary and have reasons which I won't bore you with.

Finally, I don't give a rats' ass if HEMA 'scholars' share this approach of yours, though I doubt it: the few that I've seen tend to have many more doubts and ask themselves many more questions than you do. Oh, and they seem willing to learn.

They took the drawings in the manuals into account, if you don't care, well, I won't try to convince you.
I haven't been shitty to you, I haven't insulted you. I have argued in good faith and conceded points when I've been wrong.

 

[Brancaleone]

If you don't want to respond further, you can just rate my post retarded and move on. It's fine really.

...
It's ok.

 

[Azarkon]

Female warriors were nearly non-existent in real life and for good reason. I don't want to see women in my party in melee. They shouldn't be using bows either because that requires more upper body strength than what they have.

Women in the party aren't immersion breaking if they're ranged spellcasters. I also allow exceptions for when there's a good explanation for the woman being strong enough to fight (e.g. Jaethal in Kingmaker being undead).

I've never played an RPG where actual high-poundage longbows firing hundreds of meters away are a factor, in typical gameplay they're being fired at distances of 15-20 meters tops which even a weak woman is perfectly capable of. Also, girl party members are naturally suited to backstabbing roguery.

Yes, but the strength penalty of women is quite significant. From two separate studies on the subject of maximum strength:

A review of nine studies by Laubach (1976) revealed that, in comparison to men, the absolute lower-body and upper-body strength of women is about 57 - 86% (averaging 71.9%) and 35 - 79% (averaging 55.8%), respectively.

Firstly, women had lower maximal strength values when compared to men at bench press (−59.2%), squat (−57.2%), deadlift (−56.3%), and mid-shin pull (MSP, −53.2%). In addition, lower levels of power were detected in females in both the upper (−61.2%) and the lower body (−44.2%). This is consistent with previous studies [5,6] that reported similar differences between men and women in the upper body.

To use Dungeons and Dragons standards for upper body strength, if the maximum strength a man can attain is 18, the maximum a woman can attain is 9.

9 strength strictly takes you out of the running for being a viable warrior. If Dungeons and Dragons attributes reflected biological gender differences, almost nobody would play a female warrior - which is pretty much the case in life as people tend to optimize for what they're best at.

The only way to get around this and still maintain biological plausibility in a setting is to assume a biased selection: all male warriors are average for their sex (ie ~10 strength), while all female warriors are exceptional for their sex (ie ~10 strength), and then not allow either gender to gain strength except through magic. Then you can have a world in which warrior women and warrior men can be comparable. But you'd have to account for why exceptional male warriors do not exist.

Any alternative requires throwing either biology or physics or both out the window, which most fantasy settings, especially Western fantasy settings, are reluctant to do.

If you want men and women to be born with equal body strength, they can't possibly look the same as they do in our world; rather, women would look a lot more similar to men ... which I suppose is where we're going any way.

 

[Azarkon]

That doesnt mean there is no such thing as female warriors or archers in the history of mankind.

As a historical oddity, perhaps. But as a general rule, women have been sheltered from combat not only because they'd be weaker than their male counterparts, but also because they serve a much more vital purpose in replenishing the population (a male can inseminate as many females as needed; a female can bear children once every nine months, her window of fertility is much shorter than a man's and her childbearing potential is in turn complicated by the possibilities of not delivering, experiencing death in childbirth or having the kids subsequently die to the high infant mortality rates of premodern times). And in most societies, given the patrilineal nature of inheritance, they likewise served as a familial currency for cementing alliances.

There is very little evidence that a modern concept like "replenishing the population" was considered important in medieval times. The leaders of a tribe or village knew that if their men were defeated, the women would become slaves of another tribe / village, so why did it matter whether they were around to "replenish" and "entertain" the enemy tribe?

The most important reason women were not recruited into combat roles was because it was ineffective. Send them into battle, and not only would they fail to kill significant numbers of enemy men, but your own men would likely get killed trying to protect them. Because what is obvious from the historical record is that men across cultures have always had a natural instinct to protect their women.

In an activity as serious as war, it simply made no sense to accept anything less than what's optimal, and what's optimal was not sending women.

 

[Azarkon]

Funnily enough, all those Chinese cultivation settings have better internal logic than average female-empowerment fantasy.

Cultivators are so much far outside of the real of logic that it just doesn't matter. When a dude can punch through a planet, gender differences no longer pay a part. And conversely the "commoners" are worse than ants, so their differences don't matter either.

That's because in general, Asian fantasy settings don't care nearly as much about medieval plausibility and the rules of physics, as Western fantasies do. This is not because their source material was more fantastical - Western mythology is equally fantastical - but because they never had to deal with the war gaming influence that is at the foundation of all Western fantasy systems.

The Greeks believed in men and women with super powers, like the Amazons; the Vikings believed in men and women with super powers, like the shield maidens and valkyries; the pages of Western mythology are full of fantastical figures that don't obey the laws of physics; hell, even Tolkien believed that mortal dudes like Turin Turambar could fuck Morgoth's shit up in a fight because of his "nobility." But come modern fantasy, and what happens? Suddenly the hero is an average medieval peasant boy or girl who can barely swing a sword. Suddenly "low magic" fantasy is all the rage.

Where did this come from? The answer is historical war gaming. Gygax was a medieval war gamer first, a fantasy fan, second. He developed Dungeons and Dragons as an extension of his medieval war gaming system. The rest of the genre followed. These days with the popularity of authors like George R. R. Martin, you can't get away from "low magic" or "historical" fantasy. Only problem is, gender parity was never a feature of history, so we end up with these settings that try to both be "low magic" or "historical" and "politically correct" all at the same time. Sorry but... Doesn't work.

 

[Alex]

Funnily enough, all those Chinese cultivation settings have better internal logic than average female-empowerment fantasy.

Cultivators are so much far outside of the real of logic that it just doesn't matter. When a dude can punch through a planet, gender differences no longer pay a part. And conversely the "commoners" are worse than ants, so their differences don't matter either.

That's because in general, Asian fantasy settings don't care nearly as much about medieval plausibility and the rules of physics, as Western fantasies do. This is not because their source material was more fantastical - Western mythology is equally fantastical - but because they never had to deal with the war gaming influence that is at the foundation of all Western fantasy systems.

The Greeks believed in men and women with super powers, like the Amazons; the Vikings believed in men and women with super powers, like the shield maidens and valkyries; the pages of Western mythology are full of fantastical figures that don't obey the laws of physics; hell, even Tolkien believed that mortal dudes like Turin Turambar could fuck Morgoth's shit up in a fight because of his "nobility." But come modern fantasy, and what happens? Suddenly the hero is an average medieval peasant boy or girl who can barely swing a sword. Suddenly "low magic" fantasy is all the rage.

Where did this come from? The answer is historical war gaming. Gygax was a medieval war gamer first, a fantasy fan, second. He developed Dungeons and Dragons as an extension of his medieval war gaming system. The rest of the genre followed. These days with the popularity of authors like George R. R. Martin, you can't get away from "low magic" or "historical" fantasy. Only problem is, gender parity was never a feature of history, so we end up with these settings that try to both be "low magic" or "historical" and "politically correct" all at the same time. Sorry but... Doesn't work.

I am all for pointing how monocled the roots of role-playing are. But you don't really have much of a leg to stand on here. D&D can have stuff such as a human fighter bringing down a giant dragon, even if the said fighter started more humbly.

 

[Harthwain]

Only problem is, gender parity was never a feature of history, so we end up with these settings that try to both be "low magic" or "historical" and "politically correct" all at the same time. Sorry but... Doesn't work.

Depends what you mean by "doesn't work", because DnD (and fantasy in general, or - more broadly - fiction) had no problems with make-believe of any sort.

The main aspect of the [RP] game is to create your own character, according to the rules, and roll with it. Whether something is physical impossibility is of no importance, as long as it follows the rules. And, "low magic"? I wouldn't call DnD that. Magic is omnipresent in DnD, regardless of the edition. Even if you do keep it at low level, it will still be closer to Tolkien (where you literally have a mage in your party) than Battle Brothers (where you can't use magic. Period).

 

[Sarathiour]

The leaders of a tribe or village knew that if their men were defeated, the women would become slaves of another tribe / village, so why did it matter whether they were around to "replenish" and "entertain" the enemy tribe?

You can't talk about medieval society and then proceed to describe a tribal one. Warrior in any case were only a small % of the population, every conscript is a barely effective solider, but also someone not working in the field.
Most war fought in Europe during medieval time between Christian did not have annihilation as a purpose, a whole town was not going to be razed nor the population enslaved.

 

[BruceVC]

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.

So how do you know if any history is true if most historians cant be trusted, where do you get your knowledge of history from?

 

[Brancaleone]

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!

Based Jason in Apollonius' Argonautica: sorry Atalanta, you can fight and all, but you'd disrupt the entire expedition. So they set sail without her, and one of the first things they do is to bed the entire female population of Lemnos (Herakles is a fag tho).

 

[gurugeorge]

I saw an archaeology program yonks ago that dug up a Late Neolithic village that had been destroyed in a raid. There was evidence that the women had been involved in what was presumably last-ditch fighting (died club in hand, etc.).

It seems plausible that in a tribal context, where you had females who were probably somewhat less sexually dimorphous anyway, and who would do gathering and small-game hunting, so were generally fitter and stronger than modern females, they wouldn't be shy of fighting if things got desperate - there's always a chance that they could just turn the tables in a desperate fight (though sadly, they didn't do so in that particular case).

I don't know if anyone's actually done research on trends in sexual dimorphism across our species over time, but it must surely have been less the further you go back in time. It's probably less in remaining hunter-gatherer contexts today too.