Of female characters in RPG's

[Cael]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.

Yes, because calling an author sexist today for writing a novel in the 60s about the 60s with 60s cultural values has happened since time immemorial.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.

Yes, because calling an author sexist today for writing a novel in the 60s about the 60s with 60s cultural values has happened since time immemorial.

There has never been a time when people weren't trying to call each other dumb names. The names were just different.

 

[Cael]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.

Yes, because calling an author sexist today for writing a novel in the 60s about the 60s with 60s cultural values has happened since time immemorial.

There has never been a time when people weren't trying to call each other dumb names. The names were just different.

Yeah, right. Pull the other one. It has bells on.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.

Yes, because calling an author sexist today for writing a novel in the 60s about the 60s with 60s cultural values has happened since time immemorial.

There has never been a time when people weren't trying to call each other dumb names. The names were just different.

Yeah, right. Pull the other one. It has bells on.

Why would you be butthurt to find out that persecution was a thing before you were born? Why do you suppose your situation is so different from the struggles of your ancestors?

 

[Cael]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.

Yes, because calling an author sexist today for writing a novel in the 60s about the 60s with 60s cultural values has happened since time immemorial.

There has never been a time when people weren't trying to call each other dumb names. The names were just different.

Yeah, right. Pull the other one. It has bells on.

Why would you be butthurt to find out that persecution was a thing before you were born? Why do you suppose your situation is so different from the struggles of your ancestors?

Butthurt? Bwahahaha! Stop projecting, boy. It is not about persecution, but the idea that some fucktard applying current year sjw-ism to historical incidents and then trying to claim victimhood is hilarious, to say the least. I actually feel embarassed for the utter retard who wrote that shit. You, on the other hand, are trying to excuse that kind of incredibly ignorant behaviour, which begs the question: are you identifying with the stupid woketard bitch (yes, it was female)?

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.

Yes, because calling an author sexist today for writing a novel in the 60s about the 60s with 60s cultural values has happened since time immemorial.

There has never been a time when people weren't trying to call each other dumb names. The names were just different.

Yeah, right. Pull the other one. It has bells on.

Why would you be butthurt to find out that persecution was a thing before you were born? Why do you suppose your situation is so different from the struggles of your ancestors?

Butthurt? Bwahahaha! Stop projecting, boy. It is not about persecution, but the idea that some fucktard applying current year sjw-ism to historical incidents and then trying to claim victimhood is hilarious, to say the least. I actually feel embarassed for the utter retard who wrote that shit. You, on the other hand, are trying to excuse that kind of incredibly ignorant behaviour, which begs the question: are you identifying with the stupid woketard bitch (yes, it was female)?

Thank you for illustrating my original point about human nature.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.

Yes, because calling an author sexist today for writing a novel in the 60s about the 60s with 60s cultural values has happened since time immemorial.

There has never been a time when people weren't trying to call each other dumb names. The names were just different.

Yeah, right. Pull the other one. It has bells on.

Why would you be butthurt to find out that persecution was a thing before you were born? Why do you suppose your situation is so different from the struggles of your ancestors?

Butthurt? Bwahahaha! Stop projecting, boy. It is not about persecution, but the idea that some fucktard applying current year sjw-ism to historical incidents and then trying to claim victimhood is hilarious, to say the least. I actually feel embarassed for the utter retard who wrote that shit. You, on the other hand, are trying to excuse that kind of incredibly ignorant behaviour, which begs the question: are you identifying with the stupid woketard bitch (yes, it was female)?

Thank you for illustrating my original point about human nature.

he's chinese not human you bigot

 

[Dadd]

If you make women weaker than men for realism or whichever similar reason, it would be consistent to make non-magic enhanced warriors to be so much weaker than wizards that warriors might be crushed at will by a competent wizard with negligible exertion.

 

[Ihavenoidea]

If you make women weaker than men for realism or whichever similar reason, it would be consistent to make non-magic enhanced warriors to be so much weaker than wizards that warriors might be crushed at will by a competent wizard with negligible exertion.

can you show me the currently or previously living competent wizard who crushed the warriors at will? Or is this about the settings you consumed that presented magic (and magic equipment) as overpowered compared to standard melee?

 

[Dadd]

If you make women weaker than men for realism or whichever similar reason, it would be consistent to make non-magic enhanced warriors to be so much weaker than wizards that warriors might be crushed at will by a competent wizard with negligible exertion.

can you show me the currently or previously living competent wizard who crushed the warriors at will? Or is this about the settings you consumed that presented magic (and magic equipment) as overpowered compared to standard melee?

We are talking about video games conventions.

 

[Cael]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.

Yes, because calling an author sexist today for writing a novel in the 60s about the 60s with 60s cultural values has happened since time immemorial.

There has never been a time when people weren't trying to call each other dumb names. The names were just different.

Yeah, right. Pull the other one. It has bells on.

Why would you be butthurt to find out that persecution was a thing before you were born? Why do you suppose your situation is so different from the struggles of your ancestors?

Butthurt? Bwahahaha! Stop projecting, boy. It is not about persecution, but the idea that some fucktard applying current year sjw-ism to historical incidents and then trying to claim victimhood is hilarious, to say the least. I actually feel embarassed for the utter retard who wrote that shit. You, on the other hand, are trying to excuse that kind of incredibly ignorant behaviour, which begs the question: are you identifying with the stupid woketard bitch (yes, it was female)?

Thank you for illustrating my original point about human nature.

Of course, to the woketard, false equivalence is standard MO, so I shouldn't be surprised that you will come up with it.

 

[Cael]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.

Yes, because calling an author sexist today for writing a novel in the 60s about the 60s with 60s cultural values has happened since time immemorial.

There has never been a time when people weren't trying to call each other dumb names. The names were just different.

Yeah, right. Pull the other one. It has bells on.

Why would you be butthurt to find out that persecution was a thing before you were born? Why do you suppose your situation is so different from the struggles of your ancestors?

Butthurt? Bwahahaha! Stop projecting, boy. It is not about persecution, but the idea that some fucktard applying current year sjw-ism to historical incidents and then trying to claim victimhood is hilarious, to say the least. I actually feel embarassed for the utter retard who wrote that shit. You, on the other hand, are trying to excuse that kind of incredibly ignorant behaviour, which begs the question: are you identifying with the stupid woketard bitch (yes, it was female)?

Thank you for illustrating my original point about human nature.

he's chinese not human you bigot

The real Chinese, thank you very much, not the Western ideology infused commiecunts calling themselves "Chinese".

 

[Dadd]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.

Yes, because calling an author sexist today for writing a novel in the 60s about the 60s with 60s cultural values has happened since time immemorial.

There has never been a time when people weren't trying to call each other dumb names. The names were just different.

Yeah, right. Pull the other one. It has bells on.

Why would you be butthurt to find out that persecution was a thing before you were born? Why do you suppose your situation is so different from the struggles of your ancestors?

Butthurt? Bwahahaha! Stop projecting, boy. It is not about persecution, but the idea that some fucktard applying current year sjw-ism to historical incidents and then trying to claim victimhood is hilarious, to say the least. I actually feel embarassed for the utter retard who wrote that shit. You, on the other hand, are trying to excuse that kind of incredibly ignorant behaviour, which begs the question: are you identifying with the stupid woketard bitch (yes, it was female)?

Thank you for illustrating my original point about human nature.

he's chinese not human you bigot

The real Chinese, thank you very much, not the Western ideology infused commiecunts calling themselves "Chinese".

Communism is inherently Confucian

 

[NecroLord]

How about an RPG where women take penalties to every of their dice rolls if they leave the kitchen?
Reeeee! Dats sexist! Women must have blue hair nowadays and give their offspring hormone blockers!

 

[Dadd]

The world is the adventurer's kitchen.

 

[Harthwain]

Hobbits aren't (fully) Men either. No man could kill him, which he took to be immortality, but a Hobbit and a woman* could, unexpectedly.

Eh, technically Elves are no Men either. Or Gandalf.

Although, in the case of Gandalf, he does make a remark when Pippin says "Well, we have a mage. Just throw down a fireball and something", saying that the Witch King of Angmar can't be killed by living man, which does suggest some limit to Gandalf's ability, probably linked to the fact that he was in the guise of a man (and, as such, falling under the same rule as a "living man").

Scratch that. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I think the scene with Gandalf and Pippin wasn't there and was made-up to explain to the people who didn't read the book the premise behind Glorifindels' prophecy.

By the way, I don't think the killing of the Witch King is supposed to serve as an example of prowess from Eowyn/a female (although I will admit that her being able to kill a Fellbeast can be considered a feat. She is also brave enough to stand by her king's side, knowing she risks death).

First and foremost - the participation of Eowyn is largely the product of the play on the phrase "no living man can kill me". Instead of using a child (or just a Hobbit, who isn't exactly a child, meaning it wouldn't count) he used a woman who is denied her plea to participate. She gets a support of a child-like non-human, because Eowyn being able to single-handedly kill the Witch King would've been too much, considering she had no special powers nor artifacts of her own. It also makes Peppin not useless.

The other part is, I think, showing what can happen to someone who wants to war, thinking it is all about having fun and glory. Eowyn manages to accomplish a great feat of defeating a powerful foe (with some help), but the cost is tremendous: her uncle, the king of Rohan, dies in her arms and she is likely to suffer psychological and magical wounds (similar to those felt by Frodo by being stabbed with the Blade of Morgul) for the rest of her life. Yes, she potentially did save Theoden from fate worse than death, and helped to turn the tide of battle (to some degree at least), but on personal level it's a pyrrhic victory.

To me it sounds more like a warning to all those sitting at home who are eager to go to battle for glory/adventure and are confronted with the ugly reality of war/combat/battle.

 

[Desiderius]

It was anything but pyrrhic.

Faramir >>> Wormtongue. If anything the lesson, and Tolkien loathed didacticism in story-telling, was the opposite.

And of course the Hobbits represent children. The Hobbit started out a children’s book. But like the book itself children don’t stay that way and so the tale ends with Sam having children of his own.

 

[Harthwain]

It was anything but pyrrhic.

For Eowyn personally (which was my point)?

And of course the Hobbits represent children. The Hobbit started out a children’s book. But like the book itself children don’t stay that way and so the tale ends with Sam having children of his own.

Hobbits represent children, but they aren't technically children. That's the joke. They also represent the British country folk.

 

[Nano]

I wonder what Lilura would think of this thread.

 

[Nazrim Eldrak]

I wonder what Lilura would think of this thread.

Or hiver the machine gun of "politeness".

 

[rusty_shackleford]

He's defeated by Merry, not Eowyn. Tolkien indirectly confirmed this himself in letter #210 where he's correcting the proposed movie script.

There is no fight. Sam does not 'sink his blade into the Ringwraith's thigh', nor does his
thrust save Frodo's life. (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20: 4 the
Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)

 

[fork]

I wonder what Lilura would think of this thread.

I don't.

 

[Cael]

Hobbits aren't (fully) Men either. No man could kill him, which he took to be immortality, but a Hobbit and a woman* could, unexpectedly.

Eh, technically Elves are no Men either. Or Gandalf.

Although, in the case of Gandalf, he does make a remark when Pippin says "Well, we have a mage. Just throw down a fireball and something", saying that the Witch King of Angmar can't be killed by living man, which does suggest some limit to Gandalf's ability, probably linked to the fact that he was in the guise of a man (and, as such, falling under the same rule as a "living man").

Scratch that. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I think the scene with Gandalf and Pippin wasn't there and was made-up to explain to the people who didn't read the book the premise behind Glorifindels' prophecy.

By the way, I don't think the killing of the Witch King is supposed to serve as an example of prowess from Eowyn/a female (although I will admit that her being able to kill a Fellbeast can be considered a feat. She is also brave enough to stand by her king's side, knowing she risks death).

First and foremost - the participation of Eowyn is largely the product of the play on the phrase "no living man can kill me". Instead of using a child (or just a Hobbit, who isn't exactly a child, meaning it wouldn't count) he used a woman who is denied her plea to participate. She gets a support of a child-like non-human, because Eowyn being able to single-handedly kill the Witch King would've been too much, considering she had no special powers nor artifacts of her own. It also makes Peppin not useless.

The other part is, I think, showing what can happen to someone who wants to war, thinking it is all about having fun and glory. Eowyn manages to accomplish a great feat of defeating a powerful foe (with some help), but the cost is tremendous: her uncle, the king of Rohan, dies in her arms and she is likely to suffer psychological and magical wounds (similar to those felt by Frodo by being stabbed with the Blade of Morgul) for the rest of her life. Yes, she potentially did save Theoden from fate worse than death, and helped to turn the tide of battle (to some degree at least), but on personal level it's a pyrrhic victory.

To me it sounds more like a warning to all those sitting at home who are eager to go to battle for glory/adventure and are confronted with the ugly reality of war/combat/battle.

The whole of theme of LotR is that everyone lost something. Some, it is their lives. Some, their innocence. And so on. I read an article that went it into it once. Tolkien really hated war.

 

[Desiderius]

For Eowyn personally (which was my point)?

Of course. What part of Faramir >>> Wormtongue do you not understand?

Ages without honour are so tiresome. Ones that pretend everyone is a eunuch doubly so.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_One_Here_Gets_Out_Alive

 

[Harthwain]

Of course. What part of Faramir >>> Wormtongue do you not understand?

Neither. What has Faramir or Wormtongue to do with the battle?