Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 13, 2023, 09:36:10 PM

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 13, 2023, 11:51:56 AM
You know what Reckall, I think you are arguing in good faith. You do not seem to be motivated by ideological revisionism on this occasion.

You are mistaken, unfortunately.  Let's examine the original topic of this thread: Did Chaosium go woke?  How did that get to Renaissance poetry and Aliens?  Because Reckall wasn't asking a question.  He was laying bait.

Actually we got to Renaissance poetry because the topic of strong women in epic poems was pertinent, and "Aliens" as an answer to why, today, this classic trope is feared - and how it can be done right.

Now we can also add "People with the delusion to know what is in some other's mind better than them" - which is as woke as it gets and, as a bonus, even a bit lovecraftian...

Quote from: Jaeger on August 13, 2023, 07:24:15 PM
If they just had a sidebar explaining the exceptional cases during Chargen, and 'talk to your GM'; no one would care. Plenty of games do that.

A couple of pages back I summarised what's in Paladin, which is one and a half columns of text - essentially the sidebar that you accept is perfectly legit, plus multiple reminders of downsides and complications that any female knight would face. Why do you go on to say that Chaosium has done objectionable stuff? Do we have any quotes or detailed descriptions from newer publications of theirs? Or is this just more scaremongering?

Chaosium has also been in the last year sporadically been making thinly veiled threats to people speaking out against them. Not seen or heard of anything recent but round end of last year they had.

For a historical game, female knights are stupid. There mere fact EVERYONE knows who Joan of Arc is proves they are beyond rare. A female PC knight, thus, would pretty much be the entire focal point of a historic game, which could be okay for a singular player, but lame as hell if you're doing the Carolingian Cycle.

And speaking of which, I backed the Paladin KS because I thought Pendragon was a super excellent game. Thankfully I haven't seen any woke nonsense in the book beyond a couple sidebars that are easily ignored.

Quote from: Brad on August 14, 2023, 09:40:09 AM
For a historical game, female knights are stupid. There mere fact EVERYONE knows who Joan of Arc is proves they are beyond rare. A female PC knight, thus, would pretty much be the entire focal point of a historic game, which could be okay for a singular player, but lame as hell if you're doing the Carolingian Cycle.

This is why I wrote that these characters should be NPCs. And the GM should be extra careful. First, if the players know the trope, and there is an outbreak of romance, then it is a given that the very first "mysterious superknight" they meet is the object of their romance. They could arrive to save the PCs, but if badly done it would only rob them of agency.

Also, I don't remember tales where female warriors went around with a party. They acted alone even when part of an army (or led part of an army, thus being a remote figure). And seldom they were interested in "debates about what to do": they just knew (even when they didn't) and acted accordingly.

Or they could be some form of comic relief. Marfisa was beloved but the object of many tales where she was an incompetent wannabe. It was Bradamante the level-headed. Then some writers arrive and toy with an interesting twist: Bradamante tackled serious situations by acting almost before thinking, while Marfisa was the only level-headed character in comical conundrums.

Tl;dr: it is not something I would jump in easily. For sure, having the "Paladins" version of Black Widow in The Avengers would be deeply wrong.

Quote
And speaking of which, I backed the Paladin KS because I thought Pendragon was a super excellent game. Thankfully I haven't seen any woke nonsense in the book beyond a couple sidebars that are easily ignored.

As I said, I have a lot of material for CoC 7E because I like this edition a lot (even if two sessions were enough to find some holes in the rules that shouldn't have escaped playtesting). I don't even think that there are "pronouns" in my edition of the rules. I'm not currently interested in anything else, but it would be a pity if we start to see "the real non-racist myths!" material seeping in something that, up to the books I have, is still one of the best games around.

Quote from: Naburimannu on August 14, 2023, 02:28:20 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on August 13, 2023, 07:24:15 PM
If they just had a sidebar explaining the exceptional cases during Chargen, and 'talk to your GM'; no one would care. Plenty of games do that.

A couple of pages back I summarised what's in Paladin, which is one and a half columns of text - essentially the sidebar that you accept is perfectly legit, plus multiple reminders of downsides and complications that any female knight would face. Why do you go on to say that Chaosium has done objectionable stuff? Do we have any quotes or detailed descriptions from newer publications of theirs? Or is this just more scaremongering?

Im pretty sure the original topic was Pendragon not paladins which just has female onights as the default now (i think i have skimmed paladins but never looked into pendragon)

Quote from: Slambo on August 14, 2023, 11:53:58 AM
Im pretty sure the original topic was Pendragon not paladins which just has female onights as the default now (i think i have skimmed paladins but never looked into pendragon)

No, the original topic was about "I left Chaosium while they weren't woke. What's up?" Then someone mentioned how their forums were full of people quoting this or that to justify female warriors. I pointed up how they actually showed up in other tales of the time and I remembered that there was a time (2010) when a supplement about French epics was about to be published. Then it disappeared.

Over and over I asked here about it but it was just "Missing" ( like in the movie). Apparently, as soon I started inquiring, they published at least a "version" of it - as it usually happens.

Quote from: Reckall on August 14, 2023, 10:58:24 AM

Quote from: Brad on August 14, 2023, 09:40:09 AM
For a historical game, female knights are stupid. There mere fact EVERYONE knows who Joan of Arc is proves they are beyond rare. A female PC knight, thus, would pretty much be the entire focal point of a historic game, which could be okay for a singular player, but lame as hell if you're doing the Carolingian Cycle.

This is why I wrote that these characters should be NPCs. And the GM should be extra careful. First, if the players know the trope, and there is an outbreak of romance, then it is a given that the very first "mysterious superknight" they meet is the object of their romance. They could arrive to save the PCs, but if badly done it would only rob them of agency.

Why does any female NPC Knight need to be a Super Knight? Just the fact that she can compete with men would make her miraculous and unique.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 03:31:53 PM
Why does any female NPC Knight need to be a Super Knight? Just the fact that she can compete with men would make her miraculous and unique.

This is a question for the writers of the time. Which, in turn, could bring the question "How could two male knights fight from dawn to sunset to the point that the field is drenched by their blood?" (this is in "La Morte d'Arthur", BTW, Arthur vs. I don't remember who). If we want to whine about superpowers, then both genders had them (and still we had scores of supermales vs. the stray woman). Fixating on one specific gender is just wokeism.

Edit: He was Pellinore.

And there began a strong battle with many great strokes, and so hewed with their swords that the cantels flew in the fields, and much blood they bled both, that all the place there as they fought was overbled with blood

As Isaac Asimov most famously said about superheroes "That you can't go faster than light is a theory. That Superman can is a fact."

Quote from: Reckall on August 14, 2023, 04:53:41 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 03:31:53 PM
Why does any female NPC Knight need to be a Super Knight? Just the fact that she can compete with men would make her miraculous and unique.

This is a question for the writers of the time. Which, in turn, could bring the question "How could two male knights fight from dawn to sunset to the point that the field is drenched by their blood?" (this is in "La Morte d'Arthur", BTW, Arthur vs. I don't remember who). If we want to whine about superpowers, then both genders had them (and still we had scores of supermales vs. the stray woman). Fixating on one specific gender is just wokeism.

As Isaac Asimov most famously said "That you can't go faster than light is a theory. That Superman can is a fact."

Your argument is very confused here.

If the the female NPC has amazing fighting skills...but so do the male knights, then the lady isn't a Super Knight, she's just a knight. As in my earlier analogy about 80's action movie badasses sharing a universe, being a badass goes from a uniqueness, to an entry level standard.

Quote from: Slambo on August 14, 2023, 11:53:58 AM

Quote from: Naburimannu on August 14, 2023, 02:28:20 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on August 13, 2023, 07:24:15 PM
If they just had a sidebar explaining the exceptional cases during Chargen, and 'talk to your GM'; no one would care. Plenty of games do that.

A couple of pages back I summarised what's in Paladin, which is one and a half columns of text - essentially the sidebar that you accept is perfectly legit, plus multiple reminders of downsides and complications that any female knight would face. Why do you go on to say that Chaosium has done objectionable stuff? Do we have any quotes or detailed descriptions from newer publications of theirs? Or is this just more scaremongering?

Im pretty sure the original topic was Pendragon not paladins which just has female onights as the default now (i think i have skimmed paladins but never looked into pendragon)

I'm pretty sure the original topic is the title of this thread.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 05:13:50 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 14, 2023, 04:53:41 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 03:31:53 PM
Why does any female NPC Knight need to be a Super Knight? Just the fact that she can compete with men would make her miraculous and unique.

This is a question for the writers of the time. Which, in turn, could bring the question "How could two male knights fight from dawn to sunset to the point that the field is drenched by their blood?" (this is in "La Morte d'Arthur", BTW, Arthur vs. I don't remember who). If we want to whine about superpowers, then both genders had them (and still we had scores of supermales vs. the stray woman). Fixating on one specific gender is just wokeism.

As Isaac Asimov most famously said "That you can't go faster than light is a theory. That Superman can is a fact."

Your argument is very confused here.

Mostly because I have no argument at all. As I said, ask those who wrote these tales because your quarrel is with them - as I can only report their content. I gave you free primary sources about them (i.e. the actual tales from the era). Have you read them? If not, return to this debate after you did

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 08:55:10 PM
I don't need to do anything, everyone sees you acting like a clown.

I can't verify or deny specific accounts without reading way more about Joan than I have any interest in. But then I've never said they didn't exist. What I contend is that, when dealing with history, there is a lot of lying, fraud, propaganda and simple confusion.

She was a powerful symbol at the time, intertwined in church, royal and diplomatic matters. The fact that you won't even consider that she may have been bigged up and exaggerated about, for a myriad of reasons, shows you to be the close minded one. Even enemies often have reasons to low smoke up peoples asses. "Yeah we lost, but it was because they had a magic genius warrior woman!"

Your entire argument is name dropping 700 year old sources, and insisting this makes you right. Firstly, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the consensus is not nearly as uniform as you put forward, but I'm not going to read the half dozen books I'd need to prove it. Secondly, every decent historian knows that sources are often bunk, for reasons ranging from ignorance to self serving behavior.

However, none of this is even needed. Because if I conceded every point you can link to an account, we'd still be left with you spinning shit about her artillery magic, and antiseptic foresight.

I guarantee I'm not the only one that reads your Joan fan page and cringes at "her making the troops bathe probably saved loads of them from wound infections. I mean no-one knew about bacteria, and she probably just wanted them to stop being smelly, but you never know..." or "artillery! Why would they say she was great at placing artillery? She probably had, like, a brain with amazing spacial awareness! To the point where she could even naturally calculate trajectories, despite being a peasant girl!"

I dunno man. You sound like you have an agenda and are arguing backwards from there.

Joan of Arc is one of the most studied historical figures, like, ever. Your arguments seem based only on your own personal generalizations and prejudices. Reading history books is a waste of time because they don't all agree? Okay. 700 year old sources are some kind of problem? What, the sources are too old? Goddammit, historians want nothing more than contemporaneous sources. I'd say go read a book, but apparently ignorance on this subject is strength. Once again, Joan is one of the top 10 if not the single most studied historical figure. And you're like mumbling stuff about historians and consensus, as if these exceedingly obvious generalities are somehow a replacement for reading a book or two.

You are not entitled to an explanation just because you choose to remain ignorant. You sound like the moon landing deniers I've spoken with. Generalities, alternate theories, and unanswered questions are not in the same universe as facts established by a large group of people, be they the 1000s of engineers and scientists who worked on the Apollo program or the historians who studied Joan of Arc.

And I say the above as someone who should be on your side as far as the thread topic is concerned, the wholesale adding of female knights to a semi-historic game is woke trash.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 14, 2023, 05:39:18 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 08:55:10 PM
I don't need to do anything, everyone sees you acting like a clown.

I can't verify or deny specific accounts without reading way more about Joan than I have any interest in. But then I've never said they didn't exist. What I contend is that, when dealing with history, there is a lot of lying, fraud, propaganda and simple confusion.

She was a powerful symbol at the time, intertwined in church, royal and diplomatic matters. The fact that you won't even consider that she may have been bigged up and exaggerated about, for a myriad of reasons, shows you to be the close minded one. Even enemies often have reasons to low smoke up peoples asses. "Yeah we lost, but it was because they had a magic genius warrior woman!"

Your entire argument is name dropping 700 year old sources, and insisting this makes you right. Firstly, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the consensus is not nearly as uniform as you put forward, but I'm not going to read the half dozen books I'd need to prove it. Secondly, every decent historian knows that sources are often bunk, for reasons ranging from ignorance to self serving behavior.

However, none of this is even needed. Because if I conceded every point you can link to an account, we'd still be left with you spinning shit about her artillery magic, and antiseptic foresight.

I guarantee I'm not the only one that reads your Joan fan page and cringes at "her making the troops bathe probably saved loads of them from wound infections. I mean no-one knew about bacteria, and she probably just wanted them to stop being smelly, but you never know..." or "artillery! Why would they say she was great at placing artillery? She probably had, like, a brain with amazing spacial awareness! To the point where she could even naturally calculate trajectories, despite being a peasant girl!"

I dunno man. You sound like you have an agenda and are arguing backwards from there.

Joan of Arc is one of the most studied historical figures, like, ever. Your arguments seem based only on your own personal generalizations and prejudices. Reading history books is a waste of time because they don't all agree? Okay. 700 year old sources are some kind of problem? What, the sources are too old? Goddammit, historians want nothing more than contemporaneous sources. I'd say go read a book, but apparently ignorance on this subject is strength. Once again, Joan is one of the top 10 if not the single most studied historical figure. And you're like mumbling stuff about historians and consensus, as if these exceedingly obvious generalities are somehow a replacement for reading a book or two.

You are not entitled to an explanation just because you choose to remain ignorant. You sound like the moon landing deniers I've spoken with. Generalities, alternate theories, and unanswered questions are not in the same universe as facts established by a large group of people, be they the 1000s of engineers and scientists who worked on the Apollo program or the historians who studied Joan of Arc.

And I say the above as someone who should be on your side as far as the thread topic is concerned, the wholesale adding of female knights to a semi-historic game is woke trash.

I'll point out that I moved on, but there's always someone that has to have a last stir of that pot.

Comparing denying an event that happened in living memory, and has physical, video and photographic evidence; and suggesting that some aspects of messy 700 year old events MAY have been exaggerated or confused by contemporary sources, is asinine.

I also never said reading books is a waste of time, I said I didn't find the character interesting enough to read several books about her so I'd have a solid enough base of knowledge to challenge Reckall on the veracity of specific sources he used.

You call me prejudiced, but you were triggered by my posts and started calling me ignorant and a conspiracy theorist. With that jerky knee, if you had different politics, no doubt I'd be a Trumper and a Nazi.


Now can we please go back to the original topic? Which several of us (including Reckall) had accomplished to good result.

Quote from: Reckall on August 14, 2023, 05:17:53 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 05:13:50 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 14, 2023, 04:53:41 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 03:31:53 PM
Why does any female NPC Knight need to be a Super Knight? Just the fact that she can compete with men would make her miraculous and unique.

This is a question for the writers of the time. Which, in turn, could bring the question "How could two male knights fight from dawn to sunset to the point that the field is drenched by their blood?" (this is in "La Morte d'Arthur", BTW, Arthur vs. I don't remember who). If we want to whine about superpowers, then both genders had them (and still we had scores of supermales vs. the stray woman). Fixating on one specific gender is just wokeism.

As Isaac Asimov most famously said "That you can't go faster than light is a theory. That Superman can is a fact."

Your argument is very confused here.

Mostly because I have no argument at all. As I said, ask those who wrote these tales because your quarrel is with them - as I can only report their content. I gave you free primary sources about them (i.e. the actual tales from the era). Have you read them? If not, return to this debate after you did

I honestly feel that we are constantly talking past each other, so lets be clear here.

You seem to be fixating on certain fictitious depictions of female knights/warriors, and porting them to Pendragon as NPC's, is that correct? Because whenever we talk about having female knights in Pendragon, you seem to equate them to the stories you've read.

What I am saying, to be crystal clear, is that a female Knight:

1) Doesn't need to be as badass as the Heroines in the literature you mention. A woman that is dubbed as a Knight is a Knight. She could be barely adequate from the side of physical and combat abilities, but, say, pure of heart and strong willed. Most men would be impressed that a woman would, and could, even scrape by the physical challenges of Knighthood, making her special because of her sex.

2) The heroines in those stories are incredible because they're usually the protagonist, or the author otherwise wishes them to be impressive. I contend that if you folded their books in with stories of male heroes who are the protagonists of their own stories, the females become comparable.

Again, to be clear, I'm not attacking the heroines, or denigrating them, I'm saying they'd be badasses...in a setting where the PCs are also badasses. So no need to be an NPC because they're too awesome. Note that your earlier argument for making them NPC's wasn't historical verisimilitude, but that they were kind of too exceptional to be PCs.

If incorrect, please feel free to (after reading what I've actually said) explain. Doing so in a non-adversarial way, and assuming best intentions would be especially appreciated, because this thread has become very toxic (something I admit I added to, though I would argue not disproportionately.)