TheRPGSite

I'm currently running a Call of Cthulhu 7E campaign. I bought a lot of manuals up to Cults of Cthulhu (or something like that - I don't have the books with me ATM). I also bought Delta Green. AFAIK, there is no woke content in what I have.

Yet, I hear more and more about "Chaosium going woke". Do they now just force pronouns or woke content is seeping in the published material? What about Call of Cthulhu? I have all I need (i.e. compatibility with 40+ years of published material) but the thought of CoC with "trigger warnings" is hilarious.

"No, don't touch the sigil. What happens will trigger you... according to the 14 pages document you gave me." "Ah. OK..."

They have been telegraphing wokeness in statements for some time now.  Can't cite chapter and verse , since once that started up, I stopped paying any attention to them.  Haven't lurked on their forums for months.  Whether that has made it into products, or is in the works, or is just them getting some cheap woke credit without follow through, I have no idea.  I've reached the point where anyone pandering for woke credit, I take them at their word that I don't want anything they do.  Even if they are lying about being woke.

When it comes to the church of woke, I don't care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  YMMV.

Pronouns on the PC Sheet

Chaosium's wokeness is pretty tame compared to many other companies, and so far at least they've avoided actually telling their old customers to not buy their products.  That's one reason you don't notice it as much.  It's there, though.  Call of Cthulhu has already been discussed, but their idea that the original Masks of Nyarlathotep was somehow "racist" and needed to be "corrected" in that regard is their most egregious sin, IMO. 

Female knights in Pendragon?  Ridiculous.  If you go to Chaosium's forums you'll see people desperately cherry-picking historical factoids like "Countess Griselda threw a rock over the wall at the army besieging her castle in 1396, that proves women back then were common as warriors"!  This is like saying that women in 19th Century America were common as gunslingers, police, soldiers, etc. and were accepted as such by the general populace, just because some woman in Minnesota in 1850 picked up a rifle once and fired it at some Indians attacking her sod dugout.  It's just stupid.  Reminds me of all the idiots who thought medieval Bohemia in Kingdom Come should have been crawling with non-whites like 21st Century New York City.

Runequest has artistically been retconned to look very Indian in culture, whereas the original was more European -- Sartarites were kind of like Anglo-Saxons, Lunars were sort of like Romans, etc.  Nothing wrong with making it look Indian if it had been done that way originally but it's very obvious they're trying to make it look less Eurocentric on purpose in order to be PC.

Again though, these things are pretty tame compared to the likes of Evil Hat or WOTC.

The whole thing of throwing Lovecraft under the bus is to me the place where they really fall apart for me.  Instead of seeing him as a complex and flawed human, they are lambasting him as a racist and trying to distance themselves with his legacy while taking his IP.

Quote from: I on August 11, 2023, 01:22:02 PM
Female knights in Pendragon?

Did they actually go forward with that in the newest edition? To what extent? Is it on every page or is there just one sidebar on page 7 or something?

Quote from: I on August 11, 2023, 01:22:02 PM
If you go to Chaosium's forums you'll see people desperately cherry-picking historical factoids like "Countess Griselda threw a rock over the wall at the army besieging her castle in 1396, that proves women back then were common as warriors"!  This is like saying that women in 19th Century America were common as gunslingers, police, soldiers, etc. and were accepted as such by the general populace, just because some woman in Minnesota in 1850 picked up a rifle once and fired it at some Indians attacking her sod dugout.

This sort of revisionist history is a peculiar pursuit to me because it seems to undermine other aspects of the gender liberation project.

If women have been entirely capable of consistently equaling men in strength and aggression throughout history, why didn't they?

On the other hand, if male strength and aggression are the poisonous tools of the oppressor, why do those who fight that oppression want to be inserted into these violent games of conquest, subjugation and nationalism?

Quote from: BadApple on August 11, 2023, 02:12:22 PM
The whole thing of throwing Lovecraft under the bus is to me the place where they really fall apart for me.  Instead of seeing him as a complex and flawed human, they are lambasting him as a racist and trying to distance themselves with his legacy while taking his IP.

^^^^This. Same. I've got a good friend, that really likes Call of Cthulhu. But he's got to justify Lovecraft cause he was such a "horrible human being".

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on August 11, 2023, 03:34:18 PM
^^^^This. Same. I've got a good friend, that really likes Call of Cthulhu. But he's got to justify Lovecraft cause he was such a "horrible human being".

It's funny that the same people who think HPL was such a "horrible human being" also seem to elevate Marx and Stalin to deity-like status.

Quote from: Brad on August 11, 2023, 04:15:32 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on August 11, 2023, 03:34:18 PM
^^^^This. Same. I've got a good friend, that really likes Call of Cthulhu. But he's got to justify Lovecraft cause he was such a "horrible human being".

It's funny that the same people who think HPL was such a "horrible human being" also seem to elevate Marx and Stalin to deity-like status.

   Lovecraft was a scarred man who seemed to have a deep-rooted phobia of reality itself that manifested in numerous ways. Marx was deliberately Satanic, and Stalin utterly ruthless.

Quote from: Brad on August 11, 2023, 04:15:32 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on August 11, 2023, 03:34:18 PM
^^^^This. Same. I've got a good friend, that really likes Call of Cthulhu. But he's got to justify Lovecraft cause he was such a "horrible human being".

It's funny that the same people who think HPL was such a "horrible human being" also seem to elevate Marx and Stalin to deity-like status.

Well...  They may have killed a couple of people but they weren't racist. <sarcasm>

Lovecraft is really just one more victim of the push to erase white men from any form of positive influence on culture.  Mark Twain is another.

Quote from: Brad on August 11, 2023, 04:15:32 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on August 11, 2023, 03:34:18 PM
^^^^This. Same. I've got a good friend, that really likes Call of Cthulhu. But he's got to justify Lovecraft cause he was such a "horrible human being".

It's funny that the same people who think HPL was such a "horrible human being" also seem to elevate Marx and Stalin to deity-like status.

That one is easy.  Those with a criminal mind tend to like other criminals.

Quote from: I on August 11, 2023, 01:22:02 PM
Female knights in Pendragon?  Ridiculous.  If you go to Chaosium's forums you'll see people desperately cherry-picking historical factoids like "Countess Griselda threw a rock over the wall at the army besieging her castle in 1396, that proves women back then were common as warriors"!

I don't remember female knights in La Morte d'Arthur, but in Renaissance poems (especially from Italy and France) la Guerriera was a staple. She usually was very beautiful and very strong, more capable than any male counterpart. She had one of two destinies, however: to die (almost always killed by mistake by a lover on the battlefield, thus allowing for poetic grief) or to become a donna gentile (gentlewoman).

[It is interesting, right here, to notice how Eowyn, in The Lord of the Rings, fulfills both destinies (she doesn't actually die, but she is believed dead and people react to this news).]

Bradamante is the most famous. She was used by everyone, and in all her stories put together she did more things than The Avengers (comics plus movies). She was a Christian paladin, often pimped up with magic armor and weapons. Her lover was Ruggiero, a Saracen born from a Christian Knight and a Saracen woman, but she always waited for him to convert. In a truly pre-woke story, Ruggiero is taken prisoner by the Wizard Atlantes (something that, apparently, makes no sense, as Atlantes was the one who raised him as a Saracen; however, we discover that the Wizard is now in love with Ruggiero, which is as creepy as it gets). Bradamante arrives (after freeing a good sorceress prisoner in the tomb of Merlin in a side quest) and dishes out just violence on Atlantes. The Wizard, defeated, asks for pity. Bradamante is moved. Then she decides that she is not moved and dishes out more violence. The Wizard disappears. Ruggiero is freed but Bradamante rides into the sunset - as her lover still hasn't converted. A version of this story appears as an episode in the "Orlando Furioso" by Ariosto, while Andrew Lang wrote a second version with less violence and more D&D in his "Red Book". Some stories had an happy ending but usually they met on the battlefield, didn't recognize each other, fought to death, and he/she/both died in each other's arms. Bradamante shines in Boiardo and Ariosto oeuvres.

Marfisa was the Saracen version of Bradamante. She was the sister of Ruggiero, but she was raised by an "African wizard", somehow became Queen of India and then fought for the Saracens in full armor. Yeah, I don't have a clue either. In some tales she was a Eldritch Knight, wielding armor, sword and magic against the Christians - which is cool for the XVI Century. She falls in love, of course, with Ruggiero, until the Wizard Atlantes warns her of the truth (apparently the punishment dished by Bradamante straightened him a bit - still, Ruggiero appears to be an involuntary magnet of creep). Sometimes she died, sometimes she converted, and in at least one case she joined the army of Emperor Charlemagne (because it is something that any Queen of India will totally do). She was strangely beloved by writers, and there is a subculture of humorous tales about her.

Bradamante is the most famous but Clorinda is truly the real deal. She defends Jerusalem basically alone against the totality of the European Christian Kingdoms during the First Crusade, in "La Gerusalemme Liberata" by Torquato Tasso (her first scene sets the tone: she sees two Christians that are about to be burned by order of THE KING OF JERUSALEM; she says that, no, the two are to be freed BECAUSE SHE SAYS SO; the two are freed). She comes from the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia and has "fair skin and long blond hair" (I guess that the authors of The Rings of Power were involved in the background). She was raised a Muslim due to a backstory that involves, among other things, her fair skin, a eunuch, a raging torrent, Saint George and a tiger (not in this order). Clorinda wears a cool armor: white and silver, with a tiger-shaped helm. She is magnanimous but is easily pissed off. It is also made clear that SHE IS THE BEST WITH ANY WEAPON EVER CREATED UNDER THE SUN FROM ROCKS TO TACTICAL NUKES. If Clorinda shot an arrow in Egypt, someone died in China. She is also protected by Saint George, which is a bit of a cheat considering that she is Muslim. Anyway, she UNAVOIDABLY falls in love with the Christian knight Tancredi. He manages to tell her how, yes, he loves her too - while, on the battlefield, they are trying to kill each other in a duel to death (to be clear, they declare their mutual love during their duel - which doesn't stop; some see this as "Eros and Thanatos" while others point to a confused writer). The duel is inconclusive. Then, in one of the most shameful episodes in any story ever, Clorinda kills so many Christian knights in a single tracking shot that GOD SENDS THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL TO REBALANCE THE SITUATION. I mean... If the match is fixed just say so. Anyway, the Saracens decide to put her in reserve (having someone who calls the Wrath of God on you isn't good for morale). Clorinda, miffed, first stops a full attack by the Crusaders with her bow (80% of the Christian European nobles of the time are killed in this single scene), then she decides that obliterating people with a bow is boring and returns to the frontline. A secondary character reveals to her that she was actually born a Christian but Clorinda declares that she will not betray her word and her religion (remember this). UNAVOIDABLY, after A LOT of shenanigans (Clorinda pulls a night attack against the biggest siege tower ever, that just explodes), she fights again Tancredi (both unaware of each other identity). Their second duel is just unreal. It puts to shame anything Marvel and Star Wars ever pushed out, even in good times. The number of paintings and illustrations about this battle can't be counted. Operas about it were written in Italy and France. It was reconstructed on stages all around Europe. The whole nine yards. Clorinda dies (it is a close call: it could have gone both ways but Clorinda bleeds out first), but, with her last breath she "realizes" that, no, she is Christian and converts (a smart move: after seeing what the Christian God can do, better to jump ship while you still have time...)

Tasso also deploys another Saracen female warrior, a minor character called Erminia who, too, is in love with Tancredi - who met when she was a prisoner of the Christian army. One night she steals Clorinda's armor and goes around looking for Tancredi. Erminia realizes, like, at once that having just everyone looking for your head (God included) is unhealthy. She somehow gets out of this mess alive, and confirms her ability to be taken prisoner by being taken prisoner by every single faction in the poem. At the end she stumbles into a dying Tancredi and saves his life thanks to her healing arts - a noble gesture that will lead straight to Clorinda's death. This will teach Clorinda! (meanwhile, Clorinda's armor had been returned to her by the DM).

So, maybe not in the English tradition, but the figure of the superheroine was a common sight in middle-southern Europe - at least from 1400 onwards. Just remember: at the end, either happy marriage and housewifing, or death.

Quote from: BadApple on August 11, 2023, 02:12:22 PM
The whole thing of throwing Lovecraft under the bus is to me the place where they really fall apart for me.  Instead of seeing him as a complex and flawed human, they are lambasting him as a racist and trying to distance themselves with his legacy while taking his IP.

The Jews love Lovecraft (the Italians too, BTW, and he dissed the Italians every other tale). They recognise how he grew up in a specific age and place, when certain ideas were considered a given. But Lovecraft was able to shed a lot of prejudices after a not easy personal crisis - which is what matters. He helped the careers of many Jew writers and even launched some of them (by sending their work to the magazines with his own recommendation; one among many: Robert Bloch). By the end of his life almost nothing remained of the "hateful HPL".

But of course the Jews don't know anything about anti-semitism. You need Evil Hat for that.

Quote from: Reckall on August 11, 2023, 07:11:46 PM
I don't remember female knights in La Morte d'Arthur, but in Renaissance poems (especially from Italy and France) la Guerriera was a staple....

This is exactly the comment I was going to make, but much more thorough and with more examples, so I won't try to add to it.

Quote from: BadApple on August 11, 2023, 02:12:22 PM
The whole thing of throwing Lovecraft under the bus is to me the place where they really fall apart for me.  Instead of seeing him as a complex and flawed human, they are lambasting him as a racist and trying to distance themselves with his legacy while taking his IP.

That last bit is what really rubs me up the wrong way. If you don't approve of someone, it's then supremely slimy to build your entire business on his artistic work. Either stand on principle or keep your mouth shut.

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 11, 2023, 09:17:54 PM

Quote from: BadApple on August 11, 2023, 02:12:22 PM
The whole thing of throwing Lovecraft under the bus is to me the place where they really fall apart for me.  Instead of seeing him as a complex and flawed human, they are lambasting him as a racist and trying to distance themselves with his legacy while taking his IP.

That last bit is what really rubs me up the wrong way. If you don't approve of someone, it's then supremely slimy to build your entire business on his artistic work. Either stand on principle or keep your mouth shut.

I don't know. I thought about making a game set during Mao's Great Leap Forward. The entire thing would be an endless character-funnel.

Quote from: Reckall on August 11, 2023, 07:11:46 PM
I don't remember female knights in La Morte d'Arthur, but in Renaissance poems (especially from Italy and France) la Guerriera was a staple.

This whole post was both interesting and yet a reminder of how Renaissance poems (regardless of the protagonist's sex) can be really boring in that "kids trying to top each other at make-believe" way. I suppose there's a reason why modern audiences mostly remembers isolated fragments of them, if they are remembered at all.

Regarding Ruggiero and Atlantes, I read a slightly different version somewhere which said Atlantes had heard a prophecy regarding his adopted son Ruggiero, one that said he would bring devastation to Islam if he ever converted. That's why he imprisoned him, to void his destiny.

Quote from: Reckall on August 11, 2023, 07:11:46 PM

Quote from: I on August 11, 2023, 01:22:02 PM
Female knights in Pendragon?  Ridiculous.  If you go to Chaosium's forums you'll see people desperately cherry-picking historical factoids like "Countess Griselda threw a rock over the wall at the army besieging her castle in 1396, that proves women back then were common as warriors"!

I don't remember female knights in La Morte d'Arthur, but in Renaissance poems (especially from Italy and France) la Guerriera was a staple. She usually was very beautiful and very strong, more capable than any male counterpart. She had one of two destinies, however: to die (almost always killed by mistake by a lover on the battlefield, thus allowing for poetic grief) or to become a donna gentile (gentlewoman).

[It is interesting, right here, to notice how Eowyn, in The Lord of the Rings, fulfills both destinies (she doesn't actually die, but she is believed dead and people react to this news).]

Bradamante is the most famous. She was used by everyone, and in all her stories put together she did more things than The Avengers (comics plus movies). She was a Christian paladin, often pimped up with magic armor and weapons. Her lover was Ruggiero, a Saracen born from a Christian Knight and a Saracen woman, but she always waited for him to convert. In a truly pre-woke story, Ruggiero is taken prisoner by the Wizard Atlantes (something that, apparently, makes no sense, as Atlantes was the one who raised him as a Saracen; however, we discover that the Wizard is now in love with Ruggiero, which is as creepy as it gets). Bradamante arrives (after freeing a good sorceress prisoner in the tomb of Merlin in a side quest) and dishes out just violence on Atlantes. The Wizard, defeated, asks for pity. Bradamante is moved. Then she decides that she is not moved and dishes out more violence. The Wizard disappears. Ruggiero is freed but Bradamante rides into the sunset - as her lover still hasn't converted. A version of this story appears as an episode in the "Orlando Furioso" by Ariosto, while Andrew Lang wrote a second version with less violence and more D&D in his "Red Book". Some stories had an happy ending but usually they met on the battlefield, didn't recognize each other, fought to death, and he/she/both died in each other's arms. Bradamante shines in Boiardo and Ariosto oeuvres.

Marfisa was the Saracen version of Bradamante. She was the sister of Ruggiero, but she was raised by an "African wizard", somehow became Queen of India and then fought for the Saracens in full armor. Yeah, I don't have a clue either. In some tales she was a Eldritch Knight, wielding armor, sword and magic against the Christians - which is cool for the XVI Century. She falls in love, of course, with Ruggiero, until the Wizard Atlantes warns her of the truth (apparently the punishment dished by Bradamante straightened him a bit - still, Ruggiero appears to be an involuntary magnet of creep). Sometimes she died, sometimes she converted, and in at least one case she joined the army of Emperor Charlemagne (because it is something that any Queen of India will totally do). She was strangely beloved by writers, and there is a subculture of humorous tales about her.

Bradamante is the most famous but Clorinda is truly the real deal. She defends Jerusalem basically alone against the totality of the European Christian Kingdoms during the First Crusade, in "La Gerusalemme Liberata" by Torquato Tasso (her first scene sets the tone: she sees two Christians that are about to be burned by order of THE KING OF JERUSALEM; she says that, no, the two are to be freed BECAUSE SHE SAYS SO; the two are freed). She comes from the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia and has "fair skin and long blond hair" (I guess that the authors of The Rings of Power were involved in the background). She was raised a Muslim due to a backstory that involves, among other things, her fair skin, a eunuch, a raging torrent, Saint George and a tiger (not in this order). Clorinda wears a cool armor: white and silver, with a tiger-shaped helm. She is magnanimous but is easily pissed off. It is also made clear that SHE IS THE BEST WITH ANY WEAPON EVER CREATED UNDER THE SUN FROM ROCKS TO TACTICAL NUKES. If Clorinda shot an arrow in Egypt, someone died in China. She is also protected by Saint George, which is a bit of a cheat considering that she is Muslim. Anyway, she UNAVOIDABLY falls in love with the Christian knight Tancredi. He manages to tell her how, yes, he loves her too - while, on the battlefield, they are trying to kill each other in a duel to death (to be clear, they declare their mutual love during their duel - which doesn't stop; some see this as "Eros and Thanatos" while others point to a confused writer). The duel is inconclusive. Then, in one of the most shameful episodes in any story ever, Clorinda kills so many Christian knights in a single tracking shot that GOD SENDS THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL TO REBALANCE THE SITUATION. I mean... If the match is fixed just say so. Anyway, the Saracens decide to put her in reserve (having someone who calls the Wrath of God on you isn't good for morale). Clorinda, miffed, first stops a full attack by the Crusaders with her bow (80% of the Christian European nobles of the time are killed in this single scene), then she decides that obliterating people with a bow is boring and returns to the frontline. A secondary character reveals to her that she was actually born a Christian but Clorinda declares that she will not betray her word and her religion (remember this). UNAVOIDABLY, after A LOT of shenanigans (Clorinda pulls a night attack against the biggest siege tower ever, that just explodes), she fights again Tancredi (both unaware of each other identity). Their second duel is just unreal. It puts to shame anything Marvel and Star Wars ever pushed out, even in good times. The number of paintings and illustrations about this battle can't be counted. Operas about it were written in Italy and France. It was reconstructed on stages all around Europe. The whole nine yards. Clorinda dies (it is a close call: it could have gone both ways but Clorinda bleeds out first), but, with her last breath she "realizes" that, no, she is Christian and converts (a smart move: after seeing what the Christian God can do, better to jump ship while you still have time...)

Tasso also deploys another Saracen female warrior, a minor character called Erminia who, too, is in love with Tancredi - who met when she was a prisoner of the Christian army. One night she steals Clorinda's armor and goes around looking for Tancredi. Erminia realizes, like, at once that having just everyone looking for your head (God included) is unhealthy. She somehow gets out of this mess alive, and confirms her ability to be taken prisoner by being taken prisoner by every single faction in the poem. At the end she stumbles into a dying Tancredi and saves his life thanks to her healing arts - a noble gesture that will lead straight to Clorinda's death. This will teach Clorinda! (meanwhile, Clorinda's armor had been returned to her by the DM).

So, maybe not in the English tradition, but the figure of the superheroine was a common sight in middle-southern Europe - at least from 1400 onwards. Just remember: at the end, either happy marriage and housewifing, or death.

Yeah, and if you go to the thread on Chaosium's website about female knights in Pendragon you will see all of that mentioned.  But none of this stuff is in ARTHURIAN legend.  if you had an RPG based more on The Faerie Queen stuff like that might be fine.  I've never minded Eowyn in LOTR; she's a cool character.  But Tolkien didn't have 50% of his warriors being women, he had ONE and she was an extraordinary person in both character and upbringing.  I can see maybe having one extraordinary woman (particularly a magical or holy one) be like that, but as a common player class?  Ridiculous.

I just don't get this need to play "characters that look like me" in RPGs, or the need to play a character totally wrong for a specific game or milieu.  For example, if I was going to play in an RPG emulating the fiction of Jane Austen, it would be pretty dumb if I told the GM "Okay, I want to play a bare-knuckled Irish brawling sailorman who's illiterate and half-Eskimo and whose main skills are fistfighting and tying knots."  WHY THE HELL would I insist on playing a character like that in a Jane Austen RPG when it's totally inappropriate to the setting?  Realistically, how is that character going to fit into the genteel drawing rooms of middle or upper class English folk who are mainly concerned with matchmaking and manners?  I would think somebody who wanted to play in a Jane Austen game would want to do so in order to emulate the feeling of her novels; to "play in her world," so to speak, not to turn everything on its head.  Or what if I was in an RPG of mythical Greece and I chose to play a "male Amazon."  I mean... why?  Play what you like, but don't expect me to think it's not stupid, or to not think that player is missing the point.

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 11, 2023, 09:17:54 PM

Quote from: BadApple on August 11, 2023, 02:12:22 PM
The whole thing of throwing Lovecraft under the bus is to me the place where they really fall apart for me.  Instead of seeing him as a complex and flawed human, they are lambasting him as a racist and trying to distance themselves with his legacy while taking his IP.

That last bit is what really rubs me up the wrong way. If you don't approve of someone, it's then supremely slimy to build your entire business on his artistic work. Either stand on principle or keep your mouth shut.

Well I suppose people like that might argue that they're liberating good ideas from an evil artist.

I think it's all hooey. Like what you like and make no apologies. I heard a story of a Jewish woman who survived the holocaust. She enjoyed listening to Wagner much to the shame of her friends and family. Her attitude was 1) nobody tells me what I'm allowed to like and 2) maybe it will piss off some Nazis that a Jew can enjoy Wagner, and that's just fine with me.

No artist is going to share your worldview and most will have very little in common. So what.

Sorry for the rant. I fully agree with you that it's slimy. They are biting the hand that fees them and only getting away with it because he's dead.

Quote from: Effete on August 11, 2023, 09:36:44 PM

I don't know. I thought about making a game set during Mao's Great Leap Forward. The entire thing would be an endless character-funnel.

Well, you can buy this game where you play a Commie:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/260813/Comrades-A-Revolutionary-RPG

Somehow I think they would ban an RPG where you play a group of revolutionary National Socialists having a putsch in Germany, but this crap is OK with Drive-Thru RPG.

Quote from: Reckall on August 11, 2023, 07:11:46 PM
She comes from the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia and has "fair skin and long blond hair"

Sounds like it was inspired by the ancient novel Aethiopica, wherein the heroine, Chariclea, is an Ethiopian princess with white skin and blond hair, even though both of her parents are black.

Quote from: I on August 11, 2023, 01:22:02 PM
Runequest has artistically been retconned to look very Indian in culture, whereas the original was more European -- Sartarites were kind of like Anglo-Saxons, Lunars were sort of like Romans, etc.  Nothing wrong with making it look Indian if it had been done that way originally but it's very obvious they're trying to make it look less Eurocentric on purpose in order to be PC.

I think that is less woke than another iteration of art. The heavy European focus was introduced in RQ3 for the West while the Anglo-Celtic (it drew heavily on both) Sartarites are mostly a product of HeroWars/Quest sourcebooks, and is not the original imagery. Lunars looked as much Greek Empire of Alexander in RQ2 supplements, going Romanish in HW/Q.

The original art for all the factions that fought in Sartar is found in White Bear Red Moon. Prax is originally illustrated in Nomad Gods. Both were expanded in The Wyrm's Footprints. The art in all three is very 70s more than any historical analog.

Nothing I've seen indicates the West is being de-Europeanized. The East has always been a "Chinese" mishmash while Teshnos has been India.

The core areas of central Genertela have usually been influenced by areas between the two in the real world. Prax and the Wastes draw on the Eurasian steppes, as noted above the Lunars are the great Mediterranean empires, although any of the Persian Empires would be a working model. I am surprised Sartarite models have never been Caucus or Balkan mountain tribes.

I think the current art is heavily influenced by The Prince of Sartar webcomic which is nearly a decade old at this point much more than a woke desire to de-Europeanize Glorantha. There is also an increasing use of psychedelic and shamanistic imagery from all over which given Greg, especially later in life, makes sense.

Chaosium has lots of woke issues like thinking people in the 20s cared about pronouns, but I do not think the current RQ art is one of them.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 12, 2023, 04:23:24 AM
Sounds like it was inspired by the ancient novel Aethiopica, wherein the heroine, Chariclea, is an Ethiopian princess with white skin and blond hair, even though both of her parents are black.

I'm reminded of a podcast episode I heard a while back that had an interesting sidebar on how race might have been understood in pre-modern, pre-genetic-understanding times. It starts somewhere around 50:27 in this link, which you can skip to if you're familiar with the Psalmanazar hoax:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgucUiyitmc

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 05:12:49 AM
The heavy European focus was introduced in RQ3 for the West while the Anglo-Celtic (it drew heavily on both) Sartarites are mostly a product of HeroWars/Quest sourcebooks, and is not the original imagery. Lunars looked as much Greek Empire of Alexander in RQ2 supplements, going Romanish in HW/Q.

Greek IS Western.  The original art in Runquest was Western centric.  Just look at the book cover art

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 11, 2023, 09:37:55 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 11, 2023, 07:11:46 PM
I don't remember female knights in La Morte d'Arthur, but in Renaissance poems (especially from Italy and France) la Guerriera was a staple.

This whole post was both interesting and yet a reminder of how Renaissance poems (regardless of the protagonist's sex) can be really boring in that "kids trying to top each other at make-believe" way. I suppose there's a reason why modern audiences mostly remembers isolated fragments of them, if they are remembered at all.

It, obviously, often comes down to the talent of the writer. Ariosto was the most fun, as he (it is said) created "Orlando" as a series of tales meant for his bed-ridden brother - so his aim was to entertain with magic, adventure, romance and sense-of-wonder. Then Tasso arrives and decides that a poem with religious undertones must ditch the fun (even if everything I said about Clorinda is in the book).

And yet it was Tasso the best-seller. While piratery of books already existed back then, his "Gerusalemme" set a record of sort in pirated copies. In his time he was deeply admired both by critics and the general public. Tastes change. Today his talent is still admired, but you can find a lot of modern versions in prose of Ariosto (like the ones by Andrew Lang) not of Tasso - as it is a bore.

Quote
Regarding Ruggiero and Atlantes, I read a slightly different version somewhere which said Atlantes had heard a prophecy regarding his adopted son Ruggiero, one that said he would bring devastation to Islam if he ever converted. That's why he imprisoned him, to void his destiny.

Now that you mention it I remember something similar. However, every writer had his own version. Some story elements were the same but the final tales were different.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 12, 2023, 04:23:24 AM

Quote from: Reckall on August 11, 2023, 07:11:46 PM
She comes from the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia and has "fair skin and long blond hair"

Sounds like it was inspired by the ancient novel Aethiopica, wherein the heroine, Chariclea, is an Ethiopian princess with white skin and blond hair, even though both of her parents are black.

I don't know the original but very often they took a classic story as the inspiration for a character or part of the plot. Clorinda was inspired by Camilla from Virgil's Aeneid, for example. Armida, a sorceress in the same tale, comes from Circe, Alcida (a sorceress actually created by Ariosto) but her story arc has elements of the one of Dido too. Everything was very open source back then.

Anyway, when Clorinda is born with fair skin and blonde hair, her mother fears that her husband will accuse her of betrayal. She is substituted with a black girl and secretly sent away. We are told that there had been no betrayal, so her nature remains a mystery. I don't know what happens in the original tale.

Quote from: I on August 11, 2023, 09:56:41 PM
Yeah, and if you go to the thread on Chaosium's website about female knights in Pendragon you will see all of that mentioned.  But none of this stuff is in ARTHURIAN legend.  if you had an RPG based more on The Faerie Queen stuff like that might be fine.  I've never minded Eowyn in LOTR; she's a cool character.  But Tolkien didn't have 50% of his warriors being women, he had ONE and she was an extraordinary person in both character and upbringing.

Actually that's the point. While these heroines were very common in Renaissance tales, they were a rare exception in their own continuity (for the lack of a better term). They shared common traits (even the Saracen sorceress Armida was better that every single male wizard, and the most beautiful woman that ever existed; she falls in love with a Christian knight etc.)

However, it is always made clear that they were very rare exceptions - two or three amid dozens of male superheroes (this, BTW, is the correct term, as modern superheroes are... just that, the modern version :) ). The very reason they were usually killed by their lover was that no one expected for a woman in full armor to be on the field, much less to be a war machine, so no one checked who was this "extremely strong enemy" (again, you can see the inspirations for Eowyn here, even if Eowyn was far from being a war machine).

So, let's say that they publish the "European" supplement for Pendragon that was actually presented on this very forum by his author more than ten years ago. You need a way to have such a character - as there was always at least one going around. The first problem, however, is that these women were independent. Even amid a field battle they fought by themselves. In some cases they led armies, even presenting themselves as females in those occurrences, but always as "the lone leader in charge"

IMHO, they should be NPCs. Even better, a source of surprise. They appear as their beautiful self in a banquet, romance ensues and... soon or later the PCs meet this unstoppable warrior on the battlefield, and this time tragedy ensues. They could even be part of a party, with a magic armor that - I guess - changes their voice (I always wondered why their voices never gave them away). "I have this cursed armor I cannot exit from, you know..." (how they pee and such is left to the GM).

I'm pretty sure that, if every player is allowed to secretly be a woman warrior, the big twist is that the whole party will be revealed to be female, by then all in love with each other.

One last thing: their fate. Either they died or they became "gentlewomen". Some believe that this was an implicit was to convey the message "a woman doesn't belong to a battlefield, full stop". It is fun to have the beautiful Bradamante or Clorinda in full armor bringing genocide on their enemies, but soon or later it is time to grow up.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 10:37:38 AM

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 11, 2023, 09:37:55 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 11, 2023, 07:11:46 PM
I don't remember female knights in La Morte d'Arthur, but in Renaissance poems (especially from Italy and France) la Guerriera was a staple.

This whole post was both interesting and yet a reminder of how Renaissance poems (regardless of the protagonist's sex) can be really boring in that "kids trying to top each other at make-believe" way. I suppose there's a reason why modern audiences mostly remembers isolated fragments of them, if they are remembered at all.

It, obviously, often comes down to the talent of the writer. Ariosto was the most fun, as he (it is said) created "Orlando" as a series of tales meant for his bed-ridden brother - so his aim was to entertain with magic, adventure, romance and sense-of-wonder. Then Tasso arrives and decides that a poem with religious undertones must ditch the fun (even if everything I said about Clorinda is in the book).

And yet it was Tasso the best-seller. While piratery of books already existed back then, his "Gerusalemme" set a record of sort in pirated copies. In his time he was deeply admired both by critics and the general public. Tastes change. Today his talent is still admired, but you can find a lot of modern versions in prose of Ariosto (like the ones by Andrew Lang) not of Tasso - as it is a bore.

Quote
Regarding Ruggiero and Atlantes, I read a slightly different version somewhere which said Atlantes had heard a prophecy regarding his adopted son Ruggiero, one that said he would bring devastation to Islam if he ever converted. That's why he imprisoned him, to void his destiny.

Now that you mention it I remember something similar. However, every writer had his own version. Some story elements were the same but the final tales were different.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 12, 2023, 04:23:24 AM

Quote from: Reckall on August 11, 2023, 07:11:46 PM
She comes from the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia and has "fair skin and long blond hair"

Sounds like it was inspired by the ancient novel Aethiopica, wherein the heroine, Chariclea, is an Ethiopian princess with white skin and blond hair, even though both of her parents are black.

I don't know the original but very often they took a classic story as the inspiration for a character or part of the plot. Clorinda was inspired by Camilla from Virgil's Aeneid, for example. Armida, a sorceress in the same tale, comes from Circe, Alcida (a sorceress actually created by Ariosto) but her story arc has elements of the one of Dido too. Everything was very open source back then.

Anyway, when Clorinda is born with fair skin and blonde hair, her mother fears that her husband will accuse her of betrayal. She is substituted with a black girl and secretly sent away. We are told that there had been no betrayal, so her nature remains a mystery. I don't know what happens in the original tale.

Quote from: I on August 11, 2023, 09:56:41 PM
Yeah, and if you go to the thread on Chaosium's website about female knights in Pendragon you will see all of that mentioned.  But none of this stuff is in ARTHURIAN legend.  if you had an RPG based more on The Faerie Queen stuff like that might be fine.  I've never minded Eowyn in LOTR; she's a cool character.  But Tolkien didn't have 50% of his warriors being women, he had ONE and she was an extraordinary person in both character and upbringing.

Actually that's the point. While these heroines were very common in Renaissance tales, they were a rare exception in their own continuity (for the lack of a better term). They shared common traits (even the Saracen sorceress Armida was better that every single male wizard, and the most beautiful woman that ever existed; she falls in love with a Christian knight etc.)

However, it is always made clear that they were very rare exceptions - two or three amid dozens of male superheroes (this, BTW, is the correct term, as modern superheroes are... just that, the modern version :) ). The very reason they were usually killed by their lover was that no one expected for a woman in full armor to be on the field, much less to be a war machine, so no one checked who was this "extremely strong enemy" (again, you can see the inspirations for Eowyn here, even if Eowyn was far from being a war machine).

So, let's say that they publish the "European" supplement for Pendragon that was actually presented on this very forum by his author more than ten years ago. You need a way to have such a character - as there was always at least one going around. The first problem, however, is that these women were independent. Even amid a field battle they fought by themselves. In some cases they led armies, even presenting themselves as females in those occurrences, but always as "the lone leader in charge"

IMHO, they should be NPCs. Even better, a source of surprise. They appear as their beautiful self in a banquet, romance ensues and... soon or later the PCs meet this unstoppable warrior on the battlefield, and this time tragedy ensues. They could even be part of a party, with a magic armor that - I guess - changes their voice (I always wondered why their voices never gave them away). "I have this cursed armor I cannot exit from, you know..." (how they pee and such is left to the GM).

I'm pretty sure that, if every player is allowed to secretly be a woman warrior, the big twist is that the whole party will be revealed to be female, by then all in love with each other.

One last thing: their fate. Either they died or they became "gentlewomen". Some believe that this was an implicit was to convey the message "a woman doesn't belong to a battlefield, full stop". It is fun to have the beautiful Bradamante or Clorinda in full armor bringing genocide on their enemies, but soon or later it is time to grow up.

Isnt there already Matter of France based Pendragon spin off called Paladins?

Quote from: Slambo on August 12, 2023, 11:08:16 AM
Isnt there already Matter of France based Pendragon spin off called Paladins?

WHOA! So they DID publish it! Would you believe that it was announced in 2010 with the author coming to this very forum to talk about the project? It was this close to being published.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/very-understated-pendragon-news/

[I may have been the one who pleaded for rules allowing you to play your own Bradamante. I was younger...  :-[ ]

...Then everything was lost in the mists for years. I didn't know about "Paladins". Now I'm curious...

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 11:33:40 AM

Quote from: Slambo on August 12, 2023, 11:08:16 AM
Isnt there already Matter of France based Pendragon spin off called Paladins?

WHOA! So they DID publish it! Would you believe that it was announced in 2010 with the author coming to this very forum to talk about the project? It was this close to being published.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/very-understated-pendragon-news/

[I may have been the one who pleaded for rules allowing you to play your own Bradamante. I was younger...  :-[ ]

...Then everything was lost in the mists for years. I didn't know about "Paladins". Now I'm curious...

It was successfully Kickstarted by Nocturnal and fulfilled by Chaosium, and they still sell it. It's based on the earlier French tales rather than the later Italian ones.

I also get the feeling, circling back to the topic, that current Chaosium management is somewhat embarrassed by it—they've said that the forthcoming Pendragon community support program will not allow people to do Paladin supplements.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 12, 2023, 12:16:31 PM
I also get the feeling, circling back to the topic, that current Chaosium management is somewhat embarrassed by it—they've said that the forthcoming Pendragon community support program will not allow people to do Paladin supplements.

Really? Any inkling as to why? I mean, I can guess...

I actually have Paladins in PDF. I've browsed through it a few times. It unapologetically presents the world through the eyes of Charlemagne's people at the time, so myths and propaganda are intentionally treated as facts. For instance, Saracens are said to "venerate Mahomet, Apollo, Tervagant and Jupiter. Idolatrous (quite like the Byzantines), they carry around their gods as statues on the battlefield."

I can't recall seeing anything about female knights so far, so if it's in there it is low-priority.

Female knights get about half a page on pg 40-41 of Paladin, with explicit examples of Lady Orable from the Aliscans, as well as Marfisa and Bradamant.

"Your campaign may have room for female knights." (emphasis mine)

Discussion of some various reasons women were said to have taken up arms, which might be temporary.
Female knights can be generated either exactly as male knights or as characters with female family/attributes/skills who happen to have become knights.

Charlemagne and the paladins will accept them, but old-fashioned knights will view their deviance with scorn, contempt, and hostility, and to anybody else they'll need to prove themselves and not get too uppity.

They can try to work in disguise as a man, but this is difficult, and can add more complications when they're revealed.

I just remembered that we have some real-life examples. One is Joan of Arc, one of the most misunderstood characters in history. She was a military genius and an intuitive strategist. The French generals agreed that they started to take her seriously after seeing how good she was in placing "siege artillery". When she arrived at Orleans she first chased away the prostitutes following the army (that she survived this is generally considered proof that God does exist).

Then she gave an order that, to this day, no one knows from where it came from: Joan ordered that every soldier in the French army had to bathe before and after every battle. The number of soldiers that she saved from "death by infected wound" is unknown, but... even the most enlightened "surgeons" of the time didn't know the relation between being clean and the risk of an infection. Was it an intuition? A lucky "ritual" about which Joan had no clue about it's real importance? No one knows.

Joan wore a custom made set of armor (and not always), but this to avoid to be killed by the first stray arrow or missile. She had the "Sword of St. Michael" because the leader had to have a superior sword - and she waved it around along with her banner just to give orders to the men around her.

Yet, we know that Joan was wounded two times: by an arrow on the shoulder at Orleans, and her helmet was split in two by a rock during the Loire River campaign - both times because she was the first on a siege ladder. So, she did something in actual battle but we don't know what.

A last note. When King Charles decided to listen to Joan, the women at court started to think that they, too could do more! Joan cut their knees immediately by saying that "The role of a woman is to obey her husband and raise the children". God sent HER, not "the women" in general! Shoo! Shoo!

So much for the "feminist icon".

Anyway, Joan of Arc is the prime example that "there is always one", but she becomes famous because she is a stunning exception. This is the basis for la Guerriera in the poems: an idealized (and, let's be honest, "inclusive"!) female character which, however, represents the exception (some think that Marfisa was created because it was a bit unjust that the Saracens could not have their own "Bradamante" - interestingly enough, we don't have a trace of the obvious end game: a duel between the two...)

Personally, I like the idea of Clorinda obliterating human beings and siege weapons like the Tasmanian Devil from Bugs Bunny. The idea of the paladinette who, enraged, destroys a city (including the area inhabited by her own allies) touches something deep in the human psyche. There are even modern examples of the same archetipe in a different form (just think of Bernadette in The Big Bang Theory, a small, squeaky girl that destroys every obstacle she meets, often with an unexpected evil streak). Yet, these very poems tell us how, soon or lather, either you grow up or you die (even metaphorically).

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 03:40:00 PM
I just remembered that we have some real-life examples. One is Joan of Arc, one of the most misunderstood characters in history. She was a military genius and an intuitive strategist. The French generals agreed that they started to take her seriously after seeing how good she was in placing "siege artillery". When she arrived at Orleans she first chased away the prostitutes following the army (that she survived this is generally considered proof that God does exist).

Then she gave an order that, to this day, no one knows from where it came from: Joan ordered that every soldier in the French army had to bathe before and after every battle. The number of soldiers that she saved from "death by infected wound" is unknown, but... even the most enlightened "surgeons" of the time didn't know the relation between being clean and the risk of an infection. Was it an intuition? A lucky "ritual" about which Joan had no clue about it's real importance? No one knows.

Joan wore a custom made set of armor (and not always), but this to avoid to be killed by the first stray arrow or missile. She had the "Sword of St. Michael" because the leader had to have a superior sword - and she waved it around along with her banner just to give orders to the men around her.

Yet, we know that Joan was wounded two times: by an arrow on the shoulder at Orleans, and her helmet was split in two by a rock during the Loire River campaign - both times because she was the first on a siege ladder. So, she did something in actual battle but we don't know what.

A last note. When King Charles decided to listen to Joan, the women at court started to think that they, too could do more! Joan cut their knees immediately by saying that "The role of a woman is to obey her husband and raise the children". God sent HER, not "the women" in general! Shoo! Shoo!

So much for the "feminist icon".

Anyway, Joan of Arc is the prime example that "there is always one", but she becomes famous because she is a stunning exception. This is the basis for la Guerriera in the poems: an idealized (and, let's be honest, "inclusive"!) female character which, however, represents the exception (some think that Marfisa was created because it was a bit unjust that the Saracens could not have their own "Bradamante" - interestingly enough, we don't have a trace of the obvious end game: a duel between the two...)

Personally, I like the idea of Clorinda obliterating human beings and siege weapons like the Tasmanian Devil from Bugs Bunny. The idea of the paladinette who, enraged, destroys a city (including the area inhabited by her own allies) touches something deep in the human psyche. There are even modern examples of the same archetipe in a different form (just think of Bernadette in The Big Bang Theory, a small, squeaky girl that destroys every obstacle she meets, often with an unexpected evil streak). Yet, these very poems tell us how, soon or lather, either you grow up or you die (even metaphorically).

I never heard that part of the story where she stopped the other women lol.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 03:40:00 PM
I just remembered that we have some real-life examples. One is Joan of Arc, one of the most misunderstood characters in history. She was a military genius and an intuitive strategist. The French generals agreed that they started to take her seriously after seeing how good she was in placing "siege artillery". When she arrived at Orleans she first chased away the prostitutes following the army (that she survived this is generally considered proof that God does exist).

Then she gave an order that, to this day, no one knows from where it came from: Joan ordered that every soldier in the French army had to bathe before and after every battle. The number of soldiers that she saved from "death by infected wound" is unknown, but... even the most enlightened "surgeons" of the time didn't know the relation between being clean and the risk of an infection. Was it an intuition? A lucky "ritual" about which Joan had no clue about it's real importance? No one knows.

Reading your biography of an ignorant farm girl, whose religious hysteria lead to her being a useful talisman to carry with the army; it's interesting to see a piece of straw spun in to a spool of gold thread.

"Some say she did this thing!" "She did another thing but we're not sure what!" "She theoretically could have done X, so maybe she did!"

It's like historical Bieber-Fever.



As to the female knight as a concept, it has the same poisoned barb as many other things we've seen injected into Western media. "Here's a rare example of a thing (if you squint hard enough,) so it should be an option!" We see this traditionally in D&D, the female knight/paladin is allowed as a rarity, with the understanding that they will be so rare that they will be somewhat of an oddity.

But then fast-forward a couple of decades, and tokenism is no longer enough, and suddenly the fantasy world is filled with female generals, knights, paladins, watch captains, etc; often to the point where MORE such roles are filled by women. Then you've got 5E, where your black female watch captain goes home to her brown, disabled wife, and tells her about the terrible transphobe she locked up for pointing out that the Princess has a penis.

Quote from: Naburimannu on August 12, 2023, 02:36:07 PM
Charlemagne and the paladins will accept them, but old-fashioned knights will view their deviance with scorn, contempt, and hostility, and to anybody else they'll need to prove themselves and not get too uppity.

They will challenge these old-fashioned knights to single duel. Everyone, out of curiosity, comes to watch - only to have blood, armor, bones, human flesh and entrails raining on the whole court four seconds into the duel. Remember: these female warriors (or sorcerers) are always among the absolute best. That's not the point: the point is their fate - which often is unavoidable doom.

This is why I think that they should be NPCs - which still poses the problem of how not to upstage the PCs.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 04:02:31 PM
Reading your biography of an ignorant farm girl, whose religious hysteria lead to her being a useful talisman to carry with the army; it's interesting to see a piece of straw spun in to a spool of gold thread.

Actually, no. We don't know anything about Joan before she arrived to Chignon, but afterwards we, literally, know what she did and said in any given day, from multiple sources. One of these sources is the French Church, who was against her and followed her around 24/7 to prove that she was an impostor.

She did chase away the prostitutes following the French army. She did order that the French soldiers had to bathe before and after every battle. It is worth mentioning how no one had a clue about why she ordered this, they simply obeyed. Why should her generals invent such a thing? Only modern scholars were able to say "wait a minute..." However, as I said, maybe she was just lucky.

Unknown thing about Joan are just that: open to speculation but unknown. When I wrote that she is one of the most misunderstood character in history is because people love to invent things about Joan - while rejecting as "myth" what she actually did.

One book detailing her military life is "Joan of Arc: a Military Leader". It is chock full of references to primary sources.

https://www.amazon.com/Joan-Arc-Military-Kelly-DeVries-ebook/dp/B0078XH9MO/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1HVNJFZ7BHSXM&keywords=joan+of+arc+a+military+leader&qid=1691871566&sprefix=joan+of+arc+military%2Caps%2C252&sr=8-1

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 04:04:41 PMRemember: these female warriors (or sorcerers) are always among the absolute best. That's not the point: the point is their fate - which often is unavoidable doom.

What on Earth are you basing this on?

Sorcery, maybe? I mean unless that particular magic source is more easily chaneled by females, I'm not sure why a woman that believes she's hot shit, means that she actually is. Seems related to the "women have to work twice as hard, and be twice as good to succeed!" cope.

When it comes to melee fighting? Pure fantasy. Unless a female warrior is blessed by the gods, or sporting magic gear, she'd get stomped. The men swing harder, take the blows better, have the stamina to last longer, and can genuinely throw the woman around/physically dominate her during a fight.

The usual counter to this is "I'm in a historical combat society, and there's this woman who beats all the men!" Like controlled combat using foam, that has rules against, say, knocking the woman on her back and bashing her skull in with your pommel/a rock are not allowed, is any gauge of actual combat. There are very real, sensible reasons as to why women warriors have never been more than support or last-ditch emergency troops.

At best, if you had a truly physically gifted, freakishly large and strong woman (by female standards) and she was trained very well, she could be a knight. But she'd be the one coming 200th of a class of 200, not the "she's held back because she's so great that the male ego can't handle her power" horseshit.

In our real world, with our real militaries, there has never been a female who has had fitness results good enough to pass the male MINIMUMS. Ever. Let that sink in. High School track and field boys regularly smash female OLYMPIC records, and 13 year old boys thrash the mighty U.S. Soccer squad by such high margins that they only play a partial match.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 04:27:45 PM
Actually, no. We don't know anything about Joan before she arrived to Chignon, but afterwards we, literally, know what she did and said in any given day, from multiple sources. One of these sources is the French Church, who was against her and followed her around 24/7 to prove that she was an impostor.

She did chase away the prostitutes following the French army. She did order that the French soldiers had to bathe before and after every battle. It is worth mentioning how no one had a clue about why she ordered this, they simply obeyed. Why should her generals invent such a thing? Only modern scholars were able to say "wait a minute..." However, as I said, maybe she was just lucky.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is arguing that a female leader can't chase prostitutes, or tell smelly soldiers to be clean and thus more holy. It's the Xena Warrior Princess and untrained tactical genius stuff that fails the sniff test. Hell, if there are good sources for for being injured running around the battlefield, I don't even have a problem with that. Anyone can run and wave a sword before being injured and dragged away.

Why was she injured on siege ladders? Shouldn't she scamper up and start decimating the men-at-arms on the battlements, spinning around like Legolas?

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 04:31:13 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 04:04:41 PMRemember: these female warriors (or sorcerers) are always among the absolute best. That's not the point: the point is their fate - which often is unavoidable doom.

What on Earth are you basing this on?

TONS of tales from 1400 onward? Just saying.

Find a copy of the Orlando Furioso or La Gerusalemme Liberata in English, or even the Red Book by Andrew Lang (or the medieval pastiches by Italo Calvino). The first three are freely available on the internet (even if I have Lang's Fairy Books collection on Kindle).

Why these women were the absolute best? Because. In a way, no explanation is better than a stupid explanation.

Quote
When it comes to melee fighting? Pure fantasy.

You got the point. So, why the trouble?

Snip on "the real world is different!"

REALLY???? The things you learn. True, we can say that Eowyn is, in her specific context, "realistic". Now, what about Galadriel? Should we ditch The Lord of the Rings because it has multi-millenary elves? Or ditch The Avengers because they have Black Widow? (AFAIK she hasn't super power, she is simply really good. I don't remember if in her past she had chemical enhancers, but it would still be para-scientific).

These were tales written to entertain. Even Tasso, who was the most anti-fun author of the bunch, knew that if you don't entertain your public you will lose him - something, it is worth mentioning, that the wokes failed to learn

Quote from: Reckall on August 11, 2023, 09:09:13 PM

The Jews love Lovecraft (the Italians too, BTW, and he dissed the Italians every other tale).

Lovecraft is quite popular here in Brazil, too. Not only his books, but also RPGs and board games based on his works.

Of course, as far as I know he never dissed Brazilians or other South American peoples, but he didn't like neither Portuguese nor Spaniards very much, either.  ;D

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 05:02:57 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 04:31:13 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 04:04:41 PMRemember: these female warriors (or sorcerers) are always among the absolute best. That's not the point: the point is their fate - which often is unavoidable doom.

What on Earth are you basing this on?

TONS of tales from 1400 onward? Just saying.

Finds a copy of the Orlando Furioso or La Gerusalemme Liberata in English, or even the Red Book by Andrew Lang (or the medieval pastiches by Italo Calvino). The first three are freely available on the internet (even if I have Lang's Fairy Books collection on Kindle).

Why these women were the absolute best? Because. In a way, no explanation is better than a stupid explanation.

Quote
When it comes to melee fighting? Pure fantasy.

You got the point. So, why the trouble?

Snip on "the real world is different!"

REALLY???? The things you learn. True, we can say that Eowyn is, in her specific context, "realistic". Now, what about Galadriel? Should we ditch The Lord of the Rings because it has multi-millenary elves? Or ditch The Avengers because they have Black Widow? (AFAIK she hasn't super power, she is simply really good. I don't remember if in her past she had chemical enhancers, but it would still be para-scientific).

These were tales written to entertain. Even Tasso, who was the most anti-fun author of the bunch, knew that if you don't entertain your public you will lose him - something, it is worth mentioning, that the wokes failed to learn

In the movies Black Widow has no powers, in the comics she has a russian super soldier serum but it hasn't been mentioned for a while.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 05:02:57 PM
REALLY???? The things you learn. True, we can say that Eowyn is, in her specific context, "realistic". Now, what about Galadriel? Should we ditch The Lord of the Rings because it has multi-millenary elves? Or ditch The Avengers because they have Black Widow? (AFAIK she hasn't super power, she is simply really good. I don't remember if in her past she had chemical enhancers, but it would still be para-scientific).

These were tales written to entertain. Even Tasso, who was the most anti-fun author of the bunch, knew that if you don't entertain your public you will lose him - something, it is worth mentioning, that the wokes failed to learn

Black Widow was the result of the Soviet attempt to replicate the Captain America serum.  But I think that's irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

If you're trying to make a historically accurate setting and then throw in a few magical elements, the sexual dimorphism is something that needs to be addressed.  It is real and it is something that's shaped history.  Female warriors are extremely rare in history.  In the handful of times they were a real thing, they failed abysmally. 

Why do they fail?  Because in the words of a famous USMC commander "You put 100lbs of gear on a woman's back and she crumples like a crouton."  Need more convincing?  Watch the Alana Mclaughlinvs vs Celine Provost fight.  Celine was a way more skilled fighter and was fighting someone in the same weight class and still got wreck so badly she'll never fight again.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOp5YdPLbg

Jeanne d'Arc was a teenage girl that filled the role of field commander and banner carrier.  I seriously doubt she ever did anything with any weapon other than wave her ceremonial sword.  She didn't have to and if she was in melee, she wasn't doing her job.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 05:02:57 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 04:31:13 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 04:04:41 PMRemember: these female warriors (or sorcerers) are always among the absolute best. That's not the point: the point is their fate - which often is unavoidable doom.

What on Earth are you basing this on?

TONS of tales from 1400 onward? Just saying.

Find a copy of the Orlando Furioso or La Gerusalemme Liberata in English, or even the Red Book by Andrew Lang (or the medieval pastiches by Italo Calvino). The first three are freely available on the internet (even if I have Lang's Fairy Books collection on Kindle).

Why these women were the absolute best? Because. In a way, no explanation is better than a stupid explanation.

Quote
When it comes to melee fighting? Pure fantasy.

You got the point. So, why the trouble?

Snip on "the real world is different!"

REALLY???? The things you learn. True, we can say that Eowyn is, in her specific context, "realistic". Now, what about Galadriel? Should we ditch The Lord of the Rings because it has multi-millenary elves? Or ditch The Avengers because they have Black Widow? (AFAIK she hasn't super power, she is simply really good. I don't remember if in her past she had chemical enhancers, but it would still be para-scientific).

These were tales written to entertain. Even Tasso, who was the most anti-fun author of the bunch, knew that if you don't entertain your public you will lose him - something, it is worth mentioning, that the wokes failed to learn

I realized, after posting, that in the instance I commented on, you were actually specifically referencing women in literature and myth. My confusion was due to you mixing historical and fantasy examples of woman warriors in your posts, and jumping back and forth.

I decided to leave it up because it serves as a good counter to when you switch back to squinting down your lens at historical women.

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 05:57:02 PM
If you're trying to make a historically accurate setting and then throw in a few magical elements, the sexual dimorphism is something that needs to be addressed.

Which is not the genre of tales were are talking about here, so we can move on.

Quote
Jeanne d'Arc was a teenage girl that filled the role of field commander and banner carrier.  I seriously doubt she ever did anything with any weapon other than wave her ceremonial sword.  She didn't have to and if she was in melee, she wasn't doing her job.

Now, I know why you think that you know more about Joan of Arc than those who actually meet her plus centuries of scholarly studies. I really do. But any serious discourse about a historical character must consider the first two things, not what you do want to believe.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 04:37:20 PM
Yeah, I don't think anyone is arguing that a female leader can't chase prostitutes, or tell smelly soldiers to be clean and thus more holy. It's the Xena Warrior Princess and untrained tactical genius stuff that fails the sniff test.

You don't seem to even have read what I wrote. We know that the French generals obeyed her - something out of this world. But then they explained why. This whole "she knew better than anyone else how to place the siege artillery" thinghie is unusually specific. "The enemy armies wavered when she drew her sword!" would have been enough for the times. Why should her generals get together and made up from scratch "what about her being an artillery genius?" It makes no sense. More? The French Church is an independent source on this and the French priests had to admit that the generals were impressed while still trying to prove that Joan was an impostor. More? The battles were mapped, and after Joan arrived it is confirmed that the positions of the French artillery improved. (!)

We know that she was wounded two times, both times because she was the first on a siege ladder. Everything else is speculation.

You seem to say "I don't like that Joan of Arc did this and that!" You also say "This genre can't exist because it violates the rules of a totally different genre!"

I gave you all the primary sources you need, and some of them are free. You didn't even mention them - much less counter these primary sources. I now think that you are the kind of individual that first decides how the world is, and then just ditches anything that goes against his ideas - especially if it is factual.

Sadly, I seldom have time to waste about someone who says "Joan wasn't this!!!" when even the English admitted that, well, she was - and when I gave you my source you thrundled on without even bothering to address it. Same for the stories about female warriors in the Renaissance freely available to read on the internet. If you have some opinion based of facts I'm listening. If not, don't bother.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 05:02:57 PMTrue, we can say that Eowyn is, in her specific context, "realistic". Now, what about Galadriel? Should we ditch The Lord of the Rings because it has multi-millenary elves? Or ditch The Avengers because they have Black Widow? (AFAIK she hasn't super power, she is simply really good. I don't remember if in her past she had chemical enhancers, but it would still be para-scientific).

Galadriel is an immortal queen of a race of divinely created supernatural creatures, not a human woman. In the novels she's respected for her magical ability, wisdom and beauty. It took 21st century Hollywood to make her a sword swinging girl boss.

Black Widow can kick ass because superhero universes have a conceit that people with no powers can fight gods. Many heroes take karate lessons, lift weights, put on a mask and bam, join a super team. I mean the Hulk and Iron Man are on the team with a man who uses a bow FFS.

Also, historically, super heroines were always a minority. The usual mix was something like 1 per hero team, unless the team is very large, and they are rarely more than a co-chair or squad leader. They are almost never the nemesis of any major villains either.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 06:56:30 PM
You don't seem to even have read what I wrote. We know that the French generals obeyed her - something out of this world. But then they explained why. This whole "she knew better than anyone else how to place the siege artillery" thinghie is unusually specific. "The enemy armies wavered when she drew her sword!" would have been enough for the times. Why should her generals get together and made up from scratch "what about her being an artillery genius?" It makes no sense. More? The French Church is an independent source on this and the French priests had to admit that the generals were impressed while trying to prove that Joan was an impostor. More? The battles were mapped, and that after Joan arrived it is confirmed that the positions of the French artillery improved. (!)

You talk about Joan Of Arc like a publisher writing a biography on IMDB. "Her next role was in the award winning Taxi Driver, where she shone alongside De Niro, in her role as a waitress. The Toronto Free Paper hailed her performance as Genius!"

Explain to me how the fuck a peasant girl knows how to place artillery well? She didn't even understand the physics behind how they worked, how the hell is she going to improve them? You're a great example of someone waving around historical anecdotes and not engaging your reason. This is the historical equivalent of "follow the Science!"

Quick question, do you believe she was divinely inspired?

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 07:11:39 PM
You talk about Joan Of Arc like a publisher writing a biography on IMDB.

So? Even a publisher can't write "The Oscar Winning Actress...!" if she never won an Oscar.

Quote
Explain to me how the fuck a peasant girl knows how to place artillery well?

There is a theory going around. It is just a theory but many events in her life do seem to support it - i.e. that she could have had some form of ASD. She had eidetic memory (this comes from English sources and the transcript of her trial). She was single-minded but nowhere she shows that he had any kind of social skills (she was manipulative, which is not the same). She was illiterate but an astoundingly fast learner of even complex matters - if she met a good teacher.

Placing siege artillery is a matter of spatial geometry. "What this thing can throw, how far and how often?" is all you need. People are capable of creating mental maps and move things around in their minds - today, while playing videogames! Once you grasp the basic concepts, you can use this talent to simulate different artillery placements, until you find the optimal one. Honestly, I can see Joan tackling the problem this way - but this is me.

I don't even think that you know about the Campaign for the Loire River Valley, much less in how many battles Joan was involved - all documented.

Quote
You're a great example of someone waving around historical anecdotes

...Actually, "Sworn testimonies given in front of the King, the Church and God"...

Quote
and not engaging your reason. This is the historical equivalent of "follow the Science!"

I agree that yours is the historical equivalent of "I don't need to study because I was born learned!" Lucky you: I had to study and do research.

Quote
Quick question, do you believe she was divinely inspired?

No. But I do believe that she was inspired. Then, in her time, this could only come from God.

My question to you: did you read the Ariosto? Tasso? Lang? The book about Joan as a military leader I suggested? Or you actually fear to face the real world?

COMING ATTRACTIONS: We left with Grognard GM's face full of eggs. This is what will happen next.

- He will not desist (thus derailing what had become a very interesting thread). The fact that more I'm prone to listen to the Duke of Alençon and Ludovico Ariosto than to him will be irrelevant.

- He will accuse me AGAIN of being a myth-believer without bothering to even check the sources I gave to him (because he just knows the truth and I don't).

- If he checks the sources (I think that, again, they will not will even be mentioned but... who knows?) he will explain how they are not important facts of the matter - because even a cursory glance shows that they prove him wrong.

- He will still explain that a woman can't go around killing metric tons of things in a fantastic tale - because in the real world this just doesn't happen.

- The usual end game will be that I have to prove that the history of a specific genre of literature from 1400 up to recent times does actually exist. Not to mention that I will also have to prove that all the characters who met, wrote about, or were interrogated about Joan of Arc (sometimes during very serious trials), did exist and, for some inexplicable reason, concocted a tale where an upstart peasant girl was better than all of them.

Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 10:20:25 AM

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 05:12:49 AM
The heavy European focus was introduced in RQ3 for the West while the Anglo-Celtic (it drew heavily on both) Sartarites are mostly a product of HeroWars/Quest sourcebooks, and is not the original imagery. Lunars looked as much Greek Empire of Alexander in RQ2 supplements, going Romanish in HW/Q.

Greek IS Western.  The original art in Runquest was Western centric.  Just look at the book cover art

Greek is also Mediterranean and Ancient as well as Western. Bronze Age Greece is part of the Near East with little if any direct lineage to Western Culture.

When most people say "Western centric" they mean Migration Era and Middle Ages as is the complaint about Sartarite no longer being Anglo-Saxon.

Yes, the original cover for RQ1 and RQ2 looks mostly like a Hopile crossed with Bronze Age warrior imagery, but on the whole, it owes more to the Bronze Age than Western Antiquity.

Let's look at some other covers.

Here are the front and back covers for Pavis: Threshold to Danger:

(https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-9zhx02uo/product_images/uploaded_images/cha4021-pavis-front-cover-700.jpg)
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/9aa611738f5cd085bf2b7f28f0ff1f9a/tumblr_p0gz2dlkU21wo6q1so8_1280.jpg)

Both have a clear Bronze Age Near Eastern look.


Here is the front of Big Rubble:

(https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-9zhx02uo/images/stencil/500x659/products/2128/5049/CHA4022_-_Big_Rubble_-_Front_Cover_-_700x900_-_PDF__84827.1595033445.png?c=2)

While most of it is generic fantasy the lamellar army is of a style seen mostly in the Near East and further East.

Here are the player common knowledge books for both box sets:

(https://brpcentral-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/monthly_2021_10/388327432_PavisBigRubblebooks1.JPG.71db1a724312e2733a4ec91d72a470cf.JPG)

The Big Rubble book is a monster without a lot of cultural knowledge, but the one for Pavis is clearly Near Eastern Bronze Age. It could be from the Book of Joshua or Gilgamesh and while the former is a huge influence on Western Culture is is not a product of it. The latter isn't even much of  an influence.

We could go on with pre-3rd Edition products but they were pretty much universally Bronze Age Near East with some trippy 70s art influences, see things like the art in Rune Lords.

If Chaosium is driving RQ art woke (ie, Indian mostly with some Japanese) why is that not reflected in HeroQuest items as well? While Hasbro drove them out of print in 2021, their art represented a different nature progression of Glorantha. The last items overlap in design with newer RQ materials but look nothing like them. I wish we'd stayed at the step right before that, art from The Guide to Glorantha.

I'm not particularly fond of much of it, although most covers are more in the trends from HeroQuest and lean heavily into Near Eastern influences with some good old-fashioned Victorian/Edwardian Orientalism (which is despised by the wokearati). Only the recent Cults of Runequest: The Prosopadia follows the whacked art trend, but I'm not surprised as art tied to myths and magic is where most of the weirdness is.

That art about a world of 1000 gods in multiple pantheons takes inspiration heavily from Hindu art is...something you could argue should have been present from the beginning.

The interior art is mostly bad more than woke.  Still, I can see over the course of 45 years how we got here.

If you have to insist current RQ art is woke then you're suffering from seeing something everywhere as much as the wokesters.

smh

If Chaosium tries to wokify Glorantha I think we'll see it in injecting transgenderism into the lore. There have been bits and hits about transformation of characters, especially female ones, who take other sex roles. The artificial beards female priests of Lhynkar Myh are required to wear are an example.

The big shot would be redefining Kallyr Starbrow as a transman so she could marry a Pure Horse Queen. Haven't seen it yet, but given the pronouns on 1920s characters sheets, I wouldn't be surprised.

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 08:13:45 PM

Greek is also Mediterranean and Ancient as well as Western.

Italy, France and Spain are also on the Med.  WTF does that have to do with NOT being Western?

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 08:13:45 PM

Yes, the original cover for RQ1 and RQ2 looks mostly like a Hopile crossed with Bronze Age warrior imagery, but on the whole, it owes more to the Bronze Age than Western Antiquity.

The "Bronze Age" is NOT a location.  A Hoplite is from the Western world.  I think you need to go back to Grammar School and finish what you missed.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 06:56:30 PM

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 05:57:02 PM
If you're trying to make a historically accurate setting and then throw in a few magical elements, the sexual dimorphism is something that needs to be addressed.

Which is not the genre of tales were are talking about here, so we can move on.

Is not Pendragon and Paladin semi historical settings?

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 06:56:30 PM

Quote
Jeanne d'Arc was a teenage girl that filled the role of field commander and banner carrier.  I seriously doubt she ever did anything with any weapon other than wave her ceremonial sword.  She didn't have to and if she was in melee, she wasn't doing her job.

Now, I know why you think that you know more about Joan of Arc than those who actually meet her plus centuries of scholarly studies. I really do. But any serious discourse about a historical character must consider the first two things, not what you do want to believe.

I have read numerous contemporary reports and many writings by historians and not one has directly contradicted my view of what went down.  Many reports are flat out vague and modern historians are trying to fill the gaps.  All this and we are to assume that there's no political "bending of the facts" by people who could write for propaganda purposes.

Do I think she was brave?  She had the fortitude to get into the middle of a place where grown men were actively trying to kill each other in order to lead.  That takes a lot of brass.  Do I think she was a good leader?  What we have that are decisions attributed to her, yes, she made the right military calls where they were needed.  Was she a warrior?  No, she wasn't.  Nothing supports that she actually engaged in combat directly.  Like I said before, the role she was filling she shouldn't have even if she was capable of it because it would have distracted her from leadership that she was supposed to be providing.  That said, there's no safe place on the battlefield so she would have been open to getting injured.

Now some modern "historians" that want to push a girl boss type narrative have created the image of her throwing down in melee.  It's not supported. 

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 08:12:29 PMCOMING ATTRACTIONS: We left with Grognard GM's face full of eggs. This is what will happen next.

- He will not desist (thus derailing what had become a very interesting thread). The fact that more I'm prone to listen to the Duke of Alençon and Ludovico Ariosto than to him will be irrelevant.

- He will accuse me AGAIN of being a myth-believer without bothering to even check the sources I gave to him (because he just knows the truth and I don't).

- If he checks the sources (I think that, again, they will not will even be mentioned but... who knows?) he will explain how they are not important facts of the matter - because even a cursory glance shows that they prove him wrong.

- He will still explain that a woman can't go around killing metric tons of things in a fantastic tale - because in the real world this just doesn't happen.

- The usual end game will be that I have to prove that the history of a specific genre of literature from 1400 up to recent times does actually exist. Not to mention that I will also have to prove that all the characters who met, wrote about, or were interrogated about Joan of Arc (sometimes during very serious trials), did exist and, for some inexplicable reason, concocted a tale where an upstart peasant girl was better than all of them.

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!"

Moms setting their kid up for a date don't oversell them as much as you.

PS - I am happy to stop, if it has become a derail. But you derailed as much as I did, and I'll notice at no point were you the bigger man that walked away. Let's see if you have the self control not to have the last word. 

Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 08:27:33 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 08:13:45 PM

Greek is also Mediterranean and Ancient as well as Western.

Italy, France and Spain are also on the Med.  WTF does that have to do with NOT being Western?

I'm scratching my head also. Maybe he has a hang-up that the world Western has too many Anglo-Saxon connotations? Help us out here, Herb.

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 08:52:01 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 06:56:30 PM

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 05:57:02 PM
If you're trying to make a historically accurate setting and then throw in a few magical elements, the sexual dimorphism is something that needs to be addressed.

Which is not the genre of tales were are talking about here, so we can move on.

Is not Pendragon and Paladin semi historical settings?

Oh good, I'm not the only one struggling to keep up with his regular gear changes between historical and literary examples of warrior women.

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 08:52:01 PM
Do I think she was a good leader?  What we have that are decisions attributed to her, yes, she made the right military calls where they were needed.

Judging by different historians than the ones cited by Reckall, her results in that department may have been mixed at best. Let me quote from the following article:
https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/8-joan-of-arc-myths-busted/

QuoteMyth: "She was a great military tactician"

The Truth: Joan, a naïve 17-year-old peasant girl, certainly showed immense bravery riding into battle alongside seasoned warriors, but she was no military genius. In fact, Joan's rash actions and reckless decisions proved more than once to be a dangerous addition to the French army. For example, upon approaching Orléans she insisted the English should be attacked from the north as that was where their greatest numbers lay. The commanders were so against this potentially disastrous strategy that they took the convoy on a different route without telling Joan. When the attack did happen, Joan was napping and nearly missed the entire battle. When the young warrior acted of her own accord and tried to attack the stronghold of Boulevart, she narrowly escaped disaster and had to be dragged off the field amid mass panic. After this she was asked to sit out on the assault the next day, a request she ignored.

Interestingly, the same article has this further note that might come as a surprise to some:

QuoteMyth: "Women didn't lead armies"

The Truth: The most unusual thing about Joan's command of an army is not her gender, but her social standing. It was common during the era for aristocratic women to command their family's forces in the absence of a brother or husband. And rather than going against the grain and breaking social norms, this was actually adhering to the feudal society in France at the time. Joan was granted command because of the religious society that believed anyone could receive a divine calling, and it should be listened to. It is highly unlikely that a legion of male soldiers would have followed her word if the inclusion of women in battle had not already been widely accepted at the time.

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.

Maybe. But it was not me that ignored every counter-argument in this debate.

Quote
What I contend is that, when dealing with history, there is a lot of lying, fraud, propaganda and simple confusion.

Like that Joan didn't do what they said she was able to do?

Quote
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.

Actually, no. Joan was mentioned in this thread because it is about women who wore armor in battle. I said that she is a deeply misunderstood historical figure including for what she actually did on the battlefield. I felt no need to go off topic.

Quote
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!"

Yeah. Go to the King of England with this explanation as why Charles was just crowned in Reims ::)

Quote
Your entire argument is name dropping 700 year old sources

Quoting written sources. I looked for people who met Joan in the XX Century but I didn't find anyone. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Quote
and insisting this makes you right.

That's the point that you are missing: I don't want to be "right", only to present historical facts. It's you who is wanting "to be right".

Quote
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.

So, your opinion comes from NO RESEARCH. Well, I already knew that  :)

Quote
Secondly, every decent historian knows that sources are often bunk, for reasons ranging from ignorance to self serving behavior.

This is why sources are evaluated. Nothing to see here.

Quote
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 knew that you hadn't a clue about Joan of Arc, but I admit that not having a clue about what I actually wrote in this thread (i.e. about what you are answering to) is even more out there than I thought. ::)

Quote
I guarantee I'm not the only one that reads your Joan fan page

You don't even read this thread, imagine my Joan fan page...

Quote
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..."

You never know "what"? Remember, their generals didn't know why the soldiers had to bathe. Joan never gave any explanation. Factually, this practice saved the lives of many soldiers, but it may have happened by chance - as I wrote. Maybe in her youth she had noticed how clean people were less prone to infections - but this is speculation.

Quote
or "artillery! Why would they say she was great at placing artillery?

Because she was? Again, a bunch of generals said "She was better than all of us". Why to make up something humiliating? And, BTW, when you missed that the battles were mapped and we can see that placement of the siege artillery improved after Joan arrived?

Quote
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!"

Something that can happen, BTW.

Quote
PS - I am happy to stop, if it has become a derail. But you derailed as much as I did, and I'll notice at no point were you the bigger man that walked away.

You didn't notice a lot of things, I agree.

Quote
Let's see if you have the self control not to have the last word.

THE LORD BE PRAISED! :D

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 12, 2023, 09:35:38 PM

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 08:52:01 PM
Do I think she was a good leader?  What we have that are decisions attributed to her, yes, she made the right military calls where they were needed.

Judging by different historians than the ones cited by Reckall, her results in that department may have been mixed at best. Let me quote from the following article:
https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/8-joan-of-arc-myths-busted/

QuoteMyth: "She was a great military tactician"

The Truth: Joan, a naïve 17-year-old peasant girl, certainly showed immense bravery riding into battle alongside seasoned warriors, but she was no military genius. In fact, Joan's rash actions and reckless decisions proved more than once to be a dangerous addition to the French army. For example, upon approaching Orléans she insisted the English should be attacked from the north as that was where their greatest numbers lay. The commanders were so against this potentially disastrous strategy that they took the convoy on a different route without telling Joan. When the attack did happen, Joan was napping and nearly missed the entire battle. When the young warrior acted of her own accord and tried to attack the stronghold of Boulevart, she narrowly escaped disaster and had to be dragged off the field amid mass panic. After this she was asked to sit out on the assault the next day, a request she ignored.

Interestingly, the same article has this further note that might come as a surprise to some:

QuoteMyth: "Women didn't lead armies"

The Truth: The most unusual thing about Joan's command of an army is not her gender, but her social standing. It was common during the era for aristocratic women to command their family's forces in the absence of a brother or husband. And rather than going against the grain and breaking social norms, this was actually adhering to the feudal society in France at the time. Joan was granted command because of the religious society that believed anyone could receive a divine calling, and it should be listened to. It is highly unlikely that a legion of male soldiers would have followed her word if the inclusion of women in battle had not already been widely accepted at the time.

I'm sorry, you've got to find out how many books Reckall has read, then read one more, otherwise you're not prepared to do research. You didn't even mention the names of old dead people that wrote down that she wasn't that great, how can he take you seriously?

She had a brain that could calculate the trajectories of siege engines without even being trained in mathematics, physics, or siege craft, you know. She MAY have only had her soldiers bathe for general appearance, but he will never rule out the possibility that she somehow discovered germ theory centuries early. MAY, wonderful word that.

Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 08:27:33 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 08:13:45 PM

Greek is also Mediterranean and Ancient as well as Western.

Italy, France and Spain are also on the Med.  WTF does that have to do with NOT being Western?

Yes, their Bronze Ages are not part of the West either. They were also not part of the Near East/Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age.

Quote from: Scooter on August 12, 2023, 08:30:36 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on August 12, 2023, 08:13:45 PM

Yes, the original cover for RQ1 and RQ2 looks mostly like a Hopile crossed with Bronze Age warrior imagery, but on the whole, it owes more to the Bronze Age than Western Antiquity.

The "Bronze Age" is NOT a location.  A Hoplite is from the Western world.  I think you need to go back to Grammar School and finish what you missed.

A hoplite is a type of soldier from several parts of the world in the Bronze Age who only continues into the Iron Age in Greece and Anatolia.

The Near Eastern Bronze Age is as much a unified cultural space as The West. They overlap in geography but not in culture. There is only one culture left with strong continuity from its Bronze Age geographic predecessor, China. Egypt did so as well until the coming of Islam. India might qualify but that's more tenuous.

You need to learn more history of the world than you got from the First Edition DMG.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 12, 2023, 09:35:38 PM

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 08:52:01 PM
Do I think she was a good leader?  What we have that are decisions attributed to her, yes, she made the right military calls where they were needed.

Judging by different historians than the ones cited by Reckall, her results in that department may have been mixed at best. Let me quote from the following article:
https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/8-joan-of-arc-myths-busted/

QuoteMyth: "She was a great military tactician"

The Truth: Joan, a naïve 17-year-old peasant girl, certainly showed immense bravery riding into battle alongside seasoned warriors, but she was no military genius. In fact, Joan's rash actions and reckless decisions proved more than once to be a dangerous addition to the French army. For example, upon approaching Orléans she insisted the English should be attacked from the north as that was where their greatest numbers lay. The commanders were so against this potentially disastrous strategy that they took the convoy on a different route without telling Joan. When the attack did happen, Joan was napping and nearly missed the entire battle. When the young warrior acted of her own accord and tried to attack the stronghold of Boulevart, she narrowly escaped disaster and had to be dragged off the field amid mass panic. After this she was asked to sit out on the assault the next day, a request she ignored.

I can see how this page with The Truth gives no sources. It is also a mess that overlaps different events.

The French leader of the stand-off at Orleans was The Bastard of Orleans (long story). He didn't like at all Joan's attitude of "coming to cleanse the temple from the merchants" - and of course Joan didn't care - so there was no sympathy between the two (Joan, generally speaking, insulted, derided and pophetized doom every time people didn't agree with her up stat).

Joan wanted to attack at once, while The Bastard decided to wait for reinforcements - that he got. Meanwhile, Joan had done a tour of all the English positions, sometimes with her generals (Alençon, interestingly, commented that "she just knew how to get close and yet stay outside the range of the English weapons").

And then, after some days came the news of English reinforcements coming from the North, led by John Falstoff. Joan wanted to attack the North before this new army could join the main English one - which is basic tactics. However, there was no attack on the North. On May, 4th 1429 the French attacked Saint Loup (while Joan was napping, this is true :) ) because it was a "safe attack meant to build confidence and morale" (this, too, is basic tactics). Notice how that Truth messed up not only different events but even different times. Joan arrived in time for the last part of the battle and "wept for the English soldiers". She then said that the siege of Orleans would have been no more in five days (spoiler: it was no more in less than four).

On May, 5th her spiritual counsellor and confessor, Pasquerel (so, not the French leaders) suggested for Joan not to go on the field - as it was the very holy Ascension Day. According to Pasquerel Joan agreed. However, Jean d'Aluon and others said that she prayed but then went out and attacked the strong point at Saint Jean le Blanc. We have the full description of the attack, which included a dangerous crossing of the the Loire thanks to a isle in the middle of the river. All for nothing, as Saint Jean le Blanc had already been abandoned.

This next big attack was against "La Boulevard des Augustins" also called "St. Augustine" (where a church devoted to the saint once stood), on May, 6th - and this time Joan was part of the planning. It was a key English strongpoint and, even if they won, the French were exhausted. However, it was clear that the English were wavering, and it was important not to lose momentum.

[Factoid time: there was NO "Stronghold of Boulevart" in the first place, as "Boulevards" was the generic name the French gave to the English positions (i.e. "La Boulevard des Augustins"). That The Truth is really depressing.]

On May, 7h the French attacked la Tourelle, the main English stronghold by then, and again Joan took part to the planning phase. It was on this day that she was wounded by an arrow in her shoulder - but apparently it was only a flesh wound, because she still fought until the end of the battle. That she was "the first on the first ladder put against the fortress" was dictated by Joan herself in her after-action report (because they already had to do it) and confirmed by everyone else - as a scare, because if Joan died the risk of a rout was high.

They fought for la Tourelle from early morning to the evening - and this is when a key event happened: around 8 PM everybody was tired and the two armies were about to call a day. Joan said "No". All the testimonies from the French side agree in saying that she forced the French to fight on even if they were exhausted by using her will alone. The English Chronicles seem to confirm this by noticing how "the battle was thought to be broken for the day when the French launched an assault like if it was the first one in the morning." By nightfall the English were basically routed. On May, 8th the siege was lifted; the English packed their things and went home unmolested (there was no pursuit).

Sources? All of Joan's generals, her squire d'Aulon, chroniclers of the battle from both sides, and The Journal du siège d'Orléans. Plus others.

I wonder who fact-checked The Truth.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 09:53:12 PM
She had a brain that could calculate the trajectories of siege engines without even being trained in mathematics, physics, or siege craft, you know.

Alençon [...] testified that the Maid seemed to have been especially adept at sighting the relatively new gunpowder weaponry that the French used in their sieges:

. . . everyone marveled at this, that she acted so wisely and clearly in waging war, as if she was a captain who had the experience of twenty or thirty years; and especially in the setting up of artillery, for in that she held herself magnificently.

Devries, Kelly. Joan of Arc: A Military Leader (p. 90). The History Press.

Quote
She MAY have only had her soldiers bathe for general appearance, but he will never rule out the possibility that she somehow discovered germ theory centuries early. MAY, wonderful word that.

Are you aware that you are the only one fixated with germ theory? :)

However, cause ---> effect may be understood before the "why". Ships were quarantined well before germ theory was discovered.

Interesting analysis Reckall.

I'll give your medieval sources, with their medieval motivations, the benefit of the doubt for now. I have read different books than you, but it was too long ago and I cannot effectively argue against the level of detail you've provided.

Still, she did get captured and died at 19. Surely she did some things wrong leading up to that brutally short career? Could you point to them?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 13, 2023, 07:45:23 AM
Interesting analysis Reckall.

I'll give your medieval sources, with their medieval motivations, the benefit of the doubt for now. I have read different books than you, but it was too long ago and I cannot effectively argue against the level of detail you've provided.

Still, she did get captured and died at 19. Surely she did some things wrong leading up to that brutally short career? Could you point to them?

Mostly, she didn't know when to stop.

After Charles VII was crowned King in Reims, he was basically bankrupt. Joan said that her "mission from God" was to conquer Paris and end the Hundred Years War, but Charles simply couldn't support her with troops and money anymore. She did more than expected with what she had left, but the campaign for Paris sputtered out.

Joan was not captured at Compiegne because "she was betrayed" (another common myth). She led a skirmish outside the city when a superior force of Burgundians surprised her. She refused to retreat inside the city until the rest of her men were safe, and when she attempted to do it, it was too late.

Yet, she was prisoner of the Burgundians, and, while they were allied with the English, their King, Philippe le Bon, was considered one of the most honorable leaders in Europe. The English offered an incredible amount of money for Joan, but Philippe said that Charles had the "first right" to pay her ransom (to be clear, Philippe considered her a heretic, and still basked in the glory of having been the one who captured Joan).

IIRC, the English made four offers, each one with more money than the last, and every time Philippe wrote to Charles - who either didn't answer or said he was not interested, so, at the end, Philippe gave Joan to the English. This is what was considered a most ungrateful act - so dishonourable that Charles actually weakened his political position (Guillaume de Flavy, a captain, governor of Compiegne, who was considered a hero after commanding the defence of the city during very grim times, had his career ruined by the simple fact that Joan was lost under his watch).

No one knows why Charles did this, as, while he was bankrupt, the money for ransoming someone like Joan was not a lot if compared to the one needed to launch another full military campaign (and actually a lot of lords and commanders from both sides had been captured and ransomed: it was that common). Some say that Joan fought on when the King had ordered her to stop, so, technically, she was a traitor. This could have been the legal reason for Charles to say "I can't ransom a traitor", even if not a politically astute move (Charles VII was not a good King at all).

The English, of course, put her on a fixed trial, hoping to prove that she was a fraud, a witch, anything - thus, somehow, undermining the authority of Charles. We know everything about her trial, as some English bishops were truly scared; everything was transcripted verbatim and we even have some personal testimonies (basically: "If we condemn her we are f***ed). Joan, most famously, said "If you believe in God with the fervor you show, you know that you are putting yourself in BIG TROUBLE."

Charles stopped at Reims, Paris was not freed and the Hundred Years War was not stopped. What Joan did was to bring back balance is a war that the French had basically lost, and to undermine the confidence in England about the same thing. In England they started to wonder if France was now worth the trouble, even if the war went on until 1453.

Final factoid. Back in Chinon Joan told to Charles that "either he followed her until the end, or Christianity would suffer unending grief". Fast forward, and Constantinople was menaced by the Ottomans. They were so desperate that they sent emissaries to the Pope with this offer: "If you help us, we will become Catholic." Imagine. However the Pope couldn't launch a Crusade with the two biggest Christian Kingdoms locken in an unending war (and not even shortly thereafter, as it was impossible to recover strength in time - not to mention that another war would have caused revolts in both kingdoms). Aniway, the Hundred Years War ended in 1453 after the battle of Castillion - the same year that Constantinople fell. Make of this what you want.

[We have to throw a last bone to the "Myth! Hearsay! I don't need to READ!" crowd - don't we? :) ]

Quote from: Reckall on August 13, 2023, 09:04:36 AM
[We have to throw a last bone to the "Myth! Hearsay! I don't need to READ!" crowd - don't we? :) ]

"The smaller the mind, the greater the conceit." – Aesop

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 09:25:28 AM

Quote from: Reckall on August 13, 2023, 09:04:36 AM
[We have to throw a last bone to the "Myth! Hearsay! I don't need to READ!" crowd - don't we? :) ]

"The smaller the mind, the greater the conceit." – Aesop

"Let's see if you have the self control not to have the last word." - Grognard GM

Quote from: Reckall on August 13, 2023, 09:58:53 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 09:25:28 AM

Quote from: Reckall on August 13, 2023, 09:04:36 AM
[We have to throw a last bone to the "Myth! Hearsay! I don't need to READ!" crowd - don't we? :) ]

"The smaller the mind, the greater the conceit." – Aesop

"Let's see if you have the self control not to have the last word." - Grognard GM

This has turned into an intellectual slap fight.  I brought popcorn so continue.

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.

Your citations are detailed, extensive and balanced. They might not all be 100% reliable (as always with historic sources), but I can't prove that, so they are good enough for me to accept at this time and move on.

I will say it was confusing earlier when you kept jumping from talking about real women to fictional women and back. I know the points you were trying to make, but tangling them up like that didn't do you any favors.

I think people get emotional and defensive about this topic because (rightly or wrongly) it feels like part of the ongoing project to minimize or vilify whatever place males as males have in the world and history. Some factions are eager to say:
1) men are more hostile, more violent, more criminal, and more perverted as a biological fact.
AND
2) Liberated women are equal or even superior to men in strength, boldness, and other warrior qualities, on top of being the more important reproductive role.

That sure makes men look like nothing but downsides, doesn't it? Almost like sub-humans next to the morally, intellectually, physically superior women. 

You can understand how that makes people defensive. So sure, the 'warrior woman' trope was mostly an amusing bit of spice added to old fiction, but these days she's often bundled up with some unpleasant connotations.

Personally, I see no problem with making room for Bradamante types in games about Charlemagne's legends, the same way we handwave away Charlemagne's uglier massacres. But I understand why some people want to keep her super rare or non-existent.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 13, 2023, 11:51:56 AM
I will say it was confusing earlier when you kept jumping from talking about real women to fictional women and back. I know the points you were trying to make, but tangling them up like that didn't do you any favors.

I mentioned Joan of Arc as the "real world" counterpart of these heroines, as in good popular culture there always something "real" one could relate to."From great powers come great responsibilities" may have been popularized by Spiderman, but the core concept is good wisdom for everyday life.

The super heroines of that age were very rare (again, every cycle of tales had them, but the rule was "one or two, with the stray sorceress" - amid scores of males). They acted alone, were independent and single-minded, and pulled feats that many men had failed to do. They also had a clear destiny: either, soon or later, become a gentlewoman, or die.

Notice how all the above can be applied to Joan of Arc. She was an exception. She had talents that astounded her generals. She didn't obliterate whole English armies - but, in a way, she did (just think to the battle for La Tourelle). She could stop at Reims and become from a nun to, dunno, the manager of a dance club. Instead she fought on - and this led to her death.

This is why I mentioned her, and for no other reason. In a fantastic tale many things become... well, fantastic - but it is always interesting to look beyond the symbolic and find the real inspiration.

Then the stray guy arrives, spews the most banal myths about Joan, states that he doesn't believe in those myths (NO WAY!) and thus what I had written about Joan (i.e. everything but) was wrong. And, oh, those female warriors from the legends couldn't exist because it is proved that they can't exist in the real world (NO WAY 2!) Fine, here are my sources. Yours? (I'm still waiting)

Quote
I think people get emotional and defensive about this topic because (rightly or wrongly) it feels like part of the ongoing project to minimize or vilify whatever place males as males have in the world and history.

This is the reason why I wrote how Joan cut feminism at the knees immediately. SHE was on a mission from God, the other women had to obey their husbands and fly low.

Quote
Some factions are eager to say:
1) men are more hostile, more violent, more criminal, and more perverted as a biological fact.
AND
2) Liberated women are equal or even superior to men in strength, boldness, and other warrior qualities, on top of being the more important reproductive role.

...And I wrote how, at the end, these fun heroines decided that their final arc was to become a "gentlewoman" (or die). I explicitly wrote: some think that the final message was "a woman doesn't belong to an arm and armors world". I wrote this in this very thread, you can check. It is fun to have them around (maybe the kids in those times wanked thinking of Bradamante - even if, personally, I would have wanked more thinking of Marfisa; Clorinda was a clear PitA). But then everyone, characters and readers, has to grow up.

Quote
That sure makes men look like nothing but downsides, doesn't it? Almost like sub-humans next to the morally, intellectually, physically superior women. 

They weren't, and for a very good reason. If Tancredi wasn't on Clorinda's level, Clorinda had no merit. Think about woke productions and you will see how this is the truly enormous mistake that is leading them to their doom.

Quote
You can understand how that makes people defensive. So sure, the 'warrior woman' trope was mostly an amusing bit of spice added to old fiction, but these days she's often bundled up with some unpleasant connotations.

I'm a writer, and right now I'm writing a script for a comic book (156 pages) with two female leads: a blind criminologist from Paris and a matter-of-fact policewoman from Montpellier. They are the best in what they do but flawed elsewhere. Actually, my favorite character is the long-suffering boyfriend of the policewoman - condemned to always point to her the obvious that she missed. He is a bit what Faramir is for Eowyn.

What I fear is that many common tropes - common because they are interesting - risk to be thrown away with the bath water. "Prey" is not a perfect movie, but I liked it. The plot? A Comanche girl kills a Predator in the 1700s. This started screams of "wokeism!" for a movie that it is not woke at all. What was once an interesting concept that made you go to see a movie ("A Comanche girl kills a Predator?? I want to see the scene!") now causes knee-jerk reactions. We can't lose this.

As far as the female uber knight needing to be a NPC so as not to upstage the PC's...why? Sure the woman is an incredible warrior...in her own story. But the world of Pendragon is a world full of such heroes.

Any knight of the Round Table, for instance, could be the hero protagonist of a book series or action movie. The Arthurian tales are akin to when the Avengers assemble for a team-up.

Celtic myth is an extreme example of this kind of thing. Practically every footnote character is the strongest/fastest/bravest in his county, often with a magic backstory and enchanted item.

A final pop culture analogy would be John McClane. In Die Hard he single handedly takes out a small army of heavily armed terrorists, and survives with reasonably minor wounds. But how exceptional would he be if John Matrix (Commando), Chance Boudreaux (Hard Target) and J.J. McQuade (Lone Wolf McQuade) shared his universe?

"Yet, I hear more and more about "Chaosium going woke". Do they now just force pronouns or woke content is seeping in the published material? What about Call of Cthulhu? I have all I need (i.e. compatibility with 40+ years of published material) but the thought of CoC with "trigger warnings" is hilarious. "

Chaosium has been headquartered in Berkeley for decades. It's amazing they aren't more woke.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 13, 2023, 06:15:06 PM
"Yet, I hear more and more about "Chaosium going woke". Do they now just force pronouns or woke content is seeping in the published material? What about Call of Cthulhu? I have all I need (i.e. compatibility with 40+ years of published material) but the thought of CoC with "trigger warnings" is hilarious. "

Chaosium has been headquartered in Berkeley for decades. It's amazing they aren't more woke.

^This^

Although I believe that they are out of the bay area now - it truly is amazing that the woke is really only now starting to trickle in to any visible extent.

But I do think that they know in the back of their minds that their core audience would balk if they went full Baizuo or Wotzi on them. They are an old company with lots of grognard goodwill yet to loose...


Honestly I could care less if Joan of Arc was good at what she did or not. Because fundamentally it just doesn't matter.

Joan of Arc was an exceptional case. Not an example of the typical woman during her era.

All the myths and historical cases cited in this thread are of exceptional women. Not how the overwhelming majority of the women in those times and places acted and behaved.

I don't disagree that there can be exceptional women.

What I am against is taking those examples of exceptional women, and using those outliers to push the narrative that what they did was not unusual for women in general.

It's like if I was making a swashbuckling RPG, and in my setting info I used the example of the stories of La Maupin to construe that Swordswomen that routinely defeated men, wore men's clothes, and seduced nuns, was not something too out of place for the time and era...

That would be an absolutely ridiculous assertion to make.

And I think that is why you see the pushback against "Female Knights" being a general thing.

"But, But, the PC's are supposed to be exceptional! So being one of those exceptional females is no big deal for a PC because 'muh fantasy RPG..."

Cry me a river.

That's not the point. Intent Matters.

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.

But noooo, the message presented is clearly this:

"We now have FEMALE knights (with bonus holes) because 'muh diversity and inclusion! You must celebrate this!"

"Wait, what? Why!?"

"You dare look askance!? Bigot! Misogynist! Bigoted misogynist right here!!!"


So yeah, Chaosium might just get a little push back...

Quote from: Jaeger on August 13, 2023, 07:24:15 PMAll the myths and historical cases cited in this thread are of exceptional women. Not how the overwhelming majority of the women in those times and places acted and behaved.

I don't disagree that there can be exceptional women.

What I am against is taking those examples of exceptional women, and using those outliers to push the narrative that what they did was not unusual for women in general.

It's like if I was making a swashbuckling RPG, and in my setting info I used the example of the stories of La Maupin to construe that Swordswomen that routinely defeated men, wore men's clothes, and seduced nuns, was not something too out of place for the time and era...

That would be an absolutely ridiculous assertion to make.

And I think that is why you see the pushback against "Female Knights" being a general thing.

Indeed. When we saw the female marines in Aliens, there wasn't any pushback or complaint. Vasquez was even shown as being tough and sassy, but they didn't show this by making the male marines weak little bitches, and while she walked the walk, there was no hint that she could dominate someone like Hicks if shit went down. The ratios were good too, several females, but very much a minority.

Cut to modern media where the women are swaggering badasses that are the intimidating leaders, melee combatants, and heavy weapon fighters. Having women as combat leaders, as the 'strong guy,' as at least 50% of the warriors...it just screams a lack of verisimilitude, and the mind rebels. In period settings it becomes a clown show.

Quote from: Jaeger on August 13, 2023, 07:24:15 PM"But, But, the PC's are supposed to be exceptional! So being one of those exceptional females is no big deal for a PC because 'muh fantasy RPG..."

Cry me a river.

That's not the point. Intent Matters.

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.

But noooo, the message presented is clearly this:

"We now have FEMALE knights (with bonus holes) because 'muh diversity and inclusion! You must celebrate this!"

"Wait, what? Why!?"

"You dare look askance!? Bigot! Misogynist! Bigoted misogynist right here!!!"

Again, yes. The swap from exceptional to widespread. Red Sonja turns from a unicorn, always underestimated (often to her benefit), to dime a dozen.

Much like with Hollywood and British movies. Let's set something in Georgian England, then make half the cast Black and Indian. "But Georgian England had a tiny minority of Black people and Indians, so it's possible, bigot!" But is it REPRESENTATIVE? I wouldn't advertise something set in 16th century Japan by making it all about Portugese traders! Make it an option, sure, but they make the exceptions the rule.

Quote from: Jaeger on August 13, 2023, 07:24:15 PM
Although I believe that they are out of the bay area now -

They are in Hayward about 15 miles south of Berkley on the I-580

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 08:02:17 PM
Indeed. When we saw the female marines in Aliens, there wasn't any pushback or complaint. Vasquez was even shown as being tough and sassy, but they didn't show this by making the male marines weak little bitches, and while she walked the walk, there was no hint that she could dominate someone like Hicks if shit went down. The ratios were good too, several females, but very much a minority.

Regarding "Aliens", Sigourney Weaver said that she didn't really want to do a sequel because she hadn't faith in the ability of a different writer (than Dan O'Bannon) to write Ripley. She said "It is easy to write Ripley as a basketball coach. You go there! You do that! Go! Go! Ripley is scarred and deeply scared. Much of her strength and cool come from desperation..."

Then she read James Cameron's script and immediately fell in love with how he had written Ripley. Having said  that, my favourite scene from "Aliens" is when she faces the Queen in her nest. ONE egg opens (and maybe it was by mistake!) and Ripley obliterates everything. Even she had a Clorinda moment.

Vasquez is much beloved because she is part of the group of marines, full parity. She is desperate when Drake dies and almost loses it (their backstory was that they grew up together in a prison for underage criminals). She may joke about Hudson but they are fully professional when the s**t hits the fan. When I first saw "Aliens" in the theatre and she "makes peace with Gorman" I almost cried.

A very underrated scene is when Ripley tries to explain the nature of the menace to the Marines, and they laugh - because they have seen and fought a lot of things, and who is this civilian? So Ripley confronts Vasquez and says that she, too, hopes that everything will be a joke. Pause. "Because one of those creatures killed all my crew in less than 24 hours. And we don't know how many colonists may have been exposed." All of sudden Ripley switches to something that the Marines can understand very well, and immediately the whole atmosphere changes. Hicks is the first to realise that this s**t can be very dangerous, but Vasquez understands it too and shuts up. This is how you write "strong female characters".

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 13, 2023, 06:15:06 PM
Chaosium has been headquartered in Berkeley for decades. It's amazing they aren't more woke.

I met Greg Stafford once in a convention and he went around for three days wearing a Confederate uniform. I guess that things started to slide after his death...

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.  Note that his interactions here have not been information-seeking.  He has consistently attempted to defend/rebut/dismiss examples that might answer his question.  That's because his question was simply an attempt to argue the point... not as a genuine attempt to answer that question.

This thread could have been over in two or three posts.  For example, how do you define "woke"?  If we frame the definition as follows: "Woke is when modern leftist political concerns are shoe-horned into games where they are not necessary (for the game's conceit)."  Has Chaosium done so?  Yes.  One example is adding pronoun spaces to characters sheets for games that take place long before even modern leftists supported the idea of transgenderism.  Then there are changes made to Pendragon and warnings added to CoC, neither of which were necessary for the conceits of the game (and were obviously motivated by politics).  Thread over.

But now everyone has gotten into the weeds over Joan of Arc and other irrelevancies.  Which IS the point of the "question."  Let's see if we can't defuse some criticism of woke infiltration of the hobby via obfuscation and arguing irrelevancies.

Chaosium has bent the knee.  Arguing over whether it's the right or left knee doesn't change that fact...

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.)   

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 06:50:46 PM
I'll point out that I moved on, but there's always someone that has to have a last stir of that pot.

Thus proving that you haven't moved on at all :)

Quote
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.

"Messy"? You are just implying that "people of that era couldn't say what 2+2 was equal to, poor things; I'm not blaming them, but, come on!"

I guess that Egyptian/Greek/Roman history is even more up in the air, considering that we are talking about thousands of years before.

People from the era, and before, were very serious. During her trial, Joan showed an unique talent for explaining to the English judges how they were little more than sad asses. This comes from English sources. It wasn't redacted. It wasn't softened. It even wasn't a surprise, as, back when Joan arrived at Chinon, she was interrogated by the hostile French Church - and she showed an unique talent for explaining to the French judges how they were little more than sad asses. And this comes from French sources.

We have only two possibilities here:

A) Joan had an unique talent for explaining why "la creme" of a given Church should just go home - and they were honest enough to record this as it happened.

Or...

B) Two enemy churches met and said "Our political leaders are at war, but... let's invent an imaginary tale where a peasant girl is enough to show how we are all morons (who should just go home). Of course we will have to meet regularly so to maintain continuity."

What of the two? Somehow, in these cases I'm always more inclined towards A.

Quote from: Reckall on August 14, 2023, 07:14:31 PMThus proving that you haven't moved on at all :)

Yeah I'm done. I've legitimately tried to move on in good faith, and extend the olive branch, but apparently defending myself is me not moving on.

You have a good day.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 07:09:10 PM
You seem to be fixating on certain fictitious depictions of female knights/warriors, and porting them to Pendragon as NPC's, is that correct?

No. From back in 2010, this talk was about an expansion for Pendragon about the (mostly) Italian and French tales from the era.

Quote
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.

What are you even saying here? If we expand Pendragon to contemporary tales with famous badass female heroines we should not portray them the way they were described??

Quote
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.

Cool! Write your tale with such a character and go with God! Tales from 1400 onwards (and before actually) had different characters. Those are the ones that we have to respect .

I mean, what you are even talking about? "Let's take Bradamante back!" the way Evil Hat "Takes the Mythos back!"?? If it is about Lovecraft I want Lovecraft. If it is about the Orlando Furioso I want the Orlando Furioso - not "what a XXI Century Marine explains about women in battle" (or how Cthulhu doesn't exist).

Quote
2) The heroines in those stories are incredible because they're usually the protagonist

Clorinda isn't the protagonist of the Gerusalemme Liberata (not even Tancredi is: the main character is Goffredo di Buglione). Bradamante isn't the protagonist of L'Orlando Furioso. I could go on - but I see that it is futile. I gave you the free text of these poems, and you just proved that you aren't interested in reading (*) - not when making thing up is easier. I think we can stop here.

(*) Or even looking things up on Wikipedia, for what matters.

For me, the real breaking point is going to be how Pendragon 6th Edition handles Christianity. The last time I'm aware of that the line touched on the subject (Stafford's Book of Uther, published by Nocturnal), they seemed to be going with an anachronistic, egalitarian "British Christianity" and a more historical "Roman Christianity" as distinct things.

Any company pushing "safety tools" is definitely woke:

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 14, 2023, 09:21:45 PM
For me, the real breaking point is going to be how Pendragon 6th Edition handles Christianity. The last time I'm aware of that the line touched on the subject (Stafford's Book of Uther, published by Nocturnal), they seemed to be going with an anachronistic, egalitarian "British Christianity" and a more historical "Roman Christianity" as distinct things.

That's not anachronistic, that's current scholarship! Modern historians seem to say that was the actual state of affairs - that pre-Viking, around the seventh century, it wasn't just a two-way struggle between the Canterbury-centric Rome-sent missionaries (596) and the Pagans, but that there was also a significant Christian presence left over from the Roman-era dissemination of the faith. Bishops didn't have authority over Abbotts or take their orders from Rome.

References: The British History Podcast touches on this in many episodes; https://www.thebritishhistorypodcast.com/research-materials/ might be a place to start reading seriously.

For easy reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_mission:

* "... by the time the last of them died in 653, they had established Christianity in Kent and the surrounding countryside and contributed a Roman tradition to the practice of Christianity in Britain." Christianity was already being practiced in a non-Roman fashion.

* (after the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invasions) ... "Though most of Britain remained Christian, isolation from Rome bred a number of distinct practices—Celtic Christianity—including emphasis on monasteries instead of bishoprics, differences in calculation of the date of Easter, and a modified clerical tonsure."

The Venerable Bede himself writes about the non-Roman Christians on the island - nothing positive, to be sure, but he documents they were already there.

If you want to read more of Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity casts some doubts on the term but extensively discusses the history of Insular Christianity, including many paragraphs specific to the islands.

In all these discussions about women warriors, nobody has mentioned the role of virginity, except perhaps tangentially, i.e. the heroine leaves her fighting days behind her after she gets married. At least in medieval/renaissance texts, the link between virginity and female prowess could be due to the example of the Greek goddesses Athene and Artemis, whereas the wholly non-virginal goddess Aphrodite is the very antithesis of war and fighting. And to give a Germanic example, Brünhild from the Nibelungenlied is more powerful than any man except Siegfried until she loses her virginity and she thereon becomes a proper lady and wife (although she remains arrogant).

Quote from: I on August 15, 2023, 12:17:38 AM
Any company pushing "safety tools" is definitely woke:

Alas.

Have you noticed how she almost doesn't makes any examples at all? Even more, these "safety tools" do seem to be a Nazi-version of what it was once called Common Sense. Agreeing to play a game enjoyed by everyone, some basic rules for the table, unwelcomed topics (for example, absolutely no rape with me - but it can still be implied that a female NPC was prisoner for years of a Evil Wizard(tm) and a son was born from that occurrence), miscellanea. I do "Session Zero" since forever - also because if you start to play in, let's say, the Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance, you need to lay down how these worlds are different from vanilla D&D (spells, classes etc.).

And it is my job as the DM to be sure that everybody is involved and is having fun - and to be aware when someone is bothered. It is since my first DMing experience at 16 - I don't need a traffic light in the middle of the table.

Anyway, I still think that all comes down to a generation of young people who are suffering from a pandemy of mental-health problems. They don't take diving licences, the average age of the first sexual experience is now two years later than the previous generation (!), they simply don't want to go "out there" because they are scared (for a dark statistic, suicides are 150%-200% higher than the average number from the end of WWII to 2010; luckily, some just resort to self-harm).

Thus, I can understand the anxiety of someone who, after hearing that he will play in a medieval setting, immediately fears "RAPE!!!" To this generation, words are facts. We can deride trigger warnings, safe spaces and "Common Sense is, on this table, an ironclad contract insured by MetLife", but there is a reason if these things now exist.

Before someone screams "woke!" I have a surprise for you: I think that all these nu-ways to play are dangerous - because the underlying mental health problem is simply reinforced. "To go out there" means to break an arm (so you won't be again so stupid), to learn how to recognise seedy people, to tackle unsavory problems... and to be able to tell to a GM what you are not liking and why. If you can't do this, seek professional help, because you are not functioning. "Safety Tools" can be a crutch but, like any crutch, it is a need created by unwelcome events, and one's aim should be to get rid of it...

...And what we have here? A glorification of the crutch! Believe me, the first time one will default on his mortgage payments, the bank won't say "Well, we can bother him because this is in his list of unwelcome topics..."

Quote from: Naburimannu on August 15, 2023, 03:27:45 AM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 14, 2023, 09:21:45 PM
For me, the real breaking point is going to be how Pendragon 6th Edition handles Christianity. The last time I'm aware of that the line touched on the subject (Stafford's Book of Uther, published by Nocturnal), they seemed to be going with an anachronistic, egalitarian "British Christianity" and a more historical "Roman Christianity" as distinct things.

That's not anachronistic, that's current scholarship! Modern historians seem to say that was the actual state of affairs - that pre-Viking, around the seventh century, it wasn't just a two-way struggle between the Canterbury-centric Rome-sent missionaries (596) and the Pagans, but that there was also a significant Christian presence left over from the Roman-era dissemination of the faith. Bishops didn't have authority over Abbotts or take their orders from Rome.

    Oh, that's not the anachronism. The anachronisms are things like claiming the British Church:

   "

• reveres the sacred cup of resurrection as being of greater importance than the cross of death.
• has no priests, but instead has Teachers, sometimes also called Shepherds.
• allows women teachers and abbesses who are fully equal to the males

" (Book of Uther, pp. 76-77)

    Now, ancient British Christianity isn't my area of specialty, so perhaps there is scholarship suggesting those facts, but I've never heard anything about that, whereas I was aware of the separate and abbot-centric flavor of British Christianity before Augustine of Canterbury, the Synod of Whitby, etc. And there's a trend through Pendragon's history and late 20th century Arthuriana in general of representing the British/Celtic Church as a 'kinder, gentler' (and often more libertine) Christianity. In fact, as I understand it, Pelagius (who's held up in Pendragon 4E and onward, if not earlier, as a precursor of tolerance and open-mindedness) started down the path to error because he was irked by the laxity of Roman Christians in works of penance and asceticism.