Margaretha

(was in Update #27) Does anybody know if the "very limited time" is still running, like the Paypal thing dead-line announced today?

My god idea would be Laudrous or Whatever. Laudrous the misshapen, god of the misshapen and the crippled. Usually shown as a male in tatters with a long thin beard and difformities on his body, aborted arms, twisted legs and gibbosity. Poker-face and a golden light emanating from his eyes, he would be the defender of the victims of leprosy, war wounded, monstrous born.

I do not think benevolence is a structural necessity. I do not think our "north" societes put benevolence as a central value, something used by them to stand. You know very well selfish is a norm and is praised. Benevolence is praised too, but as something "exceptional". The heroic fire-fighter, the good sister. If "the good" is to get rich, to have a "successful life", a car, children, good education, good health, being patriotic, etc., it is not the "good" of our adventure novels and games. So, I repeat myself, but I think "being good" has to feel exceptional. It may not feel exceptional for our character (being a hero, and all..) but it could be for us, players. There is no need to caricature what I say as in "Let's make being good so unappealing that anyone who isn't explicitly heavily Roleplaying focused ONLY will never, ever, ever do it" (actual quote). I will help people who want to not agree with me. A better argument (an argument at all) would be: "But, our society discourages involvement. You play a hero, good or not, evil or not, so you are getting involved by definition. Thus you find yourself in a position where being good is a possibility not as far-off as for a mister/lady Nothing". That is where the discussion could begin to be interesting. Because "yes indeed, very pertinent objection, thank you." and so, I could say something like "also, it is a videogame". And get back to the question of design. I guess a designer wants the player to feel involved. Hell, what if the player could feel all warm and fizzy inside when he is being sacrificially good in a meaningful quest? Somebody mentioned Bioshock, I really like this example. Putting its manichaeism and the different endings aside, it's a very boring and cosmetic game mechanics. Will you have your reward now (be evil) or later (be good)? Obviously, the dev team has had this discussion we have here. They decided to make "being good" a bit more difficult, with a big reward at the end, but in such a way that it does not really matter. Sadly, I am pretty sure they chose this direction because they did not want to make the spoiled players we are cry. Because we want the praises AND the candy. And we usually have. Can't we come up with something a bit more... rough?

You are guessing wrong. They are sexist as "a fact", not inherently (and so on for each of your assertions). I can understand the topic of sexism in general, in videogames more particularly, and more so in CRPGs is not something you have heavily thought about. Your opinions and your misinterpretations are really bold, however. [edit] I do not think most of you are intentionally trolling. Thinking that is reassuring but false. Many of you are just comfortably on the strong side of a social inequality, and never had many occasions to think about the damages you (your line of thinking) cause.

I am wasting precious minutes looking for such quotes, could you help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Michel :D @Katrar sexism is not ok and as long as RPGs are sexist, there is a problem and "the people" will keep arguing against it. And sexist people will keep telling them to shut up.

And I am sure you have... dirty secrets. Come on, you can tell us.

Do not worry. There are 2 or 3 pages of "not this topic again" and "it should be locked".

Wow.

No, you are trying to give me examples of videogames where women are not objectified (according to you.. Dishonored, Max Payne, really??). I was not asking this.

Wow. I gave a reference to the most obvious sexist movie series amongst popular movies and.. you are able to say something along the lines of: it's a movie "for women" and James Bond is somehow reified to please the female audience. Poor vilified men! I know you do not feel vilified. What you are trying to say is that women are not either. Now, you'll explain me they are glorified all day long on our (TV and computers) screens the same way. May be a difficult task.

Isn't some James Bond going on screen these days?

You mean the stereotype where men are mountains of muscles, with 140 IQ, lightning reflexes and get the chick at the end? oh.. so.. suffering.. @Brannart: TV, or not TV ads? Lego? your own house? etc.

Of course, you do realize that "women in the kitchen", or "women as sex fantasies", is NOT politically incorrect? it's a norm. It's been installed and is kept by the current and powerful societal structures Of course, you do realize that the very reason women are depicted as sexy/romanceable/weak/etc; IS a crowd pleaser? And maybe, do you realize you are one of many in the crowd? and that you are not the victim here but the bully? (why am I bothering with question marks..)

We have some good ideas here. Thanks people, and Wench and judeobscure and Suen and Klarean! (Grumpy Tigrane, you should make an effort). @judeobscure Hmm! it's prolific and full of ideas. Meta intertwined. The game master, inside his own game, as a teller, a rewarder, a mob... Looking after references... : Some of it, we may find in Witcher 2... Psychonauts (

I think I have explained why I thought this topic was important, even if I do not think I have been understood. I do not write that well (so I edit and correct often my messages). But I still do not understand why you people, tired of the subject, don't just... buzz off. You just tell me "it's obvious, look at this other thread, we have locked, and the one before, we have locked too, and this one in an hour, which we are preparing for its lock". It is... tautological. Even when I pretend to put the topic of sexism aside, with diplomacy, talking about something more neutral and "PC" (as I've read), the outfits of women, you do not want to hear anything. When people say they cannot stand sexism, they get locked. But you can still violate the forum guideline without being worried. You are bullies here.

@kenup You're hurt? feminazis made you cry?

Some people here seem eager to sweep the issue under the carpet. On one hand, I'm glad to see you with a broom. On the other hand.. could you at least elaborate? Why do you feel so uncomfortable knowing such a thread exists? The sole idea of this thread created again each time it is closed seems to make you feel... sick, or febrile.

It's only a detail, of course (Cadegund's armor has been fixed, does not bother me so anymore, but is still "genderized", by the way). And it would be just that, a minor detail, like "sensible shoes" or tissue colours, if we did not live, all of us, in a society of masculine domination. What if the story took place in an equivalence of Senegal, or South Africa, and each black people here were depicted by the devs like Banania's Senegalese infantry man? (very popular... and controversial figure in France). It stops to be a detail fairly quickly.

Apart from the troll discussion ("you're the troll, no you, no I am, let's be trolls, ow what a troll, did you smell that ? that's a..."), maybewe could... what about we talk about feminine outfits in P:E? I still have no answer about the chest protection for an archer. A detail that makes all the difference, I'd say. (Badmojo, everything will be alright. Think of your blood pressure)

Yes indeed, there is no sexism when games depict half naked 70 years old Bruce Lee. What was your point?

What if... in a world where some women do actually fight, they would also be strong enough to fight without needle heels to please men? Just for... I do not know... the sake of being efficient?

Hep, that would be me. But you should elaborate the "something" instead of making me say something I did not. What I said was a question. And it was not about "covering up" her boobs, but protecting (or not) the left one, for the sake of a realistic detail. Also, i think it would make her more "cool". As an archer. Now, if you are a fan of boobs, you can think it's cool too, 'cause it would make the impression that the right one is bigger! weehee! So, this detail still confuses me as a former amateur archer. I'm afraid to open a thread just for this, it would quickly be merged with this one - my guess.

I surely hope such threads will keep coming and won't leave people like Kenup & the willies alone. (thanks for the marvelous mansplaining, Macbeth btw)

You preach for an equivalence in reward between a "good" option and an "evil" one. It is what is usually done in CRPGs and it is valid. It has been said there should not always be clear "good/evil" situations and we all agree with this, but we can also guess there often will be. The game will not get rid of the kitty in the tree quest, which is fine: designing all the quests to avoid morale choice would be weird. Now, why making the "good" path more difficult? there is no objective reason behind this. My personal opinion would be: to challenge the player a bit. Players usually take the "good" path (I vaguely recall a study giving the number 85%). It's often because we enjoy playing good persons. It's also bacause the "bad" path is more challenging (alienating the town, etc.) I would like the opposite for a change. You give valid reasons why "good" and "evil" could be equally rewarding. You can find valid reasons why they could be unequally. It's a choice in design: I'd like the game to just... slightly pull the player out of his comfort zone. So that the chosen path is a deliberate choice. (also I was trying to say that "a pat on the head" can be a satisfying reward indeed)