Alexjh

I did specify "by default" as in as a class feature - the thing here is that you were basically pitching a Barbarian-Amazon fusion class, which would be pretty concept intense. On average, my reading of the official posts is that the classes in PE are essentially going to be loose archetypes with a limited number of "exclusive" features within each. So to take a Barbarian, it might be a rage power, an attack speed bonus and a damage resistance power, and then the rest is up to you. In a game like this, the devs aren't going to go "well there will be mandatory greataxe feats, barbarians can only ever wear hide armour and they must all have huge bushy beards": what the implication seems to be is that if you want to build a barbarian who is just a direct version of those things, but if you wanted a female barbarian who specialised in javelins and spears and other Amazony things thats your perogative to build that, or even build an intellectual Barbarian who is an expert in historic porelein figurines, loves cucumber sandwiches and fights with a rapier while wearing silk robes. It's all valid but as long as they include the options to make your Amazon, that should be available to take those in all the other classes too and then you can build the exact character you want. This isn't to say there shouldn't be some inworld restrictions like I pitched earlier in this thread, but there shouldn't ever be a situation where a particular gender/race or whatever is entirely locked off from an entire class. If specific orders of wizards only accept Dwarves or Women or Dwarven Women that's fine, but as long as there are other orders of wizards who have an open doors policy to compensate. Characters are really separated into 2 aspects: Form (race and gender) and mechanics (class and build), and while you can say that certain mechanics might preclude other mechanics, form should never really preclude any general options.

I think Osvir that the thing you have to bear in mind when doing these threads is that quite a few of the ideas you are pitching at the wall are basically generic fantasy game ideas which aren't really tailored to PE as such, or occassionally miss the point entirely. PE is a fixed perspective isometric 2D RPG with tactical class based combat where the player creates a single protagonist and can recruit a number of addition party members. Characters are customised as they level up through skills, abilities and equiptment to create the characters that the player wants to choose to use. This is the framework your ideas need to fit within. So, to pick one idea from that last post of yours, whether or not Barbarians by default have Amazon traits is kind of irrelevant - you can build them in to your specific character as you level up. I'm not saying don't come up with ideas, thats good, just focus down the scope a little. On the subject of Paladins and Priest, the closest analogy I can think of that demonstrates how they are affiliated, but different (in D&D this is, PE has already been confirmed to have Paladins which aren't inherantly religious) is that Clerics are effectively like a GP, while a Paladin is basically like a surgeon. Both are within a hospital and both are needed by the hospital, but, ones job is to be an expert on the specific bits of obscure knowledge required by the profession and know how to apply them and what needs doing when, the others job is to cut things that need cutting. Also the "combining the zeal of a priest" reads to me as a metaphor rather than an actual connection. Zealotry isn't an inherantly religious thing, and its phrased in a way more like "hey you know those really zealous guys? this guy is just as zealous as them!"

Did you just say we need more people like Peter Molyneux? Now I really have heard everything. I'd actually agree with needing more Peter Molyneuxs - I'd rather the games industry be in a state where there are loads of hyper ambitious people who fail to live up to their imagination than one where people aren't even trying to push the boundaries. Peter Molyneux isn't hyper ambitious; he just makes **** up and lies his ass off. If you are going to take the most basic view of him then yes, he does, but I've always read it more as he basically comes up with loads of ideas, gets very excited by them so has to tell someone, which might be a news outlet of some sort, and then he goes back into work and his artists and programmers are like "what the hell Peter? we can't do any of that stuff with our budget/time/resources!". It's annoying sure, but I never get the impression he's doing it because he wants to trick you into having this, just that he wants to have these things and then reality conspires to prevent him doing so.

My inclination would be yes to characters being around camps/bases or whatever, but bearing in mind the structure of this game, I wouldn't want them literally following me around for any large amounts of time, that's just an accident waiting to happen.

Did you just say we need more people like Peter Molyneux? Now I really have heard everything. I'd actually agree with needing more Peter Molyneuxs - I'd rather the games industry be in a state where there are loads of hyper ambitious people who fail to live up to their imagination than one where people aren't even trying to push the boundaries.

I am all in favour of feats/talents or whatever you want to call them, but the ones in the original post are examples of things that I would rather that feats didn't do: The Thug one would be better as two separate feats, one for the bonus to intimidate, one for the grenade-like bonus ("Bombardier" or something perhaps?) because the two don't have any particular relation beyond a thematic one, and so it's effectively giving you less character choice by lumping them together. Effectively, its saying you cannot make a character who is good at violent intimidation who isn't good at grenades. While you may say "but in that case they are getting the grenade part for free, why would they complain?", but, remember that a character creator is about players character concept, and so forcing a character to have features they don't want you are denying them that freedom of concept. The Extortion one is more problematic - in general a feat/talent shouldn't give you an option that you should by all rights have anyway. Anyone who can speak or write has the option to to extort anyone, so saying that in this world you can only do so if you have a particular feat is artificial. What the feat could do is give you a bonus to your roll when doing an extortion check, and perhaps change an average extortion so that you now get more money for every point you beat their "extortion save" by, rather than just a flat rate. So in other words, this feat should be about enhancing a pre-existing ability. The Dutch Courage one I like the general concept of, but just needs a tiny bit of refining - it doesn't really need that "thug" prerequisite, although a pre-requisite of some sort probably is a good idea just to avoid getting entire parties of drunkards, perhaps a previous "resist poison" feat? I'd also definitly prefer it if it involved literally buying/finding alchohol and drinking it, rather than just an MMO style automatic button which assumes you have unlimited drink on you. You could even have a second level of Greater Dutch Courage which increases your bonuses. Obviously a name change to (insert random Kingdom in the PE world) Courage would be needed. The Summon War Dog one I'm not a fan of, I really don't care for characters having the ability to randomly make allies appear unless it makes sense for their class, particularly non-magical ones. Where does this Wardog come from? Why does it only appear once a day? Where is it the rest of the time? This is a similar thing to the extortion one, in that I don't like arbitary powers which only work on "game logic". What I'd perhaps replace it with is an an ability like Animal Combat Trainer (or something better worded) so that any animals fighting along side you, whether they be allies, animal companions, purchased pets or whatever get bonuses to hit, damage, defense and whatever. Pre-requiite being a certain amount of Natural Lore or Animal Empathy or some skill that is nature themed any you have something that makes sense and is useful. As for what would be other good feats.... obvious ones like proficiencies in weapons, armour, shields, but perhaps also in certain elemental of "form" magics so Magic Proficiency: Cold, or Magic proficiency: shields. Really for the core classes I think 3e covered it pretty well, but I think the outlying classes (Druid, Monk, Cipher, Chanter etc) there is probably a bit of room for some interesting feats. I really liked those bonus animal forms in IWD2 for Druids so if Druids retain shapeshifting that'd be an obvious one for with a couple of slightly mroe exotic forms, similarly Monks could learn a few exotic moves that do thigns like increase their range, make them harder to hit etc, while Chanters could learn new chanting techniques (probably not actual specific chants, as they'd probably be better off as things learned automatically in levelup or found in the world) but perhaps enhancing existing ones or even like a "power attack" version where you can have a small radius but greater power or bigger radius but less.

I'd be inclined against this, if nothing else because the net result is basically penalising wizards and other offensive spellcasters for loot. I don't mind a few things like disintegrate like spells doing it, but when you use such a thing its very much a particular tactical choice, not gambling with every attack. Gavinfoxx: While being the 'one guy which is only there to disarm traps and pick locks' is a bit of a stereotype of the class, its also an important part of the archetype, and classes are fundementally broad stroke archetypes. That isn't to say that other classes shouldn't be able to do it or that you shouldn't be able to create a rogue who isn't good at it, but having the class rigged so they can learn plenty of skills is one of the core features of the class. If you boil wizards, rogues and fighters in 3e down to their very very most basic form, fighters are the class about feats, wizards the class about spells and rogues the class about skills If anything I would do more to make lockpick the optimal way to open a lock - have some locks be unbreakable, have smashing a lock risking drawing in unwanted attention, keep some form of gamble of item damage etc, automatic setting off and traps in said lock. Let people smash things open all they want to, but the difference between the two is basically bodging something together yourself or having a professional doing it. You might not want to pay the cost of the professional (be it money or party slots), but he'd certainly do a better job. Similarly if they were to include unlocking spells at all I'd either have a single high level spell, or, have about 20 different low level ones, each of which only works for specific locks, so you'd basically have to try several spells before you find the right one.

Not a fan of this at all in regards to overarching classes, however, what might work is if certain divisions within a class were only open to a specific gender. It's not unlikely that a certain, say, wizard school only accepts men, either as a character creation option or a joinable faction within the game. The former is preferable because otherwise you'd either have unbalanced genders and everyone would play a male wizard, or, you'd have to include a rather artificial female equivalent to keep them balanced. If you are going to go that route though you would want to go and have orders for just dwarves or just humans too, or even just arctic dwarves say. Not specifically more powerful that other origins but just with different spells or abilities to make them different and worth consideration. This would make most sense for members of "order" based classes eg. Monk, paladin, wizard, druid, priest etc, but you could stretch it to barbarians in the former of clans or fighters and rogues in guilds or something. You'd want at least 70% non exclusive orders but a couple thrown into the mix might add a bit of flavour...

The only thing I'd say about that general concept is that while I like the idea of having some ancestor themes in the barbarian, I think that sounds a bit too rigid as a class feature, and the growing forth bit seems a bit melodramatic for my tastes. But the general concept does seem interesting, but I'd tone it down a little personally. I'd have it as a specific line of optional skills within barbarian to unlock this rather then be a core class feature, but have a little fun with it. Perhaps an ability you can learn where you can temporarily channel a randomly generated spirit of another barbarian ancestor into yourself so instead of rage boosting your attributes you gain a selection of temporary random skills from this ancestor. If you. Are ever in a circumstance where you are a bit stuck it serves as a bit of a lucky dip. Monks could also benefit from a power like that though and you wouldn't want them both to have it.

Well, lockpicking is really an archetypal skill for an entire class of characters while whacking a lock or casting a spell to undo it isn't. This is the difference between any class being able to do anything and any class being able to do anything well. As thief skills are squarely within the remit of the rogue it makes sense to protect them. You could of course perhaps do it differently - if you assume lockpicking it the optimal route because it's quiet and doesn't risk damaging the items, you can add a few extra problems to go through. If perhaps some locks are just too well madeto physically break, trying to force a lock automatically triggers any traps and the noise involved can attract unwanted attention (all of which are plausible justifications) then suddenly thevalue of lockpicking is far higher. While I'm all in favour of any class being able to make do in any circumstances, that doesn't mean that every class should excel in every circumstance - when you have a specific thing that needs doing you want a specialist rather than just a guy with a big hammer.

Well the answer to that is twofold: 1) Culturally you don't want all species to have the same balance of what classes they are suited to. To take your orc example, this is basically going to imply that Orc wizards are rarer than, say, human wizards, but that doesn't mean an Orc wizard is inherantly a bad wizard, just one that has to strive more to the higher spellcasting levels. 2) A system should be built so that different classes have multiple stats that benefit them. To take the Elf example of why would you build a wizard who wasn't an elf? In 3e you might want to build a gnome or dwarf wizard as you wanted a tough one, you might build a human one as you wanted that extra feat, you mgiht build a halfling one as you wanted that extra DEX and AC. The half-orc one is certainly the most challenging of the lot, but not impossible. Roleplaying shouldn't necessarily be about always takign the easiest choice, its abotu taking the choice you want to take.

The fact the cap only applies to level 1 kind of counters that though, if you take level 1 to represent a given amount of experience it does make sense. For a real world example, say, a human and a gorrilla and compare them, for the sake of arguement lets say the gorrilla has +4 strength and -4 intelligence (would probably be way more than that, but this is just a demo). That means that a particularly vicious level 1 gorrilla might have 22 strength. This is clearly a lot stronger than a human can be, so that for an equally vicious level 1 human they'd only be able to get to 18 strength. If the human was capped at 18 that'd be an issue, but if you decide to concentrate that gorrilla in say countering his intelligence penalty, the human has a bit of a chance to catch up if they neglect their own training in other things. A gorrilla will always be stronger than an equivelantly healthy/trained human. A really strong human might be stronger than a normal gorrilla or a normal gorrilla might be as intelligent as a stupid human, but they are different species and to make them interchangeable misses the point of why they are separate species in the first place.

If you'd been arguing against the interface for the BG and IWD1 I'd be all for you, those things were very unwieldy, but for me the IWD2 interface is just about the best interface of any RPG I've played. Not perfect mind, but looks good and is easy to use, far easier to use than the Fallout ones, and not forgetting, having to show a lot more data than the Fallout one did as 3E is a lot more of a complex ruleset than the fallout one. The particular problem I have with the "mystic stone" concept is that, I really don't think that mystic stones that can reccount your ability scores and are covered in written English really "work" as a concept - you are basically trying to combine detailled statistics and a mysterious mystical stone into one thing and that honestly just comes off as weird. If you wanted a mystical stone aesthetic to a regular interface sure, but pretending the interface is an "in world" medieval tablet just doesn't fit the setting - if only you have one your own interface becomes a plot point as surely this is a vastly valuable object, which is weird and probably leads to other characters trying to steal your own interface, and if multiple people have them then why isn't the world at a more advanced point than it is? Better in a medieval setting to use an ostensiably self updated book if you insist on having an "inworld" interface as that then fits the tone of things more without weird baggage.

I'd personally be inclined to stick to more everyday animals for the standard options, purely because I suspect having monsters for familiars would run the risk of getting you lynched. I'd also say that although by default a familiar shouldn't be a worthwhile combatant, perhaps including the option to upgrade it into one through fear spending could be worthwhile as an option for the mage. Giving a mage a panther for a standard creature would be overpowered, but if you give him the option of upgrading it into one for combat purposes thats a valid choice. Raven, owl, cat, bat, rat and snake would be the obvious ones, but it would be interesting to throw a few more original options in there - small fox perhaps, or some birds that don't get a lot of time in the spotlight. A gull, tern or otter might make sense for a wizard on the coast, or a wizard from a more tropical clime might have a parrot, monkey or something. You could also imagine high-born wizards at court having little yappy and fluffy lapdog breeds. A mountain wizard might have a bird like a mountain thrush of some sort or a falcon. All sorts of options that tie back to the tone of the wizard havign them.

Contextually in a squad based fantasy game, I have to say I would much prefer IWD2s interface or something like it. Pipboy is a great little interface, but that's in large part because it ties in so well to the setting it is in, a soulstone as you pitch it is a bit more abstract - are you suggestign everyone has a soul stone in PE? Where do they come from? Will they run out etc? The major concern though basically boils down to a Pip-boy style thing not being Infinity Engine enough for an Infinity Engine styled game. For me if you are doing an IE homage, the inventory grid is a must and the row of portraits with the HP next to them is a must at the very least. The rest is a bit more optional, but the idea of a magic stone thing seems rather shoehorned in. A book perhaps I could get behind as that'd be the technological equivelant of a Pipboy and has a more logical system of moving through it, but honestly I'd just like a solid little interface that did the jobs it needed to.

I think we have to break this down I to the component parts of it to make sense see of it, as some of the components of racial bonuses make sense, while others are just weird. For ability score modifiers you have to bear in mind that building a sub optimal character isn't the same as playing the game "wrong" and indeed may even be desirable for certain roleplayers. In 3e you can just about make and class/race combo work if you are willing to run with it, and I think the tendency to assume optimal class/race combo is the only way to go misses the point. There would for example be fighters of every race, but, clearly some races fighters would play different to others. Obvious choice would be half orc, as you get the str bonus, but on the other hand a 20 in con or dexterity isn't to be sniffed at either for some character designs. Even gnomes and halflings with their penalty to STR can be devastating front liners. Case to point - I've soloed Icewind dale 2 using just a gnome barbarian. ludicrously high hp from 1d12 + 5 hp per level from the get go meant the problems came from will saves rather than any physical threat, despite having sub optimal strength. I'm also fine with low light vision and skill bonuses to things like hide, move silently, spot etc as those are physical functions, plus low light vision and it's ilk as they are all plausibly biology based. Where it gets iffy is where race is confused with culture. An elf raised among dwarves is equally as good with a bow naturally relative to an elf raised with his own species? Ok.... The favoured class thing is also weird, not so much in that it exists but that it isn't fighter or rogue for every single race. I can see merit in having some favoured classes in plural, so an elf has a bonus at, say, fighter, ranger, wizard, druid or cleric as you could probably make an argument that physically and in the way they think they aren't naturally inclined towards being barbarians, but it's probably better to scrap the whole thing.

Just a really quick suggestion then, maybe when they Rage, they gain a temporary "Monkey Grip" feat? Large weapons in their primary hand, and shield in their off hand. There's no specific logic to that suggestion, only something that goes back the "Whoa!" factor I described. As an aside, I don't mind us combing back through history and analyzing cultural and racial reasons to "keep it real". I think it's intelligent and valid. What I'm starting to think though is that maybe we should be narrowing down each class description to a sort of "tag line" so that if you had to pitch each class to someone totally new to the RPG genre, they could see that each class was unique, easy to visualize, and would appeal to a wide audience. How should we sum up the Barbarian class in this scenario? I think you have to bear in mind that Obsidian have specifically stated that they want classes to be able to be built in various ways and still be viable, so I can't see a focus in any specific weapon being a class focus. This isn't to say that, say, a crossbow/gun wielding barbarian would be the best use of a character, but I'd say any melee weapon setup or any human powered ranged weapon is a fair bet. Mixing in throwing axes/hammers and javelins to spice up a melee class could be fun, perhaps doubling their distance during rage if you advance that way, so you get awesome scenarios where you are trying to fight your way through a phalanx of guys with shields to get to the wizard bombarding you from behind thinking himself safe, barbarian enters rage and hurls an axe across the field way past the weapons normal range into that smug wizards face.... You could actually perhaps choose how you develop your rage ability - a frenzy one with increased attacks/round or a traditional fury one which increases your strength. As for a tagline.... kind of depends on those of the other melee classes. I'd go with fighter being something vaguely like "The master of arms", ranger being "The warrior of the wilds" paladin being "The hammer of belief" monks being "The living weapon" which leaves barbarian to be something like "The embodiment of strength". None of them are that great I concede but they get the vaguest gist across.

Well no offense, but if that's what you feel why on earth do you want to go within a thousand miles of any fantasy whatsoever? If I felt strongly enough about it to make an issue of the word barbarian I would feel sick at the sight of any Elves, Dwarves, Wizards, Dragons or Goblins (not to mention a dozen other things) as its by far the single most incestuous genre relative to its own scope in existance. But furthermore you are missing the point of what classes are for - they are archetypes that the player gets to customise, nothing more, an arguement for the removal of the barbarian is an arguement for the removal of classes because it is a very distinct archetype, and I'm not entirely sure how "for mature audiences" really factors into that. You can go the classless route (Elder Scrolls), or the minimal class route (Dragon Age) but they have their own problems of lack of concept in characters, and, more importantly for this game, makes the build of your party far less interesting and tactical. If you can personally generate some entirely new and distinct archetypes, then fine, but removing one archetype because you don't like it doesn't in any way make a game more or less mature. The trick to making something more mature isn't down to individual words, but down to the game mechanics, plot and lore of a game. As for your specifics, you are adding your own views onto the original meaning - the "savage" bit or "blood thirsty raging fighter" is your own interpretation of what they meant. The word as I've said is basically onoematapic for a "babbling" like noise of a language not understood, and at the most basic it merely means foreigner. TRX50 - While I agree that Barbarians are an attack/damage centric class, the berserker which is within barbarians concept does have strong ties to the shield (they were said to bite their own shields as they went into battle for some reason) so I'd include the bit I mentioned earlier about increased weaponisation of the shield, smashing it into foes, maybe charging them down to knock them back/over etc.

If you managed to match Edward the Philistine to a strong existing archetype and because phenomenally successful spawning comics, films, cartoons ang games, then yes, there might be. That's how language and collective conciousness work. Also, as I previously stated, your etymological problem for Barbarian misses the point - you've literally picked a middle definition of the word, not the original or the contemporary and are taking offense at that. The original meaning predates Christianity anyway, originally just refered to as any one who wasn't Greek, see here. Therefore, by its definition unless any of us is greek we all all Barbarians. Lets just stat out a hypothetical Barbarian Class is probably the quickest way to do this all BARBARIAN - Rage Ability - Increased Movement Speed - Proficiency in all conventional weapons, medium armour and shields - Some sort of damage resistance - High HP relative to other classes Thats all the basic stuff in, so what else? - Increased offensive ability with shield? - Passive rend ability with % chance to break/bipass enemy shield? - Penalty to hit, bonus to damage (vs equivically statted fighter)? - Resistances to specific things relative to background? (mountains = cold, swamp = disease, city = bludgeoning?) - Perhaps include in the rage ability at higher levels a bonus whereby they can't be knocked out while raged, only killed? - Skills relating to their background (including stealth, inimidate, lore for place of background (wilderness/city) etc) - Higher level rage forces enemies to roll against intimidation check or take penalties? -

Pulp magazines are prose, not sequential art/comics, and you aren't addressing the actual points of my arguements.

Conan isn't a historical depiction: it's a popular comic that later became a movie. It's odd that the rest of the game has some sort of "historical feel" to it with weapons named estoc and fairly interesting armors (female armor and that whole thing being another aspect) while we just let the "barbarian" thing fly. This was a poll done here. It was not scientific, but this has always been a general trend among D&D classes. For another poll done, see here: http://community.wiz.../favorite_class Also, another good read: http://5eworld.blogs...s-at-gates.html Actually Conan is a series of books turned into a comic and then into a popular film, and I never claimed it to be historical, what I said was, that Conan is what people associate with the word barbarian, doesn't imply that Conan is real. However, as Conan is famous and the word is in his name, that is what people associate with the word, regardless of the fact that he is ficticious, and regardless of what the word may have meant in the past. Secondly even that second poll doesn't prove that Barbarian is the least popular class, it only proves that it's the least peoples first choice. Now that is reason to give the old thing a tuneup sure, but not that same at all "everyone dislikes barbarians",

I think you are mistaking historical etymology for the modern usage. Sure it may not have originally meant the whole "Conan" thing it basically means now, but as that's what it does mean now, particularly in a ficticious context you are missing the point. At the most basic the word is theorised to be derrived from a word like "barbar" signifying a speaker of a different language rather than any of the later connotatations, besides if we go by etmolohy wizards had nothing to do with magic and rogues were just idle vagrants. Also, although I disagree with the idea of barbarians being the sole default illiterate class, thats more because pretty much everyone except Cleric and Wizard *should* have been illiterate by default if we were going for some sort of historical accuracy. Even a class like Monks (in the D&D sense) and Bards wouldn't be inherantly literate although most of them probably would read. But you can't hold one interpreatation of a class against the entire concept. I think the issue here is that unlike any other class, Barbarians have literally ONE single name that comes to mind at their name. Conan the Barbarian just overshadows the entire thing so much, that there is a built in assumption of the archetypal image of him with the big greatsword and the loincloth that it overrides what people consider they can do with the class. The answer here is perhaps to build in a few features that would give a bit more bredth to the precedings to give people ideas other than just expected. Bonuses to throwing weapons and using shields offensively would be two things you could do, perhaps build cleave in by default rather than an optional extra. Perhaps a "rend" passive that gives them a % chance to break through shields, blocks and armour? Also, I'm sceptical of your "no one will play them" statistic - 311 is a small sample size out of a very minimum of 73000 people we know will own this game, and honestly, if 1/5 people play Ciphers out of everyone who plays the game I'd be very surprised, if nothing else in that I know several people with Barbarian as their preferred D&D class and a few more for whom it is their preferred melee class. Number of people who I know who've ever expressed interest in psionic style classes? 0. Last but not least, Barbarian is just a better sounding word than Berserker. Has a really nice flow to it.

I think that actually pigeonholing the barbarian as an outdoorsman class actually doesn't actually accomodate the full range of the archetype. In addition to those who are literally born into the class in the form of being born into a family of raiders say, there are certainly characters from full civilization who can grow into it. Black Whirlwind from Jade Empire is a prime example of this, where basically someones personality sends them into the realm of barbarian rather than, say, a fighter or ranger. The primary difference I see between the barbarian and the fighter is that a successful barbarian is primarily the result of emotion and physical power while a fighter is the result of discipline and physical skill. Perhaps to represent this, you could have the Barbarians normal statistics be as if they were constantly under the influence of "power attack", ie. so a constant penalty to a hit relative to a fighter of equivalent level but a constant bonus to damage when they do. Perhaps double their critical threat range at some point in their levelling too.

But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men? This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor. OK, I'm going to assume you meant Robert E. Howard (writer of Conan) rather than Arthur Conan Doyle (writer of Sherlock Holmes) for that quote. The answer is.... not clear cut. The problem with judging any non contemprary writer is that we are judging them by the standards of our time, but by the standards of their own they may have been radically different. In the case of Howard, while he was apparently at least a little feministic for his time the Conan stuff of his I have read is fairly one dimensional in terms of his women, who are all of course young, nubile and either innocent needing protecting or a strong sexy counterpart to Conan himself. That being said, having done a little quick reading apparently Howard had a fear of old age so all his characters tend to be youthful and vigorous anyway. But by the standards of "high-fiction" his female characters are pretty one dimensional today, even if they are basically the same roles as a Mills and Boon character in a markedly different setting. The problem with the chainmail bikini is that it's a double standard - no one is saying that you shouldn't find women attractive, the problems are more that firstly on average, a character like Conan (or to take a real world example, male wrestlers) is not an equivical female fantasy to say, Red Sonja. Both are actually male arguably male fantasies, though in the Conan case "to be" rather than the the Sonja "be with" one. Which isn't to say no woman would like that, far from it, but it's a male empowerment fantasy, not really a female sexual one. Then we have the issue of practicality, and this is the one which is most pervasive in modern fiction. A man wears massive armour with spikes and gauntlets and all things that suggest his massive power. A woman wears a chainmail bikini which suggests her sexuality. Again the male fantasies in both. If the bikini and the power armoru were equally viable defensive options this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore a female character is being defined by her sexuality before anything else. Where this gets a bit muddy is where you bring this back into context against real life, where obviously, women do wear sexual clothes some of the time. This is where I think the "no sexy clothes" for women brigade are mistepping a bit. As women do wear tiny skirts and bikini tops some of the time, its a bit of a fallacy to say they never will in a work of fiction because of equality. True equality would basically mean that some women (and, importantly, some men) dress sexually some of the time, while some dress in whatever way they want/fits their character. I could go on at length noramlly but as I'm off ou, have a look at this site for examples in comics to compare the problem: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/ Thanks for the informative response , I appreciate the time you spent explaining your view. I did mean Robert Howard, I couldn't edit the post for some reason after I realized my mistake. The reality is in RL we are surrounded by aesthetics and the appeal of beauty. Magazines, adverts, TV and News Channels presenters all have beautiful women that often wear clothes that compliment there figures. I don't think this is wrong. I don't think women should in anyway be inhibited by what they want to wear. I also don't think that guys that like this are weird, as this is a natural part of what makes up our modern world and our human psyche. Therefore in a fantasy setting I also have no issue with men or women wearing bikini armor. I know you are not objecting to this but there are several people who are vociferously opposed to this type of sexuality and when people talk about similar topics they are accused of being "perverts" or "sexist". I think the main thing is that we need more female characters who have a primary attribute other than sexiness. Realistically, proportionally in sci-fi and fantasy (particularly, the problem is more widespread than that by far) the big problem is not that there are sexualised women, its that there are not enough women who aren't sexualised. I'd say that on average, youare less likely to find a female physically over the age of 35 or a female character who isn't specifically attractive, than say, a black character, which is just silly. It's well established that non-white ethnic groups are underrepresented to begin with, but to say that over the age of 35 and/or not conventionally attractive members of 50% of the population is frankly bizarre. I'd like to see characters with different body types to just skinny with big breasts, and importantly, sometimes give them a lead role in things, not just be a randomer in the street or whatever. Make female characters who are asexual, conservative, pragmatists, intellectuals, middle aged, disinterested in sex, married, thinks the protagonist isn't their type etc. On that note, by FAR my favourite female character in a game ever is Aveline from DA2. She wasn't conventionally pretty, she wasn't conventionally feminine, she was tough and willfull and had depths and would argue with you when she thought you were wrong. She wasn't even interested in you! When was the last time you have a game where a character falls in love with someone who isn't you the protagonist? None I've played! In other words, she was written as a character, not just as a strange male concept of a woman. DA2 was pretty good for this in general, although some feministic people disliked Isabella for instance, I think they are missing the point that people like her do exist and we shouldn't pretend they don't. Equally I have met people like Merrill, and the fact that all three of them came off as real characters with their own motives and itnerests was far better than the generic action-girl flirtacious love interest or shy flower to be swept off her feet that 90% of games do.

But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men? This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor. OK, I'm going to assume you meant Robert E. Howard (writer of Conan) rather than Arthur Conan Doyle (writer of Sherlock Holmes) for that quote. The answer is.... not clear cut. The problem with judging any non contemprary writer is that we are judging them by the standards of our time, but by the standards of their own they may have been radically different. In the case of Howard, while he was apparently at least a little feministic for his time the Conan stuff of his I have read is fairly one dimensional in terms of his women, who are all of course young, nubile and either innocent needing protecting or a strong sexy counterpart to Conan himself. That being said, having done a little quick reading apparently Howard had a fear of old age so all his characters tend to be youthful and vigorous anyway. But by the standards of "high-fiction" his female characters are pretty one dimensional today, even if they are basically the same roles as a Mills and Boon character in a markedly different setting. The problem with the chainmail bikini is that it's a double standard - no one is saying that you shouldn't find women attractive, the problems are more that firstly on average, a character like Conan (or to take a real world example, male wrestlers) is not an equivical female fantasy to say, Red Sonja. Both are actually male arguably male fantasies, though in the Conan case "to be" rather than the the Sonja "be with" one. Which isn't to say no woman would like that, far from it, but it's a male empowerment fantasy, not really a female sexual one. Then we have the issue of practicality, and this is the one which is most pervasive in modern fiction. A man wears massive armour with spikes and gauntlets and all things that suggest his massive power. A woman wears a chainmail bikini which suggests her sexuality. Again the male fantasies in both. If the bikini and the power armoru were equally viable defensive options this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore a female character is being defined by her sexuality before anything else. Where this gets a bit muddy is where you bring this back into context against real life, where obviously, women do wear sexual clothes some of the time. This is where I think the "no sexy clothes" for women brigade are mistepping a bit. As women do wear tiny skirts and bikini tops some of the time, its a bit of a fallacy to say they never will in a work of fiction because of equality. True equality would basically mean that some women (and, importantly, some men) dress sexually some of the time, while some dress in whatever way they want/fits their character. I could go on at length noramlly but as I'm off ou, have a look at this site for examples in comics to compare the problem: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/