Barothmuk

Seriously I can't even begin to even. EDIT: Since you expanded your point. Like I said, I don't want it to merely depict feudal societies as sexist and that's it because that's lazy. What I want is to "show the misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring its actual impact on females by still showing their agency under the oppressive system." Obviously not everyone would like this but also obviously not everyone would not like this. (God my grammar is getting worse as this discussion continues) Naturally the argument here would be underlying structures in which modern democracies emerge is what makes them sexist. Not the democracy itself.

Well I can at least say I tried to sensibly respond to you. Nonetheless you're more than free to view Obsidian as crypto-fascist neo-nazis for already including racism, slavery, war, murder and so on. BECAUSE WHY ELSE WOULD THEY HAVE THESE THEMES!? EDIT: I can certainly appreciate a rebuttal in the vein of Tajero's but if I can only expect readings along the lines of Bryy's I'm really hoping the Mods will simply come in and crush this discussion. EDIT II: And now that said mod closing is inevitable... In no way shape or form is that how I worded it nor did I say these were equivalent. Merely that they are forms of oppression. Now you're just trolling. Me stating the obvious that just because she has no interest in exploring themes of sexism doesn't mean all women have lack an interest in exploring this is not at all equivalent to what you're saying. Seriously Bryy at the moment your posts are the poster child for strawman arguments.

I’m afraid this one will have to be more brief since I’ve really only got so much free time to yell on forums. The reduction of men = hunters, women = gatherers is obviously an incorrect simplification. In reality men would of course do both as women would also be stuck with the burden of pregnancy, thus yes, men would eventually gain a monopoly on the means of production. An incorrect reading on your part. I’m not denying these oppressed females still played an important role in their spheres, rather that their roles were still inherently oppressed and exploited Third my argument rests on summarising 3 huge, organically changing eras of human history in a bite sized paragraph. We are referring to the nuclear family bit, yes? That was a quick example of a modern structurally enforced gender role. Your entire fourth paragraph was argument against a point I never made. Cute but it’s not like you can simply just walk into an academic setting and have them all unanimously agree that feudalism = “socio-political system that grew out of historical contingency” with anything else being discredited pinko lies. What is the more accurate description is that the word feudalism itself is a reductionist label that tries to explain a system that spanned centuries and a continent. Naturally people are going to disagree on the intricacies but this doesn’t detract from its usefulness as a broad label. For what it’s worth I’m far more comfortable in issues of history rather than social-theory. Unfortunately its only in the latter field that you are more likely to investigate the roles and experiences of women in these societies. Nonetheless, your response had some decent content for a rebuttal but was rooted in a flawed reading of my point that seemed to think because I highlighted that women were oppressed and exploited this means they played no active role in the family economy.

A very crass reduction of my point. What I advocate is not necessarily for all videogames, merely any videogame set in a feudal setting that wishes to properly represent the oppressive nature of feudalism. I believe I’ve already summed up my position quite nicely: Worth noting is that the whole historical field of gender studies is focused on the last bit of what I said. I.e. Investigating the lives, thoughts and agency of women who lived under these various oppressive systems. Assuming how you define it they won’t be equal at all. They will have the exact same base stats (as I already supported) however they will have different gendered cultural expectations. My ‘potential issue’ was the degree in which they differ and how well rooted these enforced cultural differences are in the game’s lore. Based on what we know of the setting it is entirely possible females in PoE will be less oppressed then they were in real life, however for the entire institution of patriarchy to be done away within a system as primitive, reactionary and oppressive as feudalism is incredibly absurd. Holy mother of strawman. I never said anything even remotely resembling this. No I am not. By this logic because Obsidian is including racism, colonialism, serfdom, murder, war, genocide and so on they themselves must support all these things! As I have already explained I’m not simply advocating sexism on its own. That’s another mistake fantasy settings make that I feel is lazy. I’m advocating “showing the misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring its actual impact on females by still showing their agency under the oppressive system.” I’m quite honestly dumbfounded that you’ve read an unapologetically leftist argument that rests in a materialist understanding of institutionalized sexism and patriarchy as some kind of cheap defense of social conservatism. As I said before, institutionalized forms of discrimination do not simply spring up because certain individuals are ****. Rather such reactionary institutions emerge as a product of the material conditions in which they are formed. I’ll try and briefly cover this with an area I’m much more comfortable with. The transition from slave-societies to feudalism for example didn’t come about because someone dreamed up some “feudalism” idea and thought that’d somehow be a better way to run society. Rather, the slaves & spoils economy of the Romans had gradually ceased to be capable of sustaining itself and fractured with the next few centuries laying the foundations for feudalism to emerge, one particularly important one being the mounted warrior. By the 900s the decaying Carolingian Empire had created a caste of powerful soldiers with no real oversight, and thus without any major governing authority these soldiers were able to translate their military strength into land ownership, most obviously through the construction of fortifications which would gradually see the rise of early castellans and fiefdoms. Over the next few centuries these war-lord kingdoms would expand and stabilize and thus less explicitly coercive policies began to emerge such as vassalage, closed nobility and perhaps most importantly, ‘kings’ who provided a perceived link back to Rome for legitimacy (although the actual power of the king wouldn’t come until much later). Err, a slight off-topic ramble but my point was to show how systems such as feudalism or patriarchy aren’t simply a consequence of individual thought but rather rooted in material conditions. Of course you may disagree and argue from a philosophically idealist position that believes humans somehow have agency outside of their material conditions and thus oppressions such as “sexism” and “racism” are not structurally enforced but merely the fault of individual agency. I’d obviously disagree this position but it is at the very least a position I can have a sensible debate with. What I cannot sensibly debate is an erroneous position that conflates my firmly leftist critique with cheap, reactionary sexism. I would be deeply offended if I didn’t simply think you had little exposure leftist and/or feminist theory. EDIT: An sorry for double post. Wasn't sure how big this forum's limit was.

Before I begin my responses I feel it worth mentioning that I can’t help but feel in people’s rush to argue completely against my point (or more accurately what they think to be my point) they’re doing a disservice to the effort Obsidian has put into crafting a coherent setting. Based on everything we’ve been shown Eora isn’t simply an “anything goes” setting with a fantasy backdrop (like some are crudely portraying it as), rather Obsidian are trying to ground the setting as much as possible and genuinely pay attention to the implications of various existing structures. Again, going off what we’ve been told, the mindset of “it’s fantasy so it doesn’t matter” seems to be at odds with their world-building philosophy. I’d have thought that seeing that every single existing feudal society has been deeply misogynist and patriarchal this would indicate that at the very least it is far more likely that there is an underlying structure that maintains and propagates this patriarchy rather then it simply all being one convenient coincidence. Nonetheless, sure, I’ll try and do my best and give a very brief/general explanation. Prior to the establishment of societies rooted in agriculture there’s your standard hunter/gatherer model. Now although there still exists a sexual division of labour these are relatively egalitarian as labour and resources are communally shared. However, although relatively egalitarian there are still the seeds for a hierarchal relationship as the males are the ones who are focused on hunting i.e. controlling the means of subsistence thereby owning the means of production in these affairs. As societies develop and are forced to settle down in the one area to feed a larger population via agriculture these sexual divisions grow (to varying degrees) with men’s prior privileges resulting in a monopoly on power wherein males are typically in possession of surpluses far above what is necessary for them to survive whereas women are forced into secondary positions primarily associated with reproductive labour. As societies develop and grow these unequal relationships will mold themselves to remain sustainable so long such “inequalities” are necessary. I.e. the very modern institutions of “bread-winner” and “nuclear family” wherein the male has a monopoly on paid work and the female is encouraged to work unpaid labour. Ehhh, I probably did a dodgy job there so rather than having my post being the “make or break” for the theory I’d advise actually reading up the various schools of patriarchy theory and family-economics yourself. I’m hardly some governing authority. You are not offering a “choice” at all. I am advocating we explore the patriarchy inherent to feudalism, many games have chosen to ignore it and since this one is exploring similar themes I feel its inclusion would be appropriate. You are advocating we have a feudal-esque setting minus the parts you find undesirable like every other videogame fantasy setting. Unless you’re advocating a “what type of setting and tone do you want” toggle (which is obviously absurd) there’s no choice here. The game is set in a feudal setting or at the very least a setting that’s gradually phasing out of feudalism. I’m advocating exploring themes integral to the feudal time period. Obsidian have already said they will be exploring the issues of colonialism, institutionalized racism and feudal class conflict; and the game will also already have different gendered cultural expectations, so naturally it feels appropriate to explore issues of sex as well. I’m really not understanding the confusion. You have no intellectual interest in gender inequality and the structures that propagate it? Can’t have action without theory and what have you. Nevertheless you’re free to have no interest yourself but I’d discourage patronizing those who’d prefer that those themes be explored rather than ignored. I can certainly understand why some may prefer avoid exploring and discussing the various kinds of oppression but don’t think your feelings are uniform for all women or any other oppressed group. I personally make little money; live in a tiny single room in a downtrodden neighbourhood rife with dilapidated buildings, drug dens, half a dozen homeless people, prostitutes and so on. This doesn’t stop me from having an invested intellectual interest in class inequality.

The lack of appropriate child mortality rates in feudal settings is indeed quite annoying. Good to see you're on board! And seriously **** this board's quoting system.

”Subjecting those who have been historical victims of misogyny to simulated misogyny”. I suppose you’d rather sweep the horrors of feudal society and its impact on women under the rug wouldn’t you! It’s much safer to dismiss those tragedies, silence the voices of those victims, best they be forgotten lest they hurt your modern sensibilities! What are you some kind of holocaust denier? Why aren’t you demanding the absence of racism or class conflict? Do you not care that you are subjecting those who have been historical victims of racism and class exploitation to simulated racism and class exploitation!? There’s people toiling away in poverty and here you are supporting a game that HAS serfdom! There’s probably murder in the game too! Are you just going to allow those who have suffered because of murder be forced to sit through simulated murder! There’s going to be little orphan children out there balling their eyes out having Vietnam style flashbacks because YOU wanted combat and violence. WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN, BLACK PEOPLE, POOR PEOPLE AND OPHANS YOU ****ING MONSTER!?!?! See, I can be melodramatic too. feudal societies? As a core theme or simply as a part of the setting? I honestly have no idea. I imagine it’d vary depending on the group asked. I personally was only advocating the latter (for this game at least) Anyways, I suspect you’re only asking this because you seem to wrongfully believe women have unanimously decided that depicting sexist structures as sexist IS sexist and thus it is far better to pretend it never happened then actually have some settings explore how and why such structures existed and persisted. But you know I’m clearly only saying this because I’m a fake feminist who’s covertly fighting against female equality in games. Worth noting is that Obsidian has already admitted the setting will have gendered cultural expectations for male and female characters (which the PC can adhere to or ignore) so I guess they’re in on it too. I’m not advocating its inclusion to “raise awareness”. As I have said, it was merely an inherent part of the system and I’d simply rather see it explored rather than ignored. I strongly doubt Obsidian is including racism, class conflict or any “unpleasant” themes because they’re seeking to “raise awareness”; rather they simply feel these are things worthy of being explored.

Quite a crass depiction of my point. You chauvinistically assume all women do not wish to explore themes of sexism inherent to feudal societies and you naively believe people only play as their own sex. Anyways I too am tired of this argument (for tonight at least) and am going to bed.

I fear my main point is missed because we can't get past this. Yes, it is not Earth however the primary races are still incredibly human and the structures in place are still clearly analogous to already existing historical structures (i.e. slave societies, feudal societies). The impact of souls, the length of elven lives and the possible existence of gods obviously would have an impact on how these structures develop and persist (hence why I'm merely voicing my critique as a potential problem [see first post]) however so far they still seem to be largely similar. They have a level of technology comparable to 15th/16th century Europe; this would mean we are coming towards the decline of feudalism. Naturally this would still mean the society would be in close contact with many of its holdovers. More or less. It was part of the structure hence I'd rather explore it rather than ignore it. Outside of that it's also because I'm a feminist and I find the history gender inequality and its structural manifestations interesting and worthy of examination.

Oh don't worry I'm not suspecting malice on your end or anything. More or less. Misogyny and patriarchy were an inherent part of the feudal structure and rather then merely sweeping that under the rug I'd rather actually explore those themes (along with all of the other similar themes mentioned by Obsidian).

I wasn't arguing from a position of "historical accuracy". I was arguing from a position of structure. I.e. Reactionary attitudes towards women are an inherent part of the feudal structure. Nevertheless just because the structures in place actively discouraged females from being able to do said things that doesn't mean females doing these things was in of it self impossible. There's a legion of difference between a backwards feudal society having total equal rights and an individual within a primitive backwards society going against cultural norms.

Advocating? I have never seen such a thing. Instead the setting will say "Oh but we don't have social problem X" all the while still having the internal contradictions. None the less, as you are a firm believer in the "fantasy ergo anything" mentality whereas I am completely the opposite I believe we simply lack enough common ground to bother continuing.

I already addressed this.

And yet you advocate the elimination of the sexism that is inherent to the feudal system. It'd be almost as silly as depicting a feudal society with the qualifier of "Oh but class conflict doesn't exist". It just doesn't make sense. I honestly don't even know what you are trying to say here meaning you have no doubt missed my point as well (as I have missed yours). I'm not demanding PoE be an afternoon special with a new moral lesson for each town. Rather the institutionalised discrimination inherent to the feudal system (race, class, sex, etc) and how it manifested would be shown throughout the whole game. Its simply a part of the setting. Oy vey. The link was a quick reference to the common misconception that certain pre-feudal societies having different freedoms for women does not mean they were "matriarchal" or even equal. As most sociologists will agree, although primitive matriarchal societies having existed are certainly possible, there's simply no evidence that any have actually existed. Nevertheless, the various Native American nations were not feudal thus the point is moot.

No. I'm stating that institutionalized misogyny, patriarchy and gendered roles are all inherent to the feudal system and thus if Obsidian wishes to craft a realistically coherent feudal society it is only natural they reflect the misogyny inherent to feudalism. Institutionalised discrimination doesn't simply "spring up" because individuals are ****, rather it is rooted in a long history of material forces. Again, no. Like I said before, patriarchy is inherent to any feudal society thus all of the societies would be misogynistic to varying degrees. Thus I'm not simply advocating one example of a "sexist society" wherein the females rebel because "sexism is bad yo" rather I advocate the depiction of the inherent misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring the thoughts, feelings and agency of those who live under it. To actually show how such sexism was inherent to the system, how it manifested itself, how it impacted people and so on (same reason they'd be exploring class conflict and institutionalised racism). Crass depictions of sexism that merely show "sexism is bad" without exploring how it actually manifests and what its material causes are is why many will wrongfully believe sexism has already ended. Matrilineal =/= Matriarchy.

In pre-feudal, pre-slave societies there may have been matriarchal societies, however what few references we have of such societies are almost entirely mythological and used to demonstrate the "horrors" of women being on top. And here's where I think you're simply missing my point. I'm not advocating stat penalties for female PCs, class limitations, ability limitations or what have you. Rather I'm advocating that the setting itself depict the primitive reactionary values inherent to feudalism and its consequences on the population. That does not mean the female PC is silenced or necessarily 'limited' mind you, rather they'd have a different experience where they are far more likely to discriminated by virtue of their sex but still obviously be able to fight against that. The problem I have with most fantasy setting is that they will either ignore the suffering women felt under feudalism and simply sweep the inherent misogyny of such a system under the rug or they will show feudal societies as sexist but essentially silence the female sex under the guise of "well they didn't have a voice then". What I advocate is showing the misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring its actual impact on females by still showing their agency under the oppressive system.

Depicting inherently bigoted, oppressive and sexist systems as bigoted, oppressive and sexist is not antagonizing. Of course it can. Plenty of fantasy settings dismiss the logical structures present in primitive systems in favour of creating what amounts to an idealized modern world with fantasy coating. Pillars however seems to be examining the logical structures present in societies (institutionalized racism, class conflict and so on) and actually exploring them.

Here's a contentious con I didn't mention. Although I'm confident in Obsidian's world-crafting ability I fear they may feel the need to inject some unrealistic levels of social progressiveness to make the setting more palatable. By that I mean, it is quite a common trend in fantasy games to have near total gender equality (among other things) despite it being a feudal setting. Personally I find it incredibly jarring having a system as inherently oppressive and bigoted feudalism, a system that thrives on gendered roles and patriarchy, somehow attaining levels of equality that the modern industrialised world is still fighting for.

Can't speak for others but as an 'anti-romancer' I have no major issue with the romance content itself. Sure a lot of Bioware's romances are juvenile but for the most part they're easy to ignore and in the few instances when they're not completely horrible they're actually a decent tool to help further define my player-character. What I take issue with is the type of fans the inclusion of romance attracts.

PC is toss up between druid, chanter or monk. Party will simply be whoever makes the most sense plot wise for the first run through.

AssCreed's setting is little more than the delusional ramblings of a conspiracy nut. See their take on WWII (AN ORGANISED PLOT BETWEEN CHURCHILL, STALIN AND HITLER TO CREATE A NEW WORLD ORDER!!!!1Q)

Pro + Isometric party based game with RTWP. + The classes: All of them seem to be incredibly distinct from one another and not merely rehashes of 3 core classes (e.g. Mage, Rogue, Warrior) + The Adventurers Hall: After a few playthroughs I like to just experiment with different party builds rather than LARP. + The lore: I love the effort Obsidian has put into crafting a coherent, cohesive setting that accounts for the long history of interactions between races, cultures, languages and so on. No matter how enjoyable the combat of the old I.E. games may have been an incoherent setting simply makes it difficult to truly enjoy them. + The themes: Promises of exploring themes of institutionalized racism and class conflict combined with the coherent lore make me a very happy monkey. (See also factions, moral choices, C&C, artstyle, focus on world over characters and so on) Cons - The infinite inventory: Seems incredibly out of place. Accounting for inventory maintenance is a standard part of party creation. - No exp for combat: Obvious. - No pre-buffing. - ... Too much purple and green? - Not on my computer right now.

They're like a mean parody of Bioware characters.

Must have fixed it. Friend of mine snapped a picture:

Dragon Age: Origins is 125% off. So I guess you get money for downloading it?