Jump to content
Pete121

Is Pillars of Eternity II men hating pro feminist game.

Recommended Posts

I don't think the game is pro feminism man hating propaganda, but I would be lying if I say I didn't notice a lot of the things the OP is mentioning.

 

Who is the villain?  Eothas technically.... one of the depicted as male gods.

 

Which gods get the most screen time by far?  The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female.  Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah.   Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.

 

When you break down the God genders there are more male gods, five specifically.  But two of them are Skaen and Rymrgand who at this point can clearly be defined as evil, then there is Eothas which is a whole other thing.  There are meanwhile 4 female gods (Ondra is beginning to push it, but only Woedica is clearly evil and to be fair the "god of law and rule" being clearly evil feels like a political statement), and two gender neutral gods Berath who is both, and Wael who is ... Wael. 

 

Then you look at faction leaders.  There are technically six potential faction leaders.  Aeldys, Furrante, Onekaza, Karu, Alvari, and Castol. 

 

Four of them are women.  Only two of the four main factions have leaders that can't be overthrown from within, both of them are lead by women.  Both of the factions that can overthrow their leader are lead by men, even if one of the "overthrows" felt tacked on and sort of out of place.  Of all the faction leaders in favor of slavery/working with the slavers, there are only two.  I will let guess which two.  Also the leader of the slavers?  Yeah, it's a man.

 

It get's worse if you check out who leads the various Amaua groups in game, cause there are three outsider groups beyond the main factions.  Tikiwara, Port Maje Amaua, and another group I won't mention as this is the spoiler free forum.  All but one of them is lead by a woman, and the only leader who is considered incompetent by their tribe is... you guessed it, the lone man.

 

So yes, I can easily understand someone thinking there is a hidden agenda happening here.  I don't think there is, but I can see it.

 

For example you could argue the female gods get so much representation because Eothas is the main antagonist and they didn't want all the screentime going to male gods.  Also Galawain and Abyddon got a lot of play in the last game, and one of the biggest sidequests and backer beta was knee deep in Skaen.

 

The faction leader stuff is a lot harder to explain, especially considering I have posts claiming Aeldys is the only reasonable faction leader from a morality standpoint.  The Amaua being only lead by women seems a bit odd too, I hoping Josh has some cultural backstory reason there.

 

Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think the game is pro feminism man hating propaganda, but I would be lying if I say I didn't notice a lot of the things the OP is mentioning.

 

Who is the villain?  Eothas technically.... one of the depicted as male gods.

 

Which gods get the most screen time by far?  The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female.  Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah.   Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.

 

When you break down the God genders there are more male gods, five specifically.  But two of them are Skaen and Rymrgand who at this point can clearly be defined as evil, then there is Eothas which is a whole other thing.  There are meanwhile 4 female gods (Ondra is beginning to push it, but only Woedica is clearly evil and to be fair the "god of law and rule" being clearly evil feels like a political statement), and two gender neutral gods Berath who is both, and Wael who is ... Wael. 

 

Then you look at faction leaders.  There are technically six potential faction leaders.  Aeldys, Furrante, Onekaza, Karu, Alvari, and Castol. 

 

Four of them are women.  Only two of the four main factions have leaders that can't be overthrown from within, both of them are lead by women.  Both of the factions that can overthrow their leader are lead by men, even if one of the "overthrows" felt tacked on and sort of out of place.  Of all the faction leaders in favor of slavery/working with the slavers, there are only two.  I will let guess which two.  Also the leader of the slavers?  Yeah, it's a man.

 

It get's worse if you check out who leads the various Amaua groups in game, cause there are three outsider groups beyond the main factions.  Tikiwara, Port Maje Amaua, and another group I won't mention as this is the spoiler free forum.  All but one of them is lead by a woman, and the only leader who is considered incompetent by their tribe is... you guessed it, the lone man.

 

So yes, I can easily understand someone thinking there is a hidden agenda happening here.  I don't think there is, but I can see it.

 

For example you could argue the female gods get so much representation because Eothas is the main antagonist and they didn't want all the screentime going to male gods.  Also Galawain and Abyddon got a lot of play in the last game, and one of the biggest sidequests and backer beta was knee deep in Skaen.

 

The faction leader stuff is a lot harder to explain, especially considering I have posts claiming Aeldys is the only reasonable faction leader from a morality standpoint.  The Amaua being only lead by women seems a bit odd too, I hoping Josh has some cultural backstory reason there.

 

Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god. 

 

Eothas is the *antogonist*. He's not a villain; if anything he is by far the most caring, nurturing, forgiving, and *compassionate* of the gods. And he's a dude, so take that for what it's worth.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked up incel on urban dictionary and laughed my ass off. I totally know the types of guys they are talking about and it describes them perfectly. It's not hard to have sex. Go to the gym a few times a week, get a job, and don't be an ass. Someone, maybe not the hottest chick at the bar but far from the fugliest, will want to bang at some point. Stop whining. 

Seriously man. If you don't agree with me, i must an incel, virgin or living my parents basement.  :no:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Well I won't disagree that evolution can happen in shorter time spans, when there is a serious survival pressure. We've seen it happen in less than a century in other animals. But generally speaking it takes longer time periods, when it's merely adaptive rather than something that predicts life and death. Depends on the strength of the pressure. Food sources for survival is obviously reasonably pressing. 

 

In what ways are humans less sexually dimorphic than other primates? 

 

Males weigh, on average, about 15% more than females--this is reduced from other primates, where males are on average 25%-30% larger than females. In all other primates, males have elongated canines compared to females--this is not present at all. The same is true of brow ridges, which in other apes are much more pronounced in males. There's also the matter of hidden estrus; in the vast majority of other primates (excluding bonobos), females in estrus have physiological changes that strongly differentiate them from males and allow the males to know that they are fertile; humans do not have any form of estrus at all, so these physiological distinctions don't exist.

 

There is also what's called "general robustness". That is, the average difference in muscle mass and physical strength is much higher between other male and female primates than it is among human males and females.

 

 

I thought it would be size differences. Maybe theres a greater difference in prenatal testosterone. 

 

That's an interesting question for a study. In general I would postulate that human beings have generally lower levels of testosterone as compared to the other apes, because this would correlate with a more highly cooperative, less aggressive setting especially among the male population.

 

 

Indeed, it would reduce the amount of "aggression under the perception of threat". Other things like lowered risk perception, honesty in bargaining, and protection of women and children would also be lessened needs in a more cooperative society, especially a nomadic one, where intertribal warfare and interaction was less common. Increased spacial reasoning, I suspect, like all forms of intelligence seems to come with some evolutionary downsides, certain diseases, potentially including autism, increased nutritional requirements so too much testosterone could have also upset the delicate balance of our newly increased cognition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think the game is pro feminism man hating propaganda, but I would be lying if I say I didn't notice a lot of the things the OP is mentioning.

 

Who is the villain?  Eothas technically.... one of the depicted as male gods.

 

Which gods get the most screen time by far?  The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female.  Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah.   Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.

 

When you break down the God genders there are more male gods, five specifically.  But two of them are Skaen and Rymrgand who at this point can clearly be defined as evil, then there is Eothas which is a whole other thing.  There are meanwhile 4 female gods (Ondra is beginning to push it, but only Woedica is clearly evil and to be fair the "god of law and rule" being clearly evil feels like a political statement), and two gender neutral gods Berath who is both, and Wael who is ... Wael. 

 

Then you look at faction leaders.  There are technically six potential faction leaders.  Aeldys, Furrante, Onekaza, Karu, Alvari, and Castol. 

 

Four of them are women.  Only two of the four main factions have leaders that can't be overthrown from within, both of them are lead by women.  Both of the factions that can overthrow their leader are lead by men, even if one of the "overthrows" felt tacked on and sort of out of place.  Of all the faction leaders in favor of slavery/working with the slavers, there are only two.  I will let guess which two.  Also the leader of the slavers?  Yeah, it's a man.

 

It get's worse if you check out who leads the various Amaua groups in game, cause there are three outsider groups beyond the main factions.  Tikiwara, Port Maje Amaua, and another group I won't mention as this is the spoiler free forum.  All but one of them is lead by a woman, and the only leader who is considered incompetent by their tribe is... you guessed it, the lone man.

 

So yes, I can easily understand someone thinking there is a hidden agenda happening here.  I don't think there is, but I can see it.

 

For example you could argue the female gods get so much representation because Eothas is the main antagonist and they didn't want all the screentime going to male gods.  Also Galawain and Abyddon got a lot of play in the last game, and one of the biggest sidequests and backer beta was knee deep in Skaen.

 

The faction leader stuff is a lot harder to explain, especially considering I have posts claiming Aeldys is the only reasonable faction leader from a morality standpoint.  The Amaua being only lead by women seems a bit odd too, I hoping Josh has some cultural backstory reason there.

 

Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god. 

 

Eothas is the *antogonist*. He's not a villain; if anything he is by far the most caring, nurturing, forgiving, and *compassionate* of the gods. And he's a dude, so take that for what it's worth.

 

 

Antagonist is a more accurate depiction. Though I don't think viewing Eothas as a villain is wrong, I think viewing him in a more positive light is definitely defensible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think the game is pro feminism man hating propaganda, but I would be lying if I say I didn't notice a lot of the things the OP is mentioning.

 

Who is the villain?  Eothas technically.... one of the depicted as male gods.

 

Which gods get the most screen time by far?  The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female.  Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah.   Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.

 

When you break down the God genders there are more male gods, five specifically.  But two of them are Skaen and Rymrgand who at this point can clearly be defined as evil, then there is Eothas which is a whole other thing.  There are meanwhile 4 female gods (Ondra is beginning to push it, but only Woedica is clearly evil and to be fair the "god of law and rule" being clearly evil feels like a political statement), and two gender neutral gods Berath who is both, and Wael who is ... Wael. 

 

Then you look at faction leaders.  There are technically six potential faction leaders.  Aeldys, Furrante, Onekaza, Karu, Alvari, and Castol. 

 

Four of them are women.  Only two of the four main factions have leaders that can't be overthrown from within, both of them are lead by women.  Both of the factions that can overthrow their leader are lead by men, even if one of the "overthrows" felt tacked on and sort of out of place.  Of all the faction leaders in favor of slavery/working with the slavers, there are only two.  I will let guess which two.  Also the leader of the slavers?  Yeah, it's a man.

 

It get's worse if you check out who leads the various Amaua groups in game, cause there are three outsider groups beyond the main factions.  Tikiwara, Port Maje Amaua, and another group I won't mention as this is the spoiler free forum.  All but one of them is lead by a woman, and the only leader who is considered incompetent by their tribe is... you guessed it, the lone man.

 

So yes, I can easily understand someone thinking there is a hidden agenda happening here.  I don't think there is, but I can see it.

 

For example you could argue the female gods get so much representation because Eothas is the main antagonist and they didn't want all the screentime going to male gods.  Also Galawain and Abyddon got a lot of play in the last game, and one of the biggest sidequests and backer beta was knee deep in Skaen.

 

The faction leader stuff is a lot harder to explain, especially considering I have posts claiming Aeldys is the only reasonable faction leader from a morality standpoint.  The Amaua being only lead by women seems a bit odd too, I hoping Josh has some cultural backstory reason there.

 

Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god. 

 

 

She's a likeable assassin though. She feels bad afterwards lol. And she doesn't like slavery. Wait, xoti can be a psychopathic serial killer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

There's always darkness in the human heart too. And people who feel jilted, oppressed or hard done by and like other people owe them something for their feelings. People are basically selfish creatures, by and large, and they'll project their negative experiences onto other people if they go the wrong way. I prefer to spend my time amazed and in admiration of those with large stores of compassion and optimism, which is probably more remarkable given how life can be pretty hard. 

 

*Actually you know what that all reminds me of? The moral panic thing? The animancy plot in poe1 - how everyone thought they were the end of civilisation.

"Incel" is not merely a new word for virgin and it's not something that others have ascribed to this group – it's a name that they have chosen for themselves as a sort of badge of martyrdom. Incels blame women for their singlehood and view the fact that they aren't having sex as an injustice committed against them by a degenerate society that refuses to see their value. They feel entitled to sex, hold beliefs deeply grounded in heterosexism, openly entertain violent fantasies, and have a lot of (not surprising) crossover with gamergate.

 

I'm all for freedom of expression and anti-alarmism, but you can't call a group a "Boogeyman" "invented" by the left once they've actually started killing people. Collier Township, Santa Barbara, and now Toronto were all carried out by angry men active in the incel community.

 

You don't have to believe that a group is actually going to bring about a male supremacist social shift to recognize it as a threat for wanting to.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think the game is pro feminism man hating propaganda, but I would be lying if I say I didn't notice a lot of the things the OP is mentioning.

 

Who is the villain?  Eothas technically.... one of the depicted as male gods.

 

Which gods get the most screen time by far?  The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female.  Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah.   Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.

 

When you break down the God genders there are more male gods, five specifically.  But two of them are Skaen and Rymrgand who at this point can clearly be defined as evil, then there is Eothas which is a whole other thing.  There are meanwhile 4 female gods (Ondra is beginning to push it, but only Woedica is clearly evil and to be fair the "god of law and rule" being clearly evil feels like a political statement), and two gender neutral gods Berath who is both, and Wael who is ... Wael. 

 

Then you look at faction leaders.  There are technically six potential faction leaders.  Aeldys, Furrante, Onekaza, Karu, Alvari, and Castol. 

 

Four of them are women.  Only two of the four main factions have leaders that can't be overthrown from within, both of them are lead by women.  Both of the factions that can overthrow their leader are lead by men, even if one of the "overthrows" felt tacked on and sort of out of place.  Of all the faction leaders in favor of slavery/working with the slavers, there are only two.  I will let guess which two.  Also the leader of the slavers?  Yeah, it's a man.

 

It get's worse if you check out who leads the various Amaua groups in game, cause there are three outsider groups beyond the main factions.  Tikiwara, Port Maje Amaua, and another group I won't mention as this is the spoiler free forum.  All but one of them is lead by a woman, and the only leader who is considered incompetent by their tribe is... you guessed it, the lone man.

 

So yes, I can easily understand someone thinking there is a hidden agenda happening here.  I don't think there is, but I can see it.

 

For example you could argue the female gods get so much representation because Eothas is the main antagonist and they didn't want all the screentime going to male gods.  Also Galawain and Abyddon got a lot of play in the last game, and one of the biggest sidequests and backer beta was knee deep in Skaen.

 

The faction leader stuff is a lot harder to explain, especially considering I have posts claiming Aeldys is the only reasonable faction leader from a morality standpoint.  The Amaua being only lead by women seems a bit odd too, I hoping Josh has some cultural backstory reason there.

 

Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god. 

 

 

She's a likeable assassin though. She feels bad afterwards lol. And she doesn't like slavery. Wait, xoti can be a psychopathic serial killer? 

 

Yeah, if you take her down the path of pushing her towards hoarding souls and "looking for the darkness", she goes ****ing *NUTS*.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my point of view problem in latest RPG games is incapability of making strong female characters, by failing it developers immediately put SJW propaganda into games.

 

Example: Great explanation how to make strong female character is Witcher 3, i think all of us who played that game remember the quest on Skellige , quest when we need to help both Hjalmar an Crate and Cerys an Crate. Hjalmar went to kill the giant because he is a strong man and most likely he is capable to do it . While Cerys went on other island to to help yarl about posetion, she chose more intellectual quest coz she can't perform fits at man. During those quests you see how capable BOTH characters are . All of my 3 playthrough i chosed Cerys  coz i think she is best leader for Skellige.  So, my point is , that both characters showed different kind of strength , Hjamar as a man went to do one thing, Cerys as a woman chose intellectual , different thing, coz she can't perform fits as a MAN. This is best example of strong man and STRONG FEMALE characters. 

Witcher is a true game that made a true difference between female and man strenght.

 

So if Witcher 3 is a Bioware game , Hjamlar would be some crybaby man, and Cerys would go to kill Giant , coz she is a STRONG WOMAN. This is formula how new RPGs are being made. 

Example , strong female characters are Viviene, Leliane , Josephine , so all woman who perform on intellectual tasks,  ok beside Leliana , she is kinda rouguish, and that's perfectly fine.  They are chars from DAI, which is also kinda SJW propaganda. But they have few good chars. 

 

Bad example, Marihi, in POE2. Ok , she is a woman ,to perform as a smith , you need high raw strength to wield smithing hammer .So , my question is why is woman best smith in this game? I mean, 15y old boy has higher srtenght then  fully grown woman. So it is stupid to make woman a best smith , coz any man would be a better smith then her.

 

Other example POE2:  That female captain , captain of pirates , i forgot her name.. So In a lawless world , brutal world , in a world where anyone can do all kind of crimes without any repercussions , in a world like that strong individuals are going up , while weak are going down , so in a lawless world ,WOMAN and weak man are getting subjected .

Can you imagine what would happened to a woman surrounded by 20tish pirate man in a ship ? She would get raped and killed , not necessarily at that order . So , why would developers put woman to be a ship pirate captain ,cause that is impossible fit for a woman.  Woman simple can't make her position to give an orders to a 20 man, in a world where those man can do all kind of things to that woman. If you ask me , yes, that chars is SJW bull**** , along with Marihi the best smith . 

 

Please, don't get me wrong , i like female characters , buy not in a positions in which woman can't perform tasks in certain point of time. 

 

So please, create more FEMALE sorcesses, more female hunters/rogues , more females on Intellectual positions., but stop with females on positions where they need to perform physical tasks , tasks like soldiers, warriors , fighters , guards, smith ...etc, coz no one would hire any woman to do those things coz any man can perform those taks better then a woman. 

My point is that developers don't know the meaning of word "strong" that strenght can be different between MAN and WOMAN. 

 

As i true RPG player , i like to immerse my self into game , and chars that are in position they can't perform it simply kills a immersion for me. That happened so many times in POE2.

So yea, if you ask me , is this SJW propaganda , i would say YES. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't think the game is pro feminism man hating propaganda, but I would be lying if I say I didn't notice a lot of the things the OP is mentioning.

 

Who is the villain?  Eothas technically.... one of the depicted as male gods.

 

Which gods get the most screen time by far?  The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female.  Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah.   Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.

 

When you break down the God genders there are more male gods, five specifically.  But two of them are Skaen and Rymrgand who at this point can clearly be defined as evil, then there is Eothas which is a whole other thing.  There are meanwhile 4 female gods (Ondra is beginning to push it, but only Woedica is clearly evil and to be fair the "god of law and rule" being clearly evil feels like a political statement), and two gender neutral gods Berath who is both, and Wael who is ... Wael. 

 

Then you look at faction leaders.  There are technically six potential faction leaders.  Aeldys, Furrante, Onekaza, Karu, Alvari, and Castol. 

 

Four of them are women.  Only two of the four main factions have leaders that can't be overthrown from within, both of them are lead by women.  Both of the factions that can overthrow their leader are lead by men, even if one of the "overthrows" felt tacked on and sort of out of place.  Of all the faction leaders in favor of slavery/working with the slavers, there are only two.  I will let guess which two.  Also the leader of the slavers?  Yeah, it's a man.

 

It get's worse if you check out who leads the various Amaua groups in game, cause there are three outsider groups beyond the main factions.  Tikiwara, Port Maje Amaua, and another group I won't mention as this is the spoiler free forum.  All but one of them is lead by a woman, and the only leader who is considered incompetent by their tribe is... you guessed it, the lone man.

 

So yes, I can easily understand someone thinking there is a hidden agenda happening here.  I don't think there is, but I can see it.

 

For example you could argue the female gods get so much representation because Eothas is the main antagonist and they didn't want all the screentime going to male gods.  Also Galawain and Abyddon got a lot of play in the last game, and one of the biggest sidequests and backer beta was knee deep in Skaen.

 

The faction leader stuff is a lot harder to explain, especially considering I have posts claiming Aeldys is the only reasonable faction leader from a morality standpoint.  The Amaua being only lead by women seems a bit odd too, I hoping Josh has some cultural backstory reason there.

 

Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god. 

 

 

She's a likeable assassin though. She feels bad afterwards lol. And she doesn't like slavery. Wait, xoti can be a psychopathic serial killer? 

 

Yeah, if you take her down the path of pushing her towards hoarding souls and "looking for the darkness", she goes ****ing *NUTS*.

 

 

That actually sounds like fun. The things you miss out on when you are not an arsehole in game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I don't think the game is pro feminism man hating propaganda, but I would be lying if I say I didn't notice a lot of the things the OP is mentioning.

 

Who is the villain?  Eothas technically.... one of the depicted as male gods.

 

Which gods get the most screen time by far?  The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female.  Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah.   Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.

 

When you break down the God genders there are more male gods, five specifically.  But two of them are Skaen and Rymrgand who at this point can clearly be defined as evil, then there is Eothas which is a whole other thing.  There are meanwhile 4 female gods (Ondra is beginning to push it, but only Woedica is clearly evil and to be fair the "god of law and rule" being clearly evil feels like a political statement), and two gender neutral gods Berath who is both, and Wael who is ... Wael. 

 

Then you look at faction leaders.  There are technically six potential faction leaders.  Aeldys, Furrante, Onekaza, Karu, Alvari, and Castol. 

 

Four of them are women.  Only two of the four main factions have leaders that can't be overthrown from within, both of them are lead by women.  Both of the factions that can overthrow their leader are lead by men, even if one of the "overthrows" felt tacked on and sort of out of place.  Of all the faction leaders in favor of slavery/working with the slavers, there are only two.  I will let guess which two.  Also the leader of the slavers?  Yeah, it's a man.

 

It get's worse if you check out who leads the various Amaua groups in game, cause there are three outsider groups beyond the main factions.  Tikiwara, Port Maje Amaua, and another group I won't mention as this is the spoiler free forum.  All but one of them is lead by a woman, and the only leader who is considered incompetent by their tribe is... you guessed it, the lone man.

 

So yes, I can easily understand someone thinking there is a hidden agenda happening here.  I don't think there is, but I can see it.

 

For example you could argue the female gods get so much representation because Eothas is the main antagonist and they didn't want all the screentime going to male gods.  Also Galawain and Abyddon got a lot of play in the last game, and one of the biggest sidequests and backer beta was knee deep in Skaen.

 

The faction leader stuff is a lot harder to explain, especially considering I have posts claiming Aeldys is the only reasonable faction leader from a morality standpoint.  The Amaua being only lead by women seems a bit odd too, I hoping Josh has some cultural backstory reason there.

 

Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god. 

 

 

She's a likeable assassin though. She feels bad afterwards lol. And she doesn't like slavery. Wait, xoti can be a psychopathic serial killer? 

 

Yeah, if you take her down the path of pushing her towards hoarding souls and "looking for the darkness", she goes ****ing *NUTS*.

 

 

That actually sounds like fun. The things you miss out on when you are not an arsehole in game!

 

 

Or in my case even when you thought you were being a nice guy! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to note that two gods sacrificed their lives to save and protect Kith civilization, and both of those gods were male--Eothas and Abyddon. Even Hylia, supposedly the motherly goddess, shows very little concern for the lives of mortals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god.

As the OP shows, yes, yes they can be. There's also Gamergate, the ridiculous "uproar" over women in Battlefield, the predictable whining whenever a game doesn't cater exclusively to white boys and the constant hilariously ineffective attempts to force developers to continue developing 99% of games for that demographic, instead of spreading out and developing just 95% of them...

 

What's even more ridiculous is that by any definition, Obsidian's games have always been SJW games. Literally none of them are reactionary in themes, writing, or other types of execution.

  • Like 3

[ The Vault ] [ The Wasteland Wiki ] [ Pillars of Eternity Wiki ] [ Tyranny Wiki ]


 


My, that's a whole lot of wikis!


Why, thank you, I love them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god.

Did you actually read the words I wrote?  It really doesn't sound like you did, I was simply saying I can see why the OP drew the conclusions he did.  I even said I don't think the game is men hating propaganda in the first sentence.

 

Again, you are talking to a guy who has a forum topic in the spoiler forum describing why he thinks all the factions leaders are scum.  Meanwhile, why does no one respect the fact that this is a spoiler free section?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

There's always darkness in the human heart too. And people who feel jilted, oppressed or hard done by and like other people owe them something for their feelings. People are basically selfish creatures, by and large, and they'll project their negative experiences onto other people if they go the wrong way. I prefer to spend my time amazed and in admiration of those with large stores of compassion and optimism, which is probably more remarkable given how life can be pretty hard. 

 

*Actually you know what that all reminds me of? The moral panic thing? The animancy plot in poe1 - how everyone thought they were the end of civilisation.

"Incel" is not merely a new word for virgin and it's not something that others have ascribed to this group – it's a name that they have chosen for themselves as a sort of badge of martyrdom. Incels blame women for their singlehood and view the fact that they aren't having sex as an injustice committed against them by a degenerate society that refuses to see their value. They feel entitled to sex, hold beliefs deeply grounded in heterosexism, openly entertain violent fantasies, and have a lot of (not surprising) crossover with gamergate.

 

I'm all for freedom of expression and anti-alarmism, but you can't call a group a "Boogeyman" "invented" by the left once they've actually started killing people. Collier Township, Santa Barbara, and now Toronto were all carried out by angry men active in the incel community.

 

You don't have to believe that a group is actually going to bring about a male supremacist social shift to recognize it as a threat for wanting to.

 

 

Well, as I said in my last post, I think that's sort of a yes and no. Yeah it is a former reddit community and an online presence but it's also a virgin shaming word. Most of the time when you here it used in conversation, it's used to describe other people, not self-describe. I guess those communities are pretty insular. 

 

It's interesting actually the cultural emergence of this, well to me. It coincides with some large changes in the millennial sexual dynamic. Record low marriages, women under 30 have twice the number of partners as men under 30, and there is a roughly 150 percent increase in the number of millienials who are virgins at 26. Sort of a tinder culture, hypergamy thing - some people are having a lot more sex, most are having less. Of course there's other factors in that social insulation, social media, and less social capital or community in society. 

 

I mean this all from a detached, sort of human psychology archetypal type POV, it's not 'interesting" in the sense that two young men have gone jihadi over it. 

 

Gamergate is a whole nother issue, it's kind of a weird little thing, and it's another divisive topic, so I'll just leave that one. 

Edited by drael6464

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But....why? I don't ****ing understand this. Why does it have be some kind of propaganda for women to go do stuff while men watch the children? Because if you want something to be done , individuals who can do some things better then others will do it . So if we are in war , man will go into war and woman will stay home, why ? because man are better in war . If you need some beating , man would go , not woman. If you need to take some hammer to break some stone , man will do it. and so on.. it is SJW propaganda when you put woman on position where they can't be compared to a man. 

Plz , make more female hunters, sorcercess , rogues , more females on itellectual positions , leave war and physical tasks to a gender that perform that better. So yes, female warriors, soldiers, fighters, ship captains , smiths and all jobs that asks for a strenght is SJW propaganda. So yes, this game along with DAI, MEA are SJW propaganda. 

Because there are people who strongly believe that it is any man's job to get the food on the table and any woman's job to stay at home and raise the children and do the chores. And any idea that dares deviate from that view is regarded as SJW propaganda.

 

But mind you, there are also many people who only pretend to think that way to get strong reactions from other people. So you really don't know who actually thinks that way or not.

 

This thread is almost like an invitation for certain people to come here an try to get strong reactions from other people.

And the stronger you react and show how shocked you are the more fun it is for them to try to "trigger" you even more.

 

So the only appropriate reaction to this thread in my view can be very well expressed by this smiley: -_-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god.

As the OP shows, yes, yes they can be. There's also Gamergate, the ridiculous "uproar" over women in Battlefield, the predictable whining whenever a game doesn't cater exclusively to white boys and the constant hilariously ineffective attempts to force developers to continue developing 99% of games for that demographic, instead of spreading out and developing just 95% of them...

 

What's even more ridiculous is that by any definition, Obsidian's games have always been SJW games. Literally none of them are reactionary in themes, writing, or other types of execution.

 

 

You don't think the animancer plot in poe1 was a bit reactionary? Or the concern about eothos in this one? Or Huana tradition versus trading company progress. I think reactionary-ness sort of sits a little bit in these games, but rather than force the player into a conclusion, they let them make their mind up where they want to sit. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my point of view problem in latest RPG games is incapability of making strong female characters, by failing it developers immediately put SJW propaganda into games.

 

Example: Great explanation how to make strong female character is Witcher 3, i think all of us who played that game remember the quest on Skellige , quest when we need to help both Hjalmar an Crate and Cerys an Crate. Hjalmar went to kill the giant because he is a strong man and most likely he is capable to do it . While Cerys went on other island to to help yarl about posetion, she chose more intellectual quest coz she can't perform fits at man. During those quests you see how capable BOTH characters are . All of my 3 playthrough i chosed Cerys  coz i think she is best leader for Skellige.  So, my point is , that both characters showed different kind of strength , Hjamar as a man went to do one thing, Cerys as a woman chose intellectual , different thing, coz she can't perform fits as a MAN. This is best example of strong man and STRONG FEMALE characters. 

Witcher is a true game that made a true difference between female and man strenght.

 

So if Witcher 3 is a Bioware game , Hjamlar would be some crybaby man, and Cerys would go to kill Giant , coz she is a STRONG WOMAN. This is formula how new RPGs are being made. 

Example , strong female characters are Viviene, Leliane , Josephine , so all woman who perform on intellectual tasks,  ok beside Leliana , she is kinda rouguish, and that's perfectly fine.  They are chars from DAI, which is also kinda SJW propaganda. But they have few good chars. 

 

Bad example, Marihi, in POE2. Ok , she is a woman ,to perform as a smith , you need high raw strength to wield smithing hammer .So , my question is why is woman best smith in this game? I mean, 15y old boy has higher srtenght then  fully grown woman. So it is stupid to make woman a best smith , coz any man would be a better smith then her.

 

Other example POE2:  That female captain , captain of pirates , i forgot her name.. So In a lawless world , brutal world , in a world where anyone can do all kind of crimes without any repercussions , in a world like that strong individuals are going up , while weak are going down , so in a lawless world ,WOMAN and weak man are getting subjected .

Can you imagine what would happened to a woman surrounded by 20tish pirate man in a ship ? She would get raped and killed , not necessarily at that order . So , why would developers put woman to be a ship pirate captain ,cause that is impossible fit for a woman.  Woman simple can't make her position to give an orders to a 20 man, in a world where those man can do all kind of things to that woman. If you ask me , yes, that chars is SJW bull**** , along with Marihi the best smith . 

 

Please, don't get me wrong , i like female characters , buy not in a positions in which woman can't perform tasks in certain point of time. 

 

So please, create more FEMALE sorcesses, more female hunters/rogues , more females on Intellectual positions., but stop with females on positions where they need to perform physical tasks , tasks like soldiers, warriors , fighters , guards, smith ...etc, coz no one would hire any woman to do those things coz any man can perform those taks better then a woman. 

My point is that developers don't know the meaning of word "strong" that strenght can be different between MAN and WOMAN. 

 

As i true RPG player , i like to immerse my self into game , and chars that are in position they can't perform it simply kills a immersion for me. That happened so many times in POE2.

So yea, if you ask me , is this SJW propaganda , i would say YES. 

 

Your female adviser is a spy. Your diplomatic adviser is a woman. Your military adviser is a man. 

 

What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About.

 

Can't people just write a god damn story without being pigeonholed. Jesus. 

Edited by PatrioticChief

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

There's always darkness in the human heart too. And people who feel jilted, oppressed or hard done by and like other people owe them something for their feelings. People are basically selfish creatures, by and large, and they'll project their negative experiences onto other people if they go the wrong way. I prefer to spend my time amazed and in admiration of those with large stores of compassion and optimism, which is probably more remarkable given how life can be pretty hard. 

 

*Actually you know what that all reminds me of? The moral panic thing? The animancy plot in poe1 - how everyone thought they were the end of civilisation.

"Incel" is not merely a new word for virgin and it's not something that others have ascribed to this group – it's a name that they have chosen for themselves as a sort of badge of martyrdom. Incels blame women for their singlehood and view the fact that they aren't having sex as an injustice committed against them by a degenerate society that refuses to see their value. They feel entitled to sex, hold beliefs deeply grounded in heterosexism, openly entertain violent fantasies, and have a lot of (not surprising) crossover with gamergate.

 

I'm all for freedom of expression and anti-alarmism, but you can't call a group a "Boogeyman" "invented" by the left once they've actually started killing people. Collier Township, Santa Barbara, and now Toronto were all carried out by angry men active in the incel community.

 

You don't have to believe that a group is actually going to bring about a male supremacist social shift to recognize it as a threat for wanting to.

 

 

Well, as I said in my last post, I think that's sort of a yes and no. Yeah it is a former reddit community and an online presence but it's also a virgin shaming word. Most of the time when you here it used in conversation, it's used to describe other people, not self-describe. I guess those communities are pretty insular. 

 

It's interesting actually the cultural emergence of this, well to me. It coincides with some large changes in the millennial sexual dynamic. Record low marriages, women under 30 have twice the number of partners as men under 30, and there is a roughly 150 percent increase in the number of millienials who are virgins at 26. Sort of a tinder culture, hypergamy thing - some people are having a lot more sex, most are having less. I mean this all from a detached, sort of human psychology archetypal type POV, it's not 'interesting" in the sense that two young men have gone jihadi over it. 

 

Gamergate is a whole nother issue, it's kind of a weird little thing, and it's another divisive topic, so I'll just leave that one. 

 

Problem: This thread *IS* gamergate. Straight up, this thread--and it's opening post most especially--are emblematic of the whole gamergate fiasco.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antagonist is a more accurate depiction. Though I don't think viewing Eothas as a villain is wrong, I think viewing him in a more positive light is definitely defensible.

Again, can't actually discuss Eothas motivations or what I think of him in this topic as it is sitting in the spoiler free section.  So you can apply whatever word you want to him, the game starts with him literally killing everyone you are close to (other than a statue, Vela (if you have her), and some old companions), destroying your home, and stealing part of your soul. 

 

The player has lots of good reasons to see him as an enemy, especially at the beginning of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my point of view problem in latest RPG games is incapability of making strong female characters, by failing it developers immediately put SJW propaganda into games.

 

Example: Great explanation how to make strong female character is Witcher 3, i think all of us who played that game remember the quest on Skellige , quest when we need to help both Hjalmar an Crate and Cerys an Crate. Hjalmar went to kill the giant because he is a strong man and most likely he is capable to do it . While Cerys went on other island to to help yarl about posetion, she chose more intellectual quest coz she can't perform fits at man. During those quests you see how capable BOTH characters are . All of my 3 playthrough i chosed Cerys  coz i think she is best leader for Skellige.  So, my point is , that both characters showed different kind of strength , Hjamar as a man went to do one thing, Cerys as a woman chose intellectual , different thing, coz she can't perform fits as a MAN. This is best example of strong man and STRONG FEMALE characters. 

Witcher is a true game that made a true difference between female and man strenght.

 

So if Witcher 3 is a Bioware game , Hjamlar would be some crybaby man, and Cerys would go to kill Giant , coz she is a STRONG WOMAN. This is formula how new RPGs are being made. 

Example , strong female characters are Viviene, Leliane , Josephine , so all woman who perform on intellectual tasks,  ok beside Leliana , she is kinda rouguish, and that's perfectly fine.  They are chars from DAI, which is also kinda SJW propaganda. But they have few good chars. 

 

Bad example, Marihi, in POE2. Ok , she is a woman ,to perform as a smith , you need high raw strength to wield smithing hammer .So , my question is why is woman best smith in this game? I mean, 15y old boy has higher srtenght then  fully grown woman. So it is stupid to make woman a best smith , coz any man would be a better smith then her.

 

Other example POE2:  That female captain , captain of pirates , i forgot her name.. So In a lawless world , brutal world , in a world where anyone can do all kind of crimes without any repercussions , in a world like that strong individuals are going up , while weak are going down , so in a lawless world ,WOMAN and weak man are getting subjected .

Can you imagine what would happened to a woman surrounded by 20tish pirate man in a ship ? She would get raped and killed , not necessarily at that order . So , why would developers put woman to be a ship pirate captain ,cause that is impossible fit for a woman.  Woman simple can't make her position to give an orders to a 20 man, in a world where those man can do all kind of things to that woman. If you ask me , yes, that chars is SJW bull**** , along with Marihi the best smith . 

 

Please, don't get me wrong , i like female characters , buy not in a positions in which woman can't perform tasks in certain point of time. 

 

So please, create more FEMALE sorcesses, more female hunters/rogues , more females on Intellectual positions., but stop with females on positions where they need to perform physical tasks , tasks like soldiers, warriors , fighters , guards, smith ...etc, coz no one would hire any woman to do those things coz any man can perform those taks better then a woman. 

My point is that developers don't know the meaning of word "strong" that strenght can be different between MAN and WOMAN. 

 

As i true RPG player , i like to immerse my self into game , and chars that are in position they can't perform it simply kills a immersion for me. That happened so many times in POE2.

So yea, if you ask me , is this SJW propaganda , i would say YES. 

Except in TW3 base game the best armourer is a woman.

  • Like 2

nvAeseu.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sagani is 57, which puts her at middle age for a species with an average lifespan of 110, and has already had five children--so if "breeding" is a factor, then she's already accomplished that. Beyond that, though--it isn't even true. Some hunter-gatherer societies have division of labor like that, other's don't. Among the Aeta people of the Philippines, who are a modern-day hunter/gatherer tribe that live in isolated groups on the tropical jungle-covered mountains, 85% of women hunt together in small groups using dogs and are almost twice as successful at it as the groups of men--although interesting fact, *mixed-gender groups* are the most successful of all.

 

 

There might be a couple of reasons that Boreal dwarves send women rather than men on the type of long-hunting expeditions that Sagani describes.

 

Firstly, assuming that dwarves are like humans in this respect, women have a higher percentage of fat in their cells than men do on average. That means that we get drunk faster - but it also means that we're usually slower to freeze and/or starve to death. While pregnant and lactating women eat a lot, women need less food to simply stay alive than men do. For people who go on hunting expeditions across icy terrain, that could be a more significant survival factor than pure strength and endurance. (Besides which, PoE dwarves are stronger and tougher than humans anyway, so Sagani and the other wives are evidently more than capable of drawing light hunting bows or dismembering a caribou to drag home.)

 

Secondly, while it's usually the people who are capable of lactating that end up doing the child care in most societies, if attacks on settlements are common then maybe it makes sense to leave the pregnant and lactating women, the children AND all the men at home while the women not currently carrying or feeding babies go far from home. That way the most vulnerable people in the village are protected by the strongest if enemies or predators show up, but someone is still out finding meat.

 

(Look, this is at least as on-topic as the Star Wars discussion was.)

Edited by Andraste
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my point of view problem in latest RPG games is incapability of making strong female characters, by failing it developers immediately put SJW propaganda into games.

 

Example: Great explanation how to make strong female character is Witcher 3, i think all of us who played that game remember the quest on Skellige , quest when we need to help both Hjalmar an Crate and Cerys an Crate. Hjalmar went to kill the giant because he is a strong man and most likely he is capable to do it . While Cerys went on other island to to help yarl about posetion, she chose more intellectual quest coz she can't perform fits at man. During those quests you see how capable BOTH characters are . All of my 3 playthrough i chosed Cerys  coz i think she is best leader for Skellige.  So, my point is , that both characters showed different kind of strength , Hjamar as a man went to do one thing, Cerys as a woman chose intellectual , different thing, coz she can't perform fits as a MAN. This is best example of strong man and STRONG FEMALE characters. 

Witcher is a true game that made a true difference between female and man strenght.

 

So if Witcher 3 is a Bioware game , Hjamlar would be some crybaby man, and Cerys would go to kill Giant , coz she is a STRONG WOMAN. This is formula how new RPGs are being made. 

Example , strong female characters are Viviene, Leliane , Josephine , so all woman who perform on intellectual tasks,  ok beside Leliana , she is kinda rouguish, and that's perfectly fine.  They are chars from DAI, which is also kinda SJW propaganda. But they have few good chars. 

 

Bad example, Marihi, in POE2. Ok , she is a woman ,to perform as a smith , you need high raw strength to wield smithing hammer .So , my question is why is woman best smith in this game? I mean, 15y old boy has higher srtenght then  fully grown woman. So it is stupid to make woman a best smith , coz any man would be a better smith then her.

 

Other example POE2:  That female captain , captain of pirates , i forgot her name.. So In a lawless world , brutal world , in a world where anyone can do all kind of crimes without any repercussions , in a world like that strong individuals are going up , while weak are going down , so in a lawless world ,WOMAN and weak man are getting subjected .

Can you imagine what would happened to a woman surrounded by 20tish pirate man in a ship ? She would get raped and killed , not necessarily at that order . So , why would developers put woman to be a ship pirate captain ,cause that is impossible fit for a woman.  Woman simple can't make her position to give an orders to a 20 man, in a world where those man can do all kind of things to that woman. If you ask me , yes, that chars is SJW bull**** , along with Marihi the best smith . 

 

Please, don't get me wrong , i like female characters , buy not in a positions in which woman can't perform tasks in certain point of time. 

 

So please, create more FEMALE sorcesses, more female hunters/rogues , more females on Intellectual positions., but stop with females on positions where they need to perform physical tasks , tasks like soldiers, warriors , fighters , guards, smith ...etc, coz no one would hire any woman to do those things coz any man can perform those taks better then a woman. 

My point is that developers don't know the meaning of word "strong" that strenght can be different between MAN and WOMAN. 

 

As i true RPG player , i like to immerse my self into game , and chars that are in position they can't perform it simply kills a immersion for me. That happened so many times in POE2.

So yea, if you ask me , is this SJW propaganda , i would say YES. 

Witcher series has great believable strong female and male characters. Also most of the time there is not clearly good or bad character just for the sake of being good or bad. Every character is well written thanks to Sapkowski's original character development, but also strong writing by CD projekt RED to continuing story of Geralt while staying very true to original books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

There's always darkness in the human heart too. And people who feel jilted, oppressed or hard done by and like other people owe them something for their feelings. People are basically selfish creatures, by and large, and they'll project their negative experiences onto other people if they go the wrong way. I prefer to spend my time amazed and in admiration of those with large stores of compassion and optimism, which is probably more remarkable given how life can be pretty hard. 

 

*Actually you know what that all reminds me of? The moral panic thing? The animancy plot in poe1 - how everyone thought they were the end of civilisation.

"Incel" is not merely a new word for virgin and it's not something that others have ascribed to this group – it's a name that they have chosen for themselves as a sort of badge of martyrdom. Incels blame women for their singlehood and view the fact that they aren't having sex as an injustice committed against them by a degenerate society that refuses to see their value. They feel entitled to sex, hold beliefs deeply grounded in heterosexism, openly entertain violent fantasies, and have a lot of (not surprising) crossover with gamergate.

 

I'm all for freedom of expression and anti-alarmism, but you can't call a group a "Boogeyman" "invented" by the left once they've actually started killing people. Collier Township, Santa Barbara, and now Toronto were all carried out by angry men active in the incel community.

 

You don't have to believe that a group is actually going to bring about a male supremacist social shift to recognize it as a threat for wanting to.

 

 

Well, as I said in my last post, I think that's sort of a yes and no. Yeah it is a former reddit community and an online presence but it's also a virgin shaming word. Most of the time when you here it used in conversation, it's used to describe other people, not self-describe. I guess those communities are pretty insular. 

 

It's interesting actually the cultural emergence of this, well to me. It coincides with some large changes in the millennial sexual dynamic. Record low marriages, women under 30 have twice the number of partners as men under 30, and there is a roughly 150 percent increase in the number of millienials who are virgins at 26. Sort of a tinder culture, hypergamy thing - some people are having a lot more sex, most are having less. I mean this all from a detached, sort of human psychology archetypal type POV, it's not 'interesting" in the sense that two young men have gone jihadi over it. 

 

Gamergate is a whole nother issue, it's kind of a weird little thing, and it's another divisive topic, so I'll just leave that one. 

 

Problem: This thread *IS* gamergate. Straight up, this thread--and it's opening post most especially--are emblematic of the whole gamergate fiasco.

 

 

I know this is well outside of the forum topics. But lets say you are right- let's say there is an emergent reactionary movement in the form of gamergate thats growing. How did it come about. What were the conditions that caused it uniquely to emerge now instead of say, in the nineties? How do we alter those conditions to change the outcome? 

 

It's a common human reaction to see something and be like 'that's bad, boo'. But that's a form of reactionary response in itself. It's not nessasarily the adaptive response that will find a solution. 

 

It's a little like drug policy. Sure it's not helpful or productive to use any psychoactive for mood. But people do. Banning them doesn't stop them, condemning them doesn't stop it, and liberalising all drugs is off the table. So instead of working from a framework of moral judgement, you work from the perspective of reducing the side effects - cleaner drugs, lower harm drugs, market controls, education etc. 

Edited by drael6464

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad example, Marihi, in POE2. Ok , she is a woman ,to perform as a smith , you need high raw strength to wield smithing hammer .So , my question is why is woman best smith in this game? I mean, 15y old boy has higher srtenght then  fully grown woman. So it is stupid to make woman a best smith , coz any man would be a better smith then her.

 

... unless the man is a human or an elf or an orlan. Amaua have a +2 to Might and humans only have +1, while elves have no bonus and orlans have a malus. There's every chance that dwarf and amaua women are stronger - on average - than human men. And yet human men somehow still manage to be smiths.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...