Equality?

[Aoyagi]

I've just finished Tyranny and I have to admit that this "equality" trend of yours is getting a bit distracting. AP and DS3 were great in this. They had a diverse, but believable character cast. PE started to be a bit on the "diversity for the sake of diversity" edge, but Tyranny just felt like an advertisement for equality. Did you set some internal quotas or something? What that achieved for me wast that, for example, a concept I would normally accept without any second thoughts whatsoever (I mean the apparently matriarchal Beasts) just comes off as another activist addition. 

 

But it really comes down to the composition of armies on Terratus. I really wonder what is the male/female ratio of the conscripts and of the (sub)group leaders. I'm not going to say it's unrealistic, because this is a fantasy world, but it's inauthentic, not very believable, it ruins the verisimilitude. It also leaves the bitter taste of activism. I presume that was also the point of Kyros' "gender mystery"... 

 

I know, artistic vision and all that, but these things could be a little more balanced (as ironic as that sounds). This way it can pointlessly detract the experience for people who actually pay attention to the world and the characters. It's nowhere near to stop me from enjoying the game, but know that having players think "ugh, here we go again" throughout the game for something so pointless is does not add to the experience a lot.

[Labadal]

I agree.

[Wormerine]

Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity have not pushed any equality agendas. I wasn't offended when Gothic1 had almost entirely male cast. I am not offended now when PoE and Tyranny has a mixed sex society. I don't remember those game ever drawing attention to it.

 

I think that lack of definition on Kyros part comes from a much different direction than you think it does. Similar with Beastman. There might be "let's look on a spreadsheet and make sure we have similar amount of female and male NPCs" but I imagine that is about it.

[Blarghagh]

And it's the activists who are the one's bending over backwards looking for outrage. Riiight.

[Aoyagi]

Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity have not pushed any equality agendas. I wasn't offended when Gothic1 had almost entirely male cast. I am not offended now when PoE and Tyranny has a mixed sex society. I don't remember those game ever drawing attention to it.

 

Well, that was quick. Firstly, nowhere did I say or even imply that I was offended by this whole thing. Secondly, highlighted "composition of armies" in bold specifically for people like you, who would accuse me of complaining about mixed society.

 

And lastly, yes, I was slightly bothered (not offended, not triggered, or anything like that) by almost entirely male population in Gothic 1, because just like in Tyranny, it clashed with authenticity. Although if I remember correctly, that was a technical mater.

 

 

I think that lack of definition on Kyros part comes from a much different direction than you think it does. Similar with Beastman. There might be "let's look on a spreadsheet and make sure we have similar amount of female and male NPCs" but I imagine that is about it.

 

I suspect the Kyros thing is something else as well, but it's just one thing with another, it adds up. Again, if it wasn't for the unbelievable number of women-soldiers as the initiator of my suspicions, I probably wouldn't think much of it (from this respect anyway).

 

 

And it's the activists who are the one's bending over backwards looking for outrage. Riiight.

 

What? Look, mate, if you have a point, be so kind and make it.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Aoyagi

[smjjames]

As for the matriarchial Beastmen, there are examples in nature, Hyenas for one. So, I wouldn't say that the Beastmen/women being a matriarchial society is a poke at equality or anything.

 

Besides, neither PE or Tyranny made any big deal about the equality thing. There are some bits about culture as far as male/female roles go in Tyranny and in PE, it only comes up in the context of Palleginas paladin order and the unique situation of godlikes.

Edited August 5, 2017 by smjjames

[injurai]

I thought Pillars was fine (other than maybe the backer npcs being highly exotic god likes.)

 

When it comes to activism, what I do truly hate is a 1-to-1 shoehorning of real world issues into the fictional world and then crafting a singular voice that is incredibly on the nose and present in all of the "good" characters. Now that is truly loathsome and nauseating. But I never felt this way once with Pillars. The worst thing was maybe Sagani's self-introduction, and that was due to it being a lore dump, not that she was a subversion trope.

[Hurlshort]

It sounds like you have personal hang ups about diversity and equality and you are transposing them onto a fantasy universe. My recommendation is to create your own fantasy universe that fits your own world view more accurately.

[algroth]

Tyranny never once made me think of "diversity for the sake of diversity", really. It's been a long-standing custom across many (most?) RPG worlds that men and women are equally capable fighters and equally able to join the army or faction of their choice. Amidst the games and worlds I've come across that attempted to justify a matriarchy, in all honesty I think Tyranny is one of the best and most natural at that too. Personally I don't see a problem here, or 'activism' at play for that matter.

[kirottu]

Tyranny never once made me think of "diversity for the sake of diversity", really. It's been a long-standing custom across many (most?) RPG worlds that men and women are equally capable fighters and equally able to join the army or faction of their choice. 

 

This has been the case since goldbox RPGs. Aoyagi doesn't know the history CRPGs and injects modern politics where they are not needed.

[HooAmEye]

Heck, it goes back to 1974 with the first edition of D&D. The scene had always been progressive

Edited August 5, 2017 by HooAmEye

[Labadal]

I think people are harsh on Aoyagi. I reacted to the same thing as them. I don't care about the beastmen, but the amount of women in the army seemed weird to me. It doesn't offend me in the slightest, but it seemed a bit silly. Doesn't mean anything, really.

[HoonDing]

"I really wonder what is the male/female ratio of the conscripts and of the (sub)group leaders."

 

4:1

[Bartimaeus]

 

Tyranny never once made me think of "diversity for the sake of diversity", really. It's been a long-standing custom across many (most?) RPG worlds that men and women are equally capable fighters and equally able to join the army or faction of their choice.

 

This has been the case since goldbox RPGs. Aoyagi doesn't know the history CRPGs and injects modern politics where they are not needed.

 

I grew up with D&D and CRPGs, and so while I can understand Aoyagi's point (because you generally assume that humans and other human-like races will presumably match the physical tendencies/limitations of humans in real life for the most part), it is also kind of just a given for me that both men and women are relative equals - at least the warrior/adventurer-types - in these sorts of games. It's interesting to envision how trying to get closer to the tendencies of reality would play out in terms of stats: women might get a decent penalty to STR (maybe something like -3 or -4 in D&D?) and a smaller one to CON (maybe -1 or -2?), but would get...hmm, women are supposed to mature faster than men, so maybe give them an extra starting feat (or the equivalent) or something like that?

 

Or you can just continue to do the easier and more generally inoffensive thing and make it not change stats at all, like they do now. ...OR you could provide some kind of option like that that either sex could take: take some sort of stat penalty in order to get an extra feat or special ability, thereby providing a sort of option to emulate it (IF you want) while giving more character customization. That seems like the best choice to me (although perhaps it's a little too much for initial character creation), but what do I know? It's good to keep in mind that these are supposed to be FANTASY games (...and I don't mean in terms of genre): whether you're a man or a woman, whether you want to play *as* a man or a woman, it's supposed to be your character as you envision it. Is it really that big of a deal to provide the option for unrealistic character builds when everything about this is ridiculous and unrealistic to begin with?

Edited August 6, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[injurai]

Yeah, equality between the sexes isn't something new to the medium or the result of recent politics. It's been part of rpgs since the beginning. And as far as I know, race is always redefined as speciation, instead of crude phenotypical classification.

[Hurlshort]

I think people are harsh on Aoyagi. I reacted to the same thing as them. I don't care about the beastmen, but the amount of women in the army seemed weird to me. It doesn't offend me in the slightest, but it seemed a bit silly. Doesn't mean anything, really.

 

I'd say it is fair. He is complaining about possible activism in a game while actively trying to push his own view of what the fantasy game should like like on the creators. Those who criticize should be open to criticism, which is what I see happening here. I wouldn't say it has gotten ugly. His post was well written and I'd say the responses were fairly measured.

[rjshae]

Gender parity among party members != gender parity in society

 

PCs are an example of selection bias, but a positive one, in that the game survival requirements quite naturally selects candidates from the available pool who are capable of the task. They don't need to be representative of the population as a whole.

[Undecaf]

Haven't played Tyranny, but can't really blame people for noticing **** like this and underlining it as appearing... unpleasant. The understones and occasional outbursts - that everyone knows - in the entertainment industry being what they are today.

[smjjames]

Haven't played Tyranny, but can't really blame people for noticing **** like this and underlining it as appearing... unpleasant. The understones and occasional outbursts - that everyone knows - in the entertainment industry being what they are today.

 

The difference is that those liberal celebrities that you speak of usually push for said things. It didn't seem like they were overtly doing anything like the stuff that conservatives don't like. I'm liberal/progressive/left-leaning myself, so, maybe someone else would see it differently.

[injurai]

Haven't played Tyranny, but can't really blame people for noticing **** like this and underlining it as appearing... unpleasant. The understones and occasional outbursts - that everyone knows - in the entertainment industry being what they are today.

 

Isn't Tyranny supposed to be an authoritarian hell hole anyways?

[Undecaf]

 

Haven't played Tyranny, but can't really blame people for noticing **** like this and underlining it as appearing... unpleasant. The understones and occasional outbursts - that everyone knows - in the entertainment industry being what they are today.

 

The difference is that those liberal celebrities that you speak of usually push for said things. It didn't seem like they were overtly doing anything like the stuff that conservatives don't like. I'm liberal/progressive/left-leaning myself, so, maybe someone else would see it differently.

 

 

Sure. I just said that it is easy to spot these kinds of things whilst the agenda is pushed so prevalently and visibly around these industry.

 

 

 

Isn't Tyranny supposed to be an authoritarian hell hole anyways?

 

 

I suppose that's the gist of it. I haven't played it.

[smjjames]

 

Isn't Tyranny supposed to be an authoritarian hell hole anyways?

 

 

 

I suppose that's the gist of it. I haven't played it.

 

For some background, you can choose three sides, the Disfavored (made up of 'Northerners', from the Northern part of the empire, basically Roman legion in fighting style), the Scarlet Chorus (best described as a violent lawless horde, they recruit from everywhere. The Scarlet Chorus based companion in the game is herself born in the Tiers, the region the game takes place in), the rebels in the Tiers, or you can just go rogue and be the enemy of everybody.

 

The Disfavored are actually pretty damn bigoted, not against color, but against anybody not of 'Northerner blood'.

 

The Scarlet Chorus aren't anti-equality in any sort of moral way, but they pretty much go by survival of the fittest. They're a chaotic horde because their Archon leader wants it that way.

 

The beastmen, basically treated as slaves by both the big armies (Disfavored and Scarlet Chorus), and most people treat them like crap. You can choose whether to befriend, ally, betray, or even slaughter the Stonestalkers, which are the tribe that features most in Tyranny.

 

If your choices were restricted like you could only respond to something or do something in a certain way, then yeah, claims of trying to push an equality narrative might be valid, but it doesn't do that.

 

Basically, if someone wanted to view it as some kind of message about equality, there are definetly things they can use.

[Heijoushin]

Yeah, basically they wanted both groups to be jerks. So Disfavored are bigots, but pretty restrained, whereas the Scarlet Chorus accepted anyone but... they kind of kill, rape, and torture. 

 

Anyways, I kind of get where OP is coming from. I remember vaguely thinking there were a lot of female soldiers in that game. But that's about it, really. Nothing more sinister than that.  

[FlintlockJazz]

I don't see the problem to be honest: female soldiers just means I get more variety in the people I kill.  I'm equal opportunities: everyone should have the option of dying by my hand, whether they have boobs or not.  You don't want the battles to just be sausage fests do you?

[Beyond The Sea]

I really wonder what is the male/female ratio of the conscripts and of the (sub)group leaders. I'm not going to say it's unrealistic, because this is a fantasy world, but it's inauthentic, not very believable, it ruins the verisimilitude.

Too many women in armies are inauthentic, not very believable, well, unrealistic. Okay.

 

yes, I was slightly bothered (not offended, not triggered, or anything like that) by almost entirely male population in Gothic 1, because just like in Tyranny, it clashed with authenticity.

A prison filled with only men clashes with authenticity, is also unrealistic. Very interesting what you find authentic and believable, what you believe.