Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Of female characters in RPG's

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,318
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Nothing wrong with having female warriors in fantasy setting. Just like there is nothing wrong with that same characters being beautiful and dressed in chain bikinis.

Problem is that modern day outrage brigade wants women in fantasy settings (and all other settings) to be ugly and manly due "realism". But at the same time denying the truth that in case of realism women would not serve as warriors.
Whoever started giving an inch to these kinds of "realism objections" should have been hanged as example to the others.

Whole idea of selective absolute adherence to "realism" in fiction very soon gets stupid and paradoxical.
So you end up with nation of unattractive women without even an exception.

Same thing happened with "chainmail bikinis" as "unrealistic" while completely missing the point of ceremonial uniforms and showing off of nobles and higher ups.
While low level grunts had whatever gear was the cheapest, Roman centurions i.e. had custom made, bronze-cast idealised form of torso as armor.
It was never neccessary for combat to be in that shape, but peacocking and signalling their status was a must.

Now, if you correlate even bigger and more fragile women egos and neverending battle for being the hottest chick around, I don't doubt that (if they existed) female warriors of noble descent would be half-naked, wearing ornamental armors that accentuate their body shape.
Which would be fabulous from all the care they put in.

My players in my Myths of Malignost game are finding out that women in combat roles are having to do double duty as both combatants and increasing the size of the tribe. The game started with 150 people. Originally the population was split 75 men and 75 women, but two players wanted to have their 6 man party be harems of 1 man and 5 women. Thus, the initial population ended up being 65 men and 85 women. I had two players drop so their characters got turned into dragons. The population further dropped to 59 men and 79 women.

After one year of game time the population had 114 births that were single, twins, and triplets. JarlFrank rolled 1d100 to determine how many boys to girls there were. His roll was 27% so that meant that 83% of the babies were female.

The total population stands at 252.

167 of them are female and 87 male

Realism does have a role if you want it to. The tribe at its current rate will be amazons if the men can't increase their numbers.

Also, my world has strict sexual dimorphism. Females are limited to 16 Strength for non-warrior classes. Warrior classes can only have a max of 18 (50). They do get to increase one of their attributes max in Intelligence, Wisdom, and Constitution up by 1 point as compensation. If a woman wants to go beyond 16/18 (50) Strength it will take a Wish or similar to make it happen.
 
Last edited:
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
7,707
Location
澳大利亚
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
IMO it's not just realism that calls for women to not be portrayed as warriors, but also fantasy. Isn't fantasy supposed to exaggerate things and to deal in archetypes? Fantasy shouldn't be content to portray women as realistically weaker than men, it should portray women as even weaker than real women, just as men are often portrayed as stronger than real men.

The counterpoint to this would be that fantasy doesn't only deal in archetypes, it can also introduce incongruous recombinations for the sake of novelty and weirdness. But thanks to modern egalitarian delusion, "women as strong as men" is no longer a curious and exotic idea, it's tedious regime narrative. And it's included in games as tedious ideology, not as the "wacky amazon warrior" idea that it was back in the 1930s.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
7,707
Location
澳大利亚
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
That's how I felt also, lawful evil but if you didn't consider the drug trade evil, the vast majority of his actions were not really evil the more I think about it.

Females have only two alignment - chaotic neutral or true neutral. They cannot be good or evil, because that presupposes having a moral sense.
Women can be Lawful, at least outwardly, if they're autistic.
 

Reinhardt

Arcane
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
32,007
IMO it's not just realism that calls for women to not be portrayed as warriors, but also fantasy. Isn't fantasy supposed to exaggerate things and to deal in archetypes? Fantasy shouldn't be content to portray women as realistically weaker than men, it should portray women as even weaker than real women, just as men are often portrayed as stronger than real men.

The counterpoint to this would be that fantasy doesn't only deal in archetypes, it can also introduce incongruous recombinations for the sake of novelty and weirdness. But thanks to modern egalitarian delusion, "women as strong as men" is no longer a curious and exotic idea, it's tedious regime narrative. And it's included in games as tedious ideology, not as the "wacky amazon warrior" idea that it was back in the 1930s.
fantasy, if it's not about some lvl 1 party raiding some gobbo cave, is dealing with exceptional people. how many male bandits and city guards average party effortlessly slaughter during their journey? i doubt exceptional, one of the kind wommyn will be weaker than those poor fags you kill.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
7,707
Location
澳大利亚
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
IMO it's not just realism that calls for women to not be portrayed as warriors, but also fantasy. Isn't fantasy supposed to exaggerate things and to deal in archetypes? Fantasy shouldn't be content to portray women as realistically weaker than men, it should portray women as even weaker than real women, just as men are often portrayed as stronger than real men.

The counterpoint to this would be that fantasy doesn't only deal in archetypes, it can also introduce incongruous recombinations for the sake of novelty and weirdness. But thanks to modern egalitarian delusion, "women as strong as men" is no longer a curious and exotic idea, it's tedious regime narrative. And it's included in games as tedious ideology, not as the "wacky amazon warrior" idea that it was back in the 1930s.
fantasy, if it's not about some lvl 1 party raiding some gobbo cave, is dealing with exceptional people. how many male bandits and city guards average party effortlessly slaughter during their journey? i doubt exceptional, one of the kind wommyn will be weaker than those poor fags you kill.
It's just that to me, exceptional one-of-a-kind women are characters like Kreia, they are exceptional for feminine traits like manipulation, beauty, and so on.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,692
Location
Bjørgvin
Nothing wrong with having female warriors in fantasy setting. Just like there is nothing wrong with that same characters being beautiful and dressed in chain bikinis.

Problem is that modern day outrage brigade wants women in fantasy settings (and all other settings) to be ugly and manly due "realism". But at the same time denying the truth that in case of realism women would not serve as warriors.
Also, shouldn't this kind of genderial approbation be problematic?
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
9,232
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
Personally, I hate stuff like "chainmail bikinis" that completely kill the believability of the setting and I think C. S. Lewis' approach to girls inside an adventuring party is a good one.

C. S. Lewis (Through 'Father Christmas') said:
But battles are ugly when women fight.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,318
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Personally, I hate stuff like "chainmail bikinis" that completely kill the believability of the setting and I think C. S. Lewis' approach to girls inside an adventuring party is a good one.

C. S. Lewis (Through 'Father Christmas') said:
But battles are ugly when women fight.

Yet, fireballs and rings of protection are just fine...

:nocountryforshitposters:
 

Reinhardt

Arcane
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
32,007
Personally, I hate stuff like "chainmail bikinis" that completely kill the believability of the setting and I think C. S. Lewis' approach to girls inside an adventuring party is a good one.

C. S. Lewis (Through 'Father Christmas') said:
But battles are ugly when women fight.

Yet, fireballs and rings of protection are just fine...

:nocountryforshitposters:
hey! ring of protection covers more skin than some chaimail bikinis!
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,318
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Personally, I hate stuff like "chainmail bikinis" that completely kill the believability of the setting and I think C. S. Lewis' approach to girls inside an adventuring party is a good one.

C. S. Lewis (Through 'Father Christmas') said:
But battles are ugly when women fight.

Yet, fireballs and rings of protection are just fine...

:nocountryforshitposters:
hey! ring of protection covers more skin than some chaimail bikinis!

I find that claim to be highly dubious. ;)
 

KeighnMcDeath

RPG Codex Boomer
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Messages
15,439
I noticed female guards in daggerfall. Games before… mostly large masculine blobs of white or yellow..

I’M LOOKING AT YOU QUESTRONS & ULTIMAS!!!

Pay my taxes…. Fuck you! (robs the shops and towns)

As an aside, a couple of questions:
How many party slots do you allow as a player?

What classes do you generally give to these females?

What races?

Do you min/max power game with those females or say fuck it and stick with a sausage fest?

If only 1-2 fems in party; are they getting porked by the male members?

Wtf is an OTHER! CURSE you U3.

Kender, gnomes, hobbits anyone?
 

La vie sexuelle

Learned
Joined
Jun 10, 2023
Messages
2,161
Location
La Rochelle
That's how I felt also, lawful evil but if you didn't consider the drug trade evil, the vast majority of his actions were not really evil the more I think about it.

Females have only two alignment - chaotic neutral or true neutral. They cannot be good or evil, because that presupposes having a moral sense.
Women can be Lawful, at least outwardly, if they're autistic.

No, autistic females are the most chaotic creatures I have even seen.

But I believe, that some of women are saints. All five of them.
 

LarryTyphoid

Scholar
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
2,233
Kill or knockout, the idea of a female guard in a vaguely Victorian setting is preposterous.
Maybe, but I thought Thief 2 handled it alright. I like how they were written. In Dishonored 2, all the female guards are captains and have a bunch of "girlboss" moments. In Thief 2, the female guards are just retarded mooks like the male guards; they're still allowed to act scared and have silly moments. Maybe a male guard will marry a female guard and they'll have retard babies.
 

Iucounu

Educated
Joined
Jul 4, 2023
Messages
978
I honestly don’t recall when all this woman > man shit started in everything.
Western women may have viewed themselves as morally superior for centuries, if not longer. On top of that we now have the queer feminists' war against "gender" and men in general. But I think the counter-reaction to all this misses the point a little. The traditional "fragile maiden" ideal is not the opposite of feminism, I think both stem from urban middle class --apparently even "strong" feminists can't break free of unrealistic beauty ideals, and are in constant need of protection (by who?) from toxic patriarchal rapists. In contrast, countryside women seem more capable, wether it's getting their hands dirty in the fields, using a shotgun or slaughtering chickens, and at the same time have more conservative family values. It's when people move into cities that their insecurity and narcissism grows out of control.

First, the average man should still be able to completely stomp over that strength training woman. If they can't, then they shouldn't even be called a man.
The climber? Yes, certainly. Pullups is a good measure of strength-to-weight ratio, but in absolute terms she could still be smaller, lighter and weaker than a male opponent (I mostly posted that video because it looked cool). But the weight lifter (Becca Swanson)? No, most men (even in a gym) wouldn't stand a chance unless they had more fighting experience.

But that regular guy shouldn't even be in the discussion. We're talking about a top percentile man, who will always crush a top percentile female.
I'm not. :) If you have a top percentile female in your game, it's statistically unlikely that she would encounter a top percentile man in the gameworld unless they intentionally seek each other out. Instead most of the opponents will be average males.

Obviously this depends on the game design. You can make a game where your player character kills hordes of inferior opponents (like Serious Sam), or the opposite where you're completely helpless (like SOMA). But most games will have enemies both above and below your character's capability. Maybe the top percentile male opponents can be saved for the ending boss fights, when your female character has gathered enough equipment, magic and friends to compensate?

I agree that a female warrior RPG class should be weaker than a male warrior class. That means the female class could be chosen for a greater challenge/higher difficulty, or she would need other talents to compensate (longer back history of training, magic etc).

There's other ways to depict a strong female character. I never once had a problem with Witcher portrayal. The lodge of sorceresses are one of if not the most powerful people in the world. Most of that comes through their political savvy,
I was disgusted by their personalities, but I agree that it's realistic.


IMO it's not just realism that calls for women to not be portrayed as warriors, but also fantasy. Isn't fantasy supposed to exaggerate things and to deal in archetypes? Fantasy shouldn't be content to portray women as realistically weaker than men, it should portray women as even weaker than real women, just as men are often portrayed as stronger than real men.
There can be cultural/individual differences at play here. For some, excessively vulnerable women are considered attractive, while others may get repulsed by an emotional woman-child that's just an unnecessary burden.

The counterpoint to this would be that fantasy doesn't only deal in archetypes, it can also introduce incongruous recombinations for the sake of novelty and weirdness. But thanks to modern egalitarian delusion, "women as strong as men" is no longer a curious and exotic idea, it's tedious regime narrative.
A physically attractive woman would be a novelty today. But what use is she (as a playable character) in a fighting game if she can't fight?

Fantasy can also be about tradition. Female fighters have existed in mythology throughout history, so I'd say they deserve their place just like dragons. No need to overuse any of them though, one or two is enough.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2022
Messages
2,508
Location
Vareš
For some, excessively vulnerable women are considered attractive, while others may get repulsed by an emotional woman-child that's just an unnecessary burden.
A woman being vulnerable does not mean they are an "emotional woman-child that's just an unnecessary burden", it's just a woman lol
 

KainenMorden

Educated
Patron
Joined
Aug 19, 2022
Messages
938
Codex Year of the Donut
But women that do train strength seriously can sometimes become much stronger than most men, here are a couple that surprised even me:
Except that still doesn't mean anything in this discussion.

First, the average man should still be able to completely stomp over that strength training woman. If they can't, then they shouldn't even be called a man. Also those examples you gave don't translate to fighting. They'll still get shitstomped by a guy who can't show those same fits of strength.

But that regular guy shouldn't even be in the discussion. We're talking about a top percentile man, who will always crush a top percentile female.

To be fair, certainly there are women who are trained fighters(boxing, mma, bjj, etc) who can beat up men. However, there have been many instances in sports in general where males who don't do that well when competing against other males take on the best female representatives of a sport and just run them over. This is even more common in combat sports in the few instances women were brave enough to fight men.

In the context of crpgs, yes the characters are exceptional people to begin with. In DND for example, that's one reason why PCs have character levels to begin with, they are people with special abilities that lvl 0-1 peasants don't possess. So, surely any female adventurers would be soundly defeated by any males. Unless the women somehow used their sexuality/trickery to gain an advantage.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,318
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
For some, excessively vulnerable women are considered attractive, while others may get repulsed by an emotional woman-child that's just an unnecessary burden.
A woman being vulnerable does not mean they are an "emotional woman-child that's just an unnecessary burden", it's just a woman lol

Women are the most responsible teenager in the home.
 

Iucounu

Educated
Joined
Jul 4, 2023
Messages
978
For some, excessively vulnerable women are considered attractive, while others may get repulsed by an emotional woman-child that's just an unnecessary burden.
A woman being vulnerable does not mean they are an "emotional woman-child that's just an unnecessary burden", it's just a woman lol
Excessively --there's a difference between natural sexual dimorphism and the lazy incompetence of urban women. Then there's the manipulative type, that feigns extra incompetence in order to gain more resources from men than deserved.
 

Iucounu

Educated
Joined
Jul 4, 2023
Messages
978
I'm a bit sceptical about Viking shield-maidens, but here's at least one with an injury. But note that it says it's "the first evidence ever found of a Viking woman with a battle injury". And we don't know how she got it, maybe it was in a cat fight with another Viking woman?

Our sexual dimorphism is the result over millions of years of evolution on earth. For my own fantasy setting where monsters and other intelligent humanoids like elves exist. Women had to be significantly stronger in order to survive. So female warriors can exist in such a setting in my opinion.
Yes humans are much less dimorphic than chimps or gorillas, it seems the reduction had taken place already with Homo erectus (orcs): https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1633678100
"Comparisons of body mass in fossil hominids reveal that general levels of dimorphism have likely remained more or less the same for most of the evolution of Homo, or most of the last two million years to the present"

On the other hand it seems bone thickness in H. erectus males was higher than in females, perhaps corresponding with a violent lifestyle.

I saw an archaeology program yonks ago that dug up a Late Neolithic village that had been destroyed in a raid. There was evidence that the women had been involved in what was presumably last-ditch fighting (died club in hand, etc.).
It seems plausible that in a tribal context, where you had females who were probably somewhat less sexually dimorphous anyway, and who would do gathering and small-game hunting, so were generally fitter and stronger than modern females, they wouldn't be shy of fighting if things got desperate - there's always a chance that they could just turn the tables in a desperate fight (though sadly, they didn't do so in that particular case).
At least they seem to have assisted their husbands, unlike the moongoose: Warmongering Female Mongooses Lead Their Groups Into Battle to Mate With the Enemy
 

perfectslumbers

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 24, 2021
Messages
1,202
Horse archer warrior women were common in Eurasian step cultures, although obviously that's different from 18 strength women wielding a great-sword. Personally if historicity is important to a setting then I want to see things well thought out and inspiration should be taken from real life cultures and how those cultures are built off of practicality and survival. For example they could have a warrior woman like Boudicca who's really more of a leader of a broken tribe or inspiration could be taken from the aforementioned steppe-cultures. If it's some D&D kitchen-sink slop though I don't care, if a gnome can be an 18 strength fighter then a woman should be able to be an 18 strength fighter too.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom