| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 04 Feb 2012 : 22:14:14
I know that there is at least one unit (Unicorn Riders) of the elven army composed solely of female warriors, how are lady elves regarded in general when it comes to joining the Green Isles defenders (pre-4e)? In a couple of Elaine's books it seems as if they are treated with high regard. For example, Arilyn and her antecedents include several female warriors. But, I recall one passage regarding Elaith's past and relationship to Amnestria where it is considered improper for her to be sparring with the guard. Is this more to do with her status as princess than with her being of the softer sex? What would be the proportion of male to female fighters amongst your more typical elven martial forces? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 02:09:05
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Why is it so unreasonable to assume the same for similar cultures separated by millenia, dimensions, and wildly different influences?
It's certainly not unreasonable, since this is an element that Ed built into the core Realms right from the beginning. He's said as much during many discussions about Realms and Earth analogues here at Candlekeep. |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 20:17:29
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
*Were the Newhon, Melnibonean, or Cthulhu pantheons ever given any treatment in Planesacape?
They were not. Cthulhu and Melnibonean pantheons have been off-limits since the days of the original Deities and Demigods; as for Nehwon, I think that TSR's / WotC's license on Leiber's work had expired around the time Planescape was published (the last Lankhmar product that I remember, Avengers of Lankhmar, was published in 1995. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 19:21:09
The tack I take in almost everything HB I come up with, whether FR or anything else, is that so many cultures on so many worlds are alike because they have common roots, which don't necessarily come from Earth.
Earth is not the 'Prime World', it just happens to be one where nearly every pantheon (we know of) has a presence. I am sure thousands of other pantheons exist that never had a presence on Earth, but PS doesn't detail (most*) of those because how could a sourcebook written on Earth provide info on pantheons we've never heard of? But they are still their, regardless.
I went this route with the Kara-Tur project - that there was some world in which the Celastial Bureaucracy was THE pantheon, and for some cataclysmic reason their was an exodus from that world to dozens of others, and BOTH Earth and Faerun received some of those refugees.
The D&D Earth is not our Earth, and therefor should not be afforded any sort of special status - cultural groups on it could have just as easily come from Toril (or elsewhere). In fact, I have even gone so far as to say Atlantis, Lemuria, and Mu all had cultures that were either from, or influenced by, other worlds (along with with enclaves/colonies within ancient cultures, like Egypt, China, and India). My D&D Earth is the same one from the Gothic Earth Gazeteer, BTW - I use a very 'tropey' model for my modern world, including vamp/Lycan movies, WoD, League of Extraordinary gentleman, etc, etc - that 'paranormal' things exist all around us, but they stay hidden.
So if my players found a gate to Earth (in the back of Elminster's wardrobe), they would enter a world where they can go see Midnite (Constantine movie) to try and find their way back, or perhaps a helpful fiend or fey (who will be able to recognize they are from 'elsewhere'). Thats the earth in D&D, and for all we know, the Vikings may have been FR Northmen who fell through a seagate, or more likely, both groups were part of some truly ancient culture that predates either world.
I don't like 'blaming everything on Earth' - better to just assume the many worlds in the universe have common origins. I've quoted this before, from The Dragon magazine #1 ---quote:
"In the infinity of cosmic probabilities there stretches an endless succession of Earths, this one being but one of the possible realities. Those in close proximity of our world are but little different from it, but countless alternatives to history exist, and as these co-worlds become more removed from this plane of reality so their resemblance becomes removed. There are, then, worlds which are gloriously superior to ours, some which are horribly worse, but most are merely different in some way. Far from our probability line is a world called by it's inhabitants Oerth. It is very similar to this Earth in many ways, but it is also quite different..."
*Were the Newhon, Melnibonean, or Cthulhu pantheons ever given any treatment in Planesacape?
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 16:26:11
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
How can you avoid discussing real world when more than a half of the cultures and people in the Realms are originally from Earth?
Very easily. Even those few cultures that did originate on Earth have had thousands of years to develop in entirely different directions, with an entirely different environment and set of influences. So those cultures only have superficial resemblances to real-world cultures, now. There is therefore no real-world connection and no need to bring any anything real-world.
Indeed. And let's remember, too, that most of the portals that have allowed Earth-based aspects to bleed into the Realms, have either largely been lost or forgotten. Hence, the "Forgotten" Realms... because the majority of portals/gateways connecting both worlds have largely been forgotten. This comes directly from Ed.
So it's understandable that with the closure of these planar crossways, that isolated cultures divorced from their parent cultures, will slowly tend to develop new ways that embrace both their new environment, and the deities and other cultures they meet.
Lost or forgotten? I disagree, look e.g. at some aspects of the Illuskan society, skalds, runes, viking way of life, the sacred tree, their names ... you're saying these things are not from Earth? Or in this particular subject, the gender bias in Calishite society, if the Realms are all about equality and elves then must be, where did this custom in Calimshan come from (or in Akanax)?
We're saying they may have originated on Earth, but they haven't followed the same course of development since then. And that therefore any comparisons are invalid.
And just as in the real-world, two groups of people sharing a common origin are not necessarily going to develop in the same direction. Americans, for example, aren't all that into tea, despite the fact that our nation was mostly founded by people from England. And a lot of Americans simply don't understand British humor. Not even 500 years separate us from our origin as British subjects, and though there is a lot of commonality, there are still some significant cultural and even linguistic differences.
Heck, even in varying parts of America, there are cultural and linguistic differences. Do you drink soda, pop, or Coke? Do you eat subs, hoagies, heroes, or po' boys? Do you gather with neighbors for football games, church events, and picnics, or do you not know your neighbors and have no interest in knowing them? One nation, and different areas go in different directions...
Why is it so unreasonable to assume the same for similar cultures separated by millenia, dimensions, and wildly different influences? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 13:20:21
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
Lost or forgotten? I disagree, look e.g. at some aspects of the Illuskan society, skalds, runes, viking way of life, the sacred tree, their names ... you're saying these things are not from Earth?
Well, it's likely that some hint of these cultural elements have bled through into the Realms from Earth. But as Ed has said in the past, those same elements have taken on a distinct Realms-equivalency. They're not wholly recognised as being solely from Earth any more.
I'll offer Ed's direct reply, also, on the subject of Earth/Realms analogues, from August 2006:-
quote:
As I’ve said many a time before, here at Candlekeep and elsewhere, trying to view the Realms in terms of real-world history just doesn’t work, except on a personal level. The text Winterfox cited, from the Cyclopedia (and not written by me) is doing just that personal level thing: it’s attempting to explain “what the Realms is” to someone completely unfamiliar with it, and possibly new to fantasy roleplaying. It’s akin to a history teacher drawing a swift analogy (“think Venice, only without the canals” ) and is as inaccurate and invalid on the level of specific details as all such analogies.
Where real-world comparisons break down, always (leading us, on Internet discussions, down sidetracks into arguments about Roman battlefield superiority or ancient Chinese medicine or the advent of stirrups in warfare or “what if the Nazis had done thus and so” debates), is when we move beyond the personal level of helping someone understand “the basics” about the Realms into using real-world comparisons in wider discussions among gamers. I realize that inevitably we must and will make real-world comparisons - - or comparisons to what we think we know of Earth history (or other fantasy settings, like Middle-Earth) from what we’ve seen at the movies or read in books - - because we’ve got to have SOME frame of reference to understand this elephant all we blind people are trying to examine, and the real world is what we all share. The problem is, we don’t all share the same experience of it. My schooling can’t be replicated by posters at Candlekeep because most of my professors are dead now, for one thing. :}
Neriandal Freit is quite right to say that the Realms isn’t like any historical period of Earth (and how can it be? We lack zap-bang magic, dragons, and truckloads of summonable monsters, just to name three factors in passing), and was never intended to be viewed in that way. “Technology” and “social advancement” (and please note that those terms in and of themselves betray real-world value judgements; folk in Faerûn, particularly survivors from Netheril, may disagree sharply with the notion that the passage of time brings “progress”) does indeed vary from place to place in the Realms, as Lore Seeker pointed out, and does indeed seem more Renaissance than medieval (as Winterfox and Rinonalyrna Fathomlin quite correctly argued on the NWN board) in some locales and regions.
However, huge chunks of Realms real estate ARE “sorta” like “roughly thirteenth-fourteenth century Earth.” And as the text in the Cyclopedia said, literacy IS on the rise (as overland trade increases in number of travellers, amount of goods carried, and penetration of trade routes deeper and deeper into “neglected” hinterlands), in the short-term “peace” between orc hordes and “really big Realms-shaking disasters.” City-states ARE the most common form of “civilized” society.
The problem comes when one tries to move from shorthand understandings of the Realms to specifics. “Oh, so if they’ve got city-states, they must have X, BECAUSE THEY DID IN OUR REAL WORLD.” The “because” just doesn’t follow, in many cases.
Here, Winterfox, you’ve presented me with a classic case of that “next step:” the debate on NWN board about real-world languages because of views of the “state of advancement” in the Realms.
Unfortunately for everyone concerned, it just doesn’t follow (no matter what the factors, unless they happened to be a large-scale invasion of people through a gate/oops, portal, from England “back in the day”) that written or spoke tongues in the Realms would be closer to Middle English or Early Modern English - - or Old High Norse, for that matter.
Our real world doesn’t and didn’t have long-lived, very “civilized” elves (or dragons, or dwarves) living with, around, and among humans, in many cases “there first” before the humans, and using their own languages regardless of what humans did. In the case of the Realms, one of course in North America equates the Common Tongue with English, and the Common Tongue has spread because of the high birth rate and energetic travels and settlings of humans, and the ongoing trade-travelling that goes on among human-dominated settlements. One can argue that this is analogous to the real-world spread of English through exploration and colonization and the timing of the British Empire (and the spread of Christianity, for that matter), but of course the Realms has no monotheism and has had many empires, most of them non-human - - and one must scramble to find common factors between the Realms and the real-world. Like much academic debate, arguments tend to be made by ignoring elements that don’t fit one’s views or hypotheses, and linking together (into increasingly flimsy and grandiose castles in the air) those that do.
Not that I’m blaming any scribes for holding such views. Unless you’re part of my original gaming group, there’s no way your experience of the Realms can be of anything but the published Realms - - and someone who reads ALL the Realms novels and game products will find many instances of overt real-world elements and even people (e.g. the Dalai Lama!), authors assuming real-world customs and inventions and habits, and so on. Some of these make me more than roll my eyes and gnash my teeth, but - - they’re done. Moreover, from the beginning of the published Realms (check Jim Lowder’s posts here, about being assigned to edit out my Realms dialect writing from SPELLFIRE), there’s been the practical necessity of changing my personal fantasy world to something twelve-year-old American males who just want a good fast adventure read to enrich their enjoyment of the game stuff they’re buying (TSR’s original target audience, remember), will be able to understand enough to enjoy. I’m not disagreeing with this necessity (Jim has often told the tale of having to explain what my line of dialogue for Elminster meant to fellow staffers: “Think ye me a codloose winker?”). I’m pointing out that the “prithees” and “Good my lord, how dost thou, I trow?” elements have largely gone away, in printed Realms fiction, in favour of “Yup. Nope. And one for my horse, too!” plain, “everyday” emphatic American speech. It may help clarity in storytelling, but on the other hand if we were all wading through largely impenetrable Realms novels with huge glossaries at the back to guide us through the dialogue, I suspect Winterfox and Rinonalyrna Fathomlin could never have found themselves in such a debate about which version of “heritage English” is prevalent in the Realms, or that Realms languages are “closest to.”
When it comes to languages, Lore Seeker said it best when he pointed out that local variances in education, dialect, and interaction with “the wider Realms” are going to create so many differences in language complexity and usage from place to place that trying to decide if an overall level or structure of language is like “Middle or Early Modern anything” is . . . largely pointless, and difficult to reach agreement on, anyway.
I completely disagree with the “economically” and “semi-feudal” wording in the Wikipedia quote, by the way - - but agree that as a “this isn’t, strictly speaking, true, but if you think of it in this way, you’ll ‘get it’ in overall outline; just don’t trust it on a details level” description, the Wiki entry, as quoted, works. That’s the problem with truly detailed worldbuilding: in one key respect the Realms IS identical to our real world: it’s so complex, and can be viewed in so many ways from so many starting sets of values and understandings, that it’s just as subject to furious debate as our real world is. All too often. :}
What’s deeply ironic to me is that this very discussion is one I had with Jeff and Karen back in 1986, as they gently told me that this or that aspect of the Realms was going to have to “go away” or “change” to fit TSR’s needs in adapting the Realms to D&D. As an old museum guard used to say in my childhood in Toronto: “Nothing new to see here, folks; move along, move along . . .”
|
| Quale |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 11:32:55
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
How can you avoid discussing real world when more than a half of the cultures and people in the Realms are originally from Earth?
Very easily. Even those few cultures that did originate on Earth have had thousands of years to develop in entirely different directions, with an entirely different environment and set of influences. So those cultures only have superficial resemblances to real-world cultures, now. There is therefore no real-world connection and no need to bring any anything real-world.
Indeed. And let's remember, too, that most of the portals that have allowed Earth-based aspects to bleed into the Realms, have either largely been lost or forgotten. Hence, the "Forgotten" Realms... because the majority of portals/gateways connecting both worlds have largely been forgotten. This comes directly from Ed.
So it's understandable that with the closure of these planar crossways, that isolated cultures divorced from their parent cultures, will slowly tend to develop new ways that embrace both their new environment, and the deities and other cultures they meet.
Lost or forgotten? I disagree, look e.g. at some aspects of the Illuskan society, skalds, runes, viking way of life, the sacred tree, their names ... you're saying these things are not from Earth? Or in this particular subject, the gender bias in Calishite society, if the Realms are all about equality and elves then must be, where did this custom in Calimshan come from (or in Akanax)? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 10:17:00
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
On the Red Wizards:
It depends which discipline were are talking about. Illusion and Divination seem to attract female wizards more than any other schools.
For Thay? To think of it, due to Thayan politics, the school choice is most likely to be a "family business" - i.e. younger relatives of a diviner will probably train as diviners.
Perhaps. But thus far, there are only very few I know who follow their "family business," Marek Rymut being a good example. Most wizards who gained prominence, regardless of gender, are either very rich (which in Thay means being politically powerful, like Samas Kul) or very talented in the Art. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 08:25:33
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
On the Red Wizards:
It depends which discipline were are talking about. Illusion and Divination seem to attract female wizards more than any other schools.
For Thay? To think of it, due to Thayan politics, the school choice is most likely to be a "family business" - i.e. younger relatives of a diviner will probably train as diviners. Ladies in general may become Red Wizards somewhat less frequently, but in the end what matters is power - competition is hard and bloody, and training anyone who seems talented is in the clan's interests.
Deeper than that - we can't compare headcount between schools, so to take the top rung again...
Ravens Bluff wizard guild Deans: Water, Enchantment, Evocation, Generalist (Archmage is an invoker more powerful than the Dean, but Tasherra is higher-level than the Dean of Necromancy); that being "everyone from everywhere" salad, no strong traditions. For a drow city - Sshamath's ruling conclave: Transmuter, Illusionist, Shadowmage; again, as a result of recent overthrowing of the theocracy, we can be reasonably sure any ladies' choice in arcane magic other than arachnomancer wasn't due to any traditions.
Maybe the only general trend is away from Necromancy, but other than Tasherra in Bluff there were rather... strongly interested lasses in Thayan and Halruaan stories.  So, on the large scale, magical talents seem to be completely random - except when tied to bloodlines (which is rare).
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
According to this here article (3e), she disappeared in 1296 DR. There was a tiny bit of lore elsewhere.
What an interesting character! I'd love to see her in a novel.
Maybe, but... I'm afraid, Nybor with her inclinations on a minor role in another story would be basically "like any Zulkir, but even scarier" - either a looming scarecrow or one more cloak&dagger player.
And her own story, from what little is known, could boil down to "a talented wizard who bested many, and was very close to become really great, but was distracted by pulling flies' wings just a little too much". Which is a good point, but too simple, for my taste. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 01:46:08
Understood, Sage. As mentioned, the issue of context separation was my primary concern here, and I think you've answered that as well as possible under the circumstances; as you've said, it is a tricky situation, and there have been times (most recently in a scroll you closed) when I've felt much like Wooly:
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, am getting really tired of this. We can't ask people to be civil, because that's "censorship." We can't ask people to stay on topic or focus on Realmslore, because someone might be offended at not getting to speak on something unrelated that they feel strongly about. People agree to rules when they sign up, but gods forbid asking them to actually stick to them... It's old. It's really, really old. I'm so tired of it that I sometimes feel like just walking away from the site altogether.
Why can't we just discuss Realmslore? That's what this site is about, and it's supposedly why we're all here...
In fact, I may have to quote him elsewhere... if I can find the scroll in question. Anyway, thank you for the response, and yes, I think some clarity was achieved. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 01:27:08
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
After reading both pages of this scroll twice, I saw nothing in the posts by Eladrinstar or Markustay to suggest anything real-world-related was intended. Even without Quale's argument, which Wooly dealt with exactly as I would have, does this mean that any real-world "hot button" issue cannot be discussed at all, even in a strictly Realmsian context? Because that's the impression I got from Arivia's response. Beyond this, I have no intention of involving myself in this scroll except as regards the separation of context for Realms and Earth, which I think has become an important point here. Sage? Wooly? Is such a separation of context not possible here? It's not as if anybody has referenced any specific RW examples, or even implied a RW context, and that (as I understand it) is what's forbidden by the CoC. Please clarify.
It's hard to clarify... simply because there is a fair degree of both intended and unintended bleed-through between real-world aspects and the Realms.
I'll attempt to be as specific as possible, though, with my following guidelines, in an attempt to provide all scribes with a basic understanding of what can and what can't be discussed with respect to real-world aspects, at Candlekeep.
Obviously, discussing stuff like Nazism in the Realms is a no-go. It's a politically-charged topic, and has little to no basis whatsoever in the Realms. Discussing sex and sexual relationships/preferences is, of course, valid, because we've seen a lot of this material in the Realmslore anyway. But, at the same time, issues of sex ultimately can become emotionally charged as well. So it's simply easier to either steer clear of the subject altogether, or try to couch it in terms of being as Realms-specific as possible. The less such a query draws from the real-world, and the less likely it will be that either myself or Wooly will have to caution those scribes involved in the discussion.
Now, every discussion of sex and sexual relationships is often a unique experience unto itself. So, again, it's difficult to provide any real depth of clarity with what can and cannot be discussed beyond a broad outline of keeping it specifically tied to the Realms as a whole. But the most important element in such discussions, is to be respectful, and appreciate that this community is composed of many individuals with many different views on practically every subject conceived by the human mind.
I know it's impossible to ensure a response will please every single individual. And I know discussing issues of sex in the Realms context can, and probably will, bring those who have their own views on the subject, into a discussion -- whereupon those both sides of the discussion will likely come into conflict. Which is where, usually, we're forced to step in. We can't ensure that every sexually-based Realms discussion won't go this way, but we can ensure that we will try, in each and every instance, to make sure ALL sides are considered and respected.
In the events of this scroll, however, we've reached something of a situation whereupon the issues of transgenderism and gender bias in the Realms have hit upon previously charged debates here at Candlekeep on similar subject matter. That, more than anything, is providing both Wooly and myself with a guide about how we allow this current iteration of the discussion to play out. A great deal of positive and negative clamour was generated with the last similarly-themed discussion. And while we Moderators may be perceived as a little too "overprotected" and/or "oversensitive" about this, we ask that you all appreciate that we don't have the luxury of allowing our own views to permeate our actions in these debates. We have to act on behalf of the WHOLE community. And that, simply, given the near-impossible nature of easily moderating such discussion, means we act quickly to clamp down on any deviation of the chatter which could potentially allow it to degenerate into a heated argument.
I know this is hardly a perfect solution, Jakk, and I understand if, in trying to provide clarity, I've only muddied the waters of understanding further. But this is really all we can offer on the query you've posed. Clarification just isn't as easy to provide as you may like, because the line between what is wholly Realms and what is specifically real-world, is itself, hard to clarify. So we try to navigate as best as possible. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 00:32:03
After reading both pages of this scroll twice, I saw nothing in the posts by Eladrinstar or Markustay to suggest anything real-world-related was intended. Even without Quale's argument, which Wooly dealt with exactly as I would have, does this mean that any real-world "hot button" issue cannot be discussed at all, even in a strictly Realmsian context? Because that's the impression I got from Arivia's response. Beyond this, I have no intention of involving myself in this scroll except as regards the separation of context for Realms and Earth, which I think has become an important point here. Sage? Wooly? Is such a separation of context not possible here? It's not as if anybody has referenced any specific RW examples, or even implied a RW context, and that (as I understand it) is what's forbidden by the CoC. Please clarify.
Edit: Added "strictly" to my question for clarification. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 00:11:33
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
How can you avoid discussing real world when more than a half of the cultures and people in the Realms are originally from Earth?
Very easily. Even those few cultures that did originate on Earth have had thousands of years to develop in entirely different directions, with an entirely different environment and set of influences. So those cultures only have superficial resemblances to real-world cultures, now. There is therefore no real-world connection and no need to bring any anything real-world.
Indeed. And let's remember, too, that most of the portals that have allowed Earth-based aspects to bleed into the Realms, have either largely been lost or forgotten. Hence, the "Forgotten" Realms... because the majority of portals/gateways connecting both worlds have largely been forgotten. This comes directly from Ed.
So it's understandable that with the closure of these planar crossways, that isolated cultures divorced from their parent cultures, will slowly tend to develop new ways that embrace both their new environment, and the deities and other cultures they meet. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 15:57:18
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
How can you avoid discussing real world when more than a half of the cultures and people in the Realms are originally from Earth?
Very easily. Even those few cultures that did originate on Earth have had thousands of years to develop in entirely different directions, with an entirely different environment and set of influences. So those cultures only have superficial resemblances to real-world cultures, now. There is therefore no real-world connection and no need to bring any anything real-world. |
| Quale |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 13:46:47
How can you avoid discussing real world when more than a half of the cultures and people in the Realms are originally from Earth? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 04:14:02
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
I can't remember Nybor. But I made a thread (poll) about favorite zulkirs, and I included those from the early zulkirate which Ed shared. She might be on that list, under the "Other" option.
As in, Nybor's Nonplussed Nagging line of spells and Nybor's Joyful Voyage, starting back from pre-AD&D2 classics. According to this here article (3e), she disappeared in 1296 DR. There was a tiny bit of lore elsewhere.
What an interesting character! I'd love to see her in a novel. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 01:19:48
Nybor, huh? Maybe she went to Pluto? (Kudos if anyone gets the joke here- I'm guessing you'd have to be a fan of the movie Heavy Metal...) |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 04:37:04
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
I can't remember Nybor. But I made a thread (poll) about favorite zulkirs, and I included those from the early zulkirate which Ed shared. She might be on that list, under the "Other" option.
As in, Nybor's Nonplussed Nagging line of spells and Nybor's Joyful Voyage, starting back from pre-AD&D2 classics. According to this here article (3e), she disappeared in 1296 DR. There was a tiny bit of lore elsewhere. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 00:16:24
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Again, I disagree. It depends which culture we are referring to. Female Thayans didn't have to try twice to climb a rung or two in their society's ladder. And certainly, some females in power have "boy toys." Mythrellan is a proof of that.
The Red Robe is available to any ambitious Thayan, provided he or she is Mulan. Gender matters not.
I vaguely remember there was something to this end, but evidently not much - Red Wizards rule by "might makes right" and there's no difference. Also, there were several female Tharchions. Oh, and other than Mythrell'aa (Illusion)? One of the best known ex-Zulkir names?.. Nybor (Enchantment). 
I can't remember Nybor. But I made a thread (poll) about favorite zulkirs, and I included those from the early zulkirate which Ed shared. She might be on that list, under the "Other" option.
You're right about the Tharachions. I recall three females in the Haunted Lands alone. The one that fielded a failed attack at Rashemen; Dmitra; and Aoth's later patron. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 14:08:32
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Again, I disagree. It depends which culture we are referring to. Female Thayans didn't have to try twice to climb a rung or two in their society's ladder. And certainly, some females in power have "boy toys." Mythrellan is a proof of that.
The Red Robe is available to any ambitious Thayan, provided he or she is Mulan. Gender matters not.
I vaguely remember there was something to this end, but evidently not much - Red Wizards rule by "might makes right" and there's no difference. Also, there were several female Tharchions. Oh, and other than Mythrell'aa (Illusion)? One of the best known ex-Zulkir names?.. Nybor (Enchantment). |
| Dennis |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 00:33:55
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Dennis - I realize this, but I think you missed my point: "Women have to try twice as hard to be thought of half as good" (in a male-dominated society, which Thay at least used to be, probably because of the Mulan heritage of its ruling class).
Source?
Again, I disagree. It depends which culture we are referring to. Female Thayans didn't have to try twice to climb a rung or two in their society's ladder. And certainly, some females in power have "boy toys." Mythrellan is a proof of that.
The Red Robe is available to any ambitious Thayan, provided he or she is Mulan. Gender matters not. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 18:05:31
@Sage (and Wooly, I guess)
Without getting into specifics, you will recall a PM I sent to you awhile back? About how certain things can 'look', without it actually being the case?
I'm sorry I was right. 
Anyhow, despite what occurred (or didn't actually occur - the post asking us "not to open a can of worms" opened its own can of worms instead), I fully understand the 'tread lightly' response of the moderators, and appreciate that I was allowed to continue on the topic (tip-toeing ever-so-gently on those eggshells).
@Dennis - I realize this, but I think you missed my point: "Women have to try twice as hard to be thought of half as good" (in a male-dominated society, which Thay at least used to be, probably because of the Mulan heritage of its ruling class).
Women are in no way inferior to men, but (unenlightened) men will feel threatened by 'strong woman', and do what it takes to remove any perceived 'threat to their manhood' (which, amongst apprentices, is common enough, without throwing in the added complication of the male ego). Ergo, my assumption is that while men (in the service of a mage) will be jealous of one-another, they are more likely to work together to remove a woman from their midst (maybe because they think old, cranky mages may give females preferential treatment... which may not be the case, but they would perceive it that way if the woman had talent).
On the other hand, it would be VERY interesting to see what sort of circumstances may arise in the exact opposite situation - if an old, cranky female Mage had many 'pretty' young male apprentices - would the females in the group behave the same way as men in similar circumstances?
There's fodder for some author paying attention.  |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 16:16:33
I figured for human armies in the Realms there are more men then women, but not to the point where women in the military are rare or notable. Maybe like a 3/1 ratio. |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 14:40:26
quote:
Originally posted by Fellfire
But, I recall one passage regarding Elaith's past and relationship to Amnestria where it is considered improper for her to be sparring with the guard. Is this more to do with her status as princess than with her being of the softer sex?
I took it was because of her beeing the princess. It never occured to me that it was because she was a women when reading it.
Although think about drow, there women are taller and stronger than males. So I guess it depends on which elven (sub)race we are talking about.
About the gender bias in human military forces, I think there is one with much more men in the military forces than women. At least that was the impression I got so far, never saw any statistics in source books about it. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 07:16:15
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
For what it is worth, I found Arivia's actions and attitude deeply offensive and the support of moderators for her position even more so.
What did you expect, really?quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
From my perspective as a Women's Studies major, it was already pretty offensive.
See? Arivia is a professional ideological worker. Everything else just follows from this and is crystal-clear.
Arguing seriously at this point is meaningless either way, even if this wasn't derailing. A real power (moderator) may either follow the conclusion-leaps with a witch-hunt proper - or, conversely, start a zero-tolerance crackdown on political spam. I see neither here, so what to discuss at all?
As you put yourself, Arivia waved "authority" she doesn't have. Not pretty? Yeah. A clue as to why ol' FIDOnet had clear rules about impersonating moderatorial force? Yeah. But otherwise, why react at all? Loud objections at this, while understandable, just add more derailing and are about as useful as writing angry letters back to spambots or joining the people scared of "cyberbullying", no? Imp apparently mistook it for the real thing and bemoaned our cruel fate. Wouldn't it be easier to simply proceed over the head of one avatar trying to depict the Ice Queen - unless and until a real moderator have something to say? Conversely, was poking The Sage over this called for? 
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
We're not pandering to anyone. The site Code of Conduct rules how and when we respond to situations about real-world topics. Regardless of whether such topics have Realms applicability or not, the instance they make ANY scribe uncomfortable by drawing upon real world aspects, is the instance we're forced to step in. This applies to EVERY single member of this community. Yourself included.
If this quite covers the matter at hand, it's easy.
I feel strongly about certain baked foods (really). Query: should this fact somehow affect all discussions of Realmslore i may see here that are remotely related to bakery? You're moderator here, yours is the decision on this. I'll follow it without objections. At most, may express some surprise if the approach to this becomes... visibly inconsistent.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And discussions of gender roles can get really, really sticky, as well.
Obviously. Just like discussions of the class warfare can get really, really sticky. We're all lucky here are no Social Justice majors ready to mount the barricades. AFAIK.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Why can't we just discuss Realmslore? That's what this site is about, and it's supposedly why we're all here...
I find myself, once more, in complete agreement. quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
Drop that line of conversation now, before both of you just start making some really offensive comments both in and out of Realmslore.
Underlining is mine, the rest isn't. |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 05:00:51
First, I want to say I don't think the mods censored anyone. However:
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Why can't we just discuss Realmslore? That's what this site is about, and it's supposedly why we're all here...
I kinda thought I was discussing Realmslore. I wanted to know, regarding Markustay's theories on elven magic and gender differences, how transsexual and transgender elves would be affected under this theory. You know, elves who don't exist, and who aren't human, and thus aren't really relevant to anything that would be taught in a Woman's Studies class or of the other real world issues mentioned. Something that has to do with the Realms.
But I see in practice it leads to a real world discussion, so I don't see the point in continue that line of question, nor do I guess Markustay would want to be dragged into a sticky conversation. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 04:04:51
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
For what it is worth, I found Arivia's actions and attitude deeply offensive and the support of moderators for her position even more so.
She peremptorily demanded that a conversation about a Realmslore issue be abandoned because she was opposed to the views set forth in it. Citing her educational background, she appeared to hold it as an article of faith that anything someone who did not have her scholarly expertise said about the issue was certain to be offensive and ought to be stopped. She was vindicated in this belief by obsequious moderators, to all appearances eager to pander to her particular political beliefs at the expense of Realmslore discussions of other scribes.
I find this to be even more offensive in light of the fact that the original Realmslore question is a valid and interesting one, not to mention the fact that not a single scribe had done anything to even approximate a violation of even the most stringent posting policies.
There is indeed an apparent discrepancy between the idea of elven society as without social gender roles and the fact that elven princes usually have military posts and fight and train alongside their guards, but Elaith felt it would be 'improper' for Amnestria to spar with her guards.
This is not to say that elven society is obviously rigidly bound with gender roles in the manner of Victorian England. In fact, elven females can and do pursue a military career. But the fact remains that there is some perceived difference on Elaith's part, at least, between a princess and a prince when it comes to a military career.
For a GM running a game with elves in it, it is relevant to examine to what degree Elaith's views here represent a personal abberation and to what degree he is representative of some faction of elven society.
Is there currently a fashion among some elves to adopt sharply differentiated gender roles? Is this a harkening back to some earlier fashion, influence from neighbouring human cultures or is it something else? Is this a noble fad or a deep-seated societal evolution? Could it be a response to falling birth rates? Inspired by elven male jealousy toward human males?
These and others are legitimate questions and if Arivia or anyone else feels that insufficient scholarship is being brought to bear on their discussion, simple courtesy would seem to dictate a choice of ignoring the conversation altogether or, alternatively, benevolently enlightening us all with her shining intellect and astonishing education.
Asking that it be stopped because the participants do not meet her standards is not courtesy. And when moderators respond to it, they encourage a culture where there is no exchange of views or opinions at all, for fear that someone will be offended at the fact that not everyone in the world agrees with them on every conceivable subject.
I was not supporting anyone's position. I was supporting trying to keep things civil around here. We've already had the transgender topic blow up in our faces, because people could not separate real-world thoughts and opinions from Realmslore. And discussions of gender roles can get really, really sticky, as well.
We were trying to prevent this discussion from going off the deep end on an unrelated topic, thus denying everyone the chance to discuss actual Realmslore. Thanks for helping us on that particular goal. 
I, personally, am getting really tired of this. We can't ask people to be civil, because that's "censorship." We can't ask people to stay on topic or focus on Realmslore, because someone might be offended at not getting to speak on something unrelated that they feel strongly about. People agree to rules when they sign up, but gods forbid asking them to actually stick to them... It's old. It's really, really old. I'm so tired of it that I sometimes feel like just walking away from the site altogether.
Why can't we just discuss Realmslore? That's what this site is about, and it's supposedly why we're all here... |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 03:25:11
My hat is off to you, Icelander, for being bold enough to say something in response to Arivia's post. I, too, was deeply offended by the tone of her response. It is not as if we have not seen a fair share of controversial topics here at the Keep, but because of the seemingly antagonistic tone of a great many posts these days I chose to bite my tongue. Shame on me. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 02:11:19
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
She peremptorily demanded that a conversation about a Realmslore issue be abandoned because she was opposed to the views set forth in it. Citing her educational background, she appeared to hold it as an article of faith that anything someone who did not have her scholarly expertise said about the issue was certain to be offensive and ought to be stopped. She was vindicated in this belief by obsequious moderators, to all appearances eager to pander to her particular political beliefs at the expense of Realmslore discussions of other scribes.
I take exception to that, Icelander.
We're not pandering to anyone. The site Code of Conduct rules how and when we respond to situations about real-world topics. Regardless of whether such topics have Realms applicability or not, the instance they make ANY scribe uncomfortable by drawing upon real world aspects, is the instance we're forced to step in. This applies to EVERY single member of this community. Yourself included.
quote:
I find this to be even more offensive in light of the fact that the original Realmslore question is a valid and interesting one, not to mention the fact that not a single scribe had done anything to even approximate a violation of even the most stringest posting policies.
I don't recall saying that the original Realmslore question shouldn't be addressed. Only that citing real-world aspects was unacceptable according to the dictates of the Code of Conduct.
So long as there is a Realms-only basis to this discussion, and that it respects the opinions of others contributing to that discussion, then it's free to continue. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 01:19:03
For what it is worth, I found Arivia's actions and attitude deeply offensive and the support of moderators for her position even more so.
She peremptorily demanded that a conversation about a Realmslore issue be abandoned because she was opposed to the views set forth in it. Citing her educational background, she appeared to hold it as an article of faith that anything someone who did not have her scholarly expertise said about the issue was certain to be offensive and ought to be stopped. She was vindicated in this belief by obsequious moderators, to all appearances eager to pander to her particular political beliefs at the expense of Realmslore discussions of other scribes.
I find this to be even more offensive in light of the fact that the original Realmslore question is a valid and interesting one, not to mention the fact that not a single scribe had done anything to even approximate a violation of even the most stringent posting policies.
There is indeed an apparent discrepancy between the idea of elven society as without social gender roles and the fact that elven princes usually have military posts and fight and train alongside their guards, but Elaith felt it would be 'improper' for Amnestria to spar with her guards.
This is not to say that elven society is obviously rigidly bound with gender roles in the manner of Victorian England. In fact, elven females can and do pursue a military career. But the fact remains that there is some perceived difference on Elaith's part, at least, between a princess and a prince when it comes to a military career.
For a GM running a game with elves in it, it is relevant to examine to what degree Elaith's views here represent a personal abberation and to what degree he is representative of some faction of elven society.
Is there currently a fashion among some elves to adopt sharply differentiated gender roles? Is this a harkening back to some earlier fashion, influence from neighbouring human cultures or is it something else? Is this a noble fad or a deep-seated societal evolution? Could it be a response to falling birth rates? Inspired by elven male jealousy toward human males?
These and others are legitimate questions and if Arivia or anyone else feels that insufficient scholarship is being brought to bear on their discussion, simple courtesy would seem to dictate a choice of ignoring the conversation altogether or, alternatively, benevolently enlightening us all with her shining intellect and astonishing education.
Asking that it be stopped because the participants do not meet her standards is not courtesy. And when moderators respond to it, they encourage a culture where there is no exchange of views or opinions at all, for fear that someone will be offended at the fact that not everyone in the world agrees with them on every conceivable subject. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 06 Feb 2012 : 23:41:14
At MT.
Tired of quoting. Hehe. So I'll just go straight to the point. On the Red Wizards:
It depends which discipline were are talking about. Illusion and Divination seem to attract female wizards more than any other schools. But, as evidenced by Thay-centric novels released so far, there have been a lot of female Red Wizards that rose to greater status. In fact, four recent zulkirs were females ---Yaphyll, Dmitra, Lallara, and Mythrellan. That's half of the Zulkirate. True, there used to be few females to who made it to the supreme council in the past centuries (1e to 3e). I can only recall two that Ed listed in his pre-Szass Tam Thay. However, it didn't mean there were less competent women that time than in the present. Some, and that included liches as powerful as Szass Tam, preferred the relatively normal, uncomplicated life of a privileged, non-zulkir Red Wizard. |
|
|
