| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 16 Apr 2013 : 07:12:49
Does it seem that we are suddenly lacking female lead characters, in the last few years, as compared to the 1e through 2e generation of books? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Irennan |
Posted - 30 Apr 2017 : 07:02:27
Yep, there's also that... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Apr 2017 : 01:51:15
Agreed, the result was the same, and with that end result, one could readily come to (what I assume were) incorrect conclusions about why it was done.
I still think, though, that the larger mistake was going the ALL SHADOW, ALL THE TIME! route they did -- not only were there suddenly Shades, Sharrans, or both, under every rock, it grossly oversimplified the ever-shifting power dynamics of all the myriad groups of the Realms. It was more a caricature of the setting than a logical progression of it.
The Lost Vale best exemplifies that attitude, to me... A near-deity, flying directly over the Lost Vale and specifically looking for it, couldn't find it. And yet the Shades somehow found it, and for no reason that I can fathom, destroyed it. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 29 Apr 2017 : 18:51:04
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Shar became their go-to evil deity of choice in 3E, and the heavy focus on Lolth is due entirely to one of their main cash cows being a guy that disliked the way Lolth ran things. That's been WotC chasing the "kewl" while disregarding everything else.
What I meant is that when 4e kicked in, powerful female characters were mainly negative examples, w/o the positive figures that had provided balance in representation before 4e.
I wasn't saying that WotC wanted to send the message that women in charge are a negative thing (although I should have clarified better), but characters representing women in charge were mostly negative. Heck, the iconic matriarchy--the drow--was an horrible society, which had used to have a bright and hopeful counterpart, but that was nowhere to be found in 4e--and its lore had been warped to give it some *truly* ugly and unlikeable traits--to the point of leading you to question their morals--by the novels that had led to its removal (novels that--although techinically part of the end of 3e--were admittedly part of the plans for 4e).
The only positive powerful women that I could think of, were Ilsevele and Storm, and the former didn't get much spotlight either AFAIK.
In short, I don't think that the changes were deliberate (although I cannot exclude it either), but the result was the same. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Apr 2017 : 17:28:11
Shar became their go-to evil deity of choice in 3E, and the heavy focus on Lolth is due entirely to one of their main cash cows being a guy that disliked the way Lolth ran things. That's been WotC chasing the "kewl" while disregarding everything else. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 29 Apr 2017 : 07:06:27
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
4e did indeed look like it was doggedly trying to remove strong and positive female figures. The 7 being nowhere to be found, Cormyr losing Alusair and Filfaeril, Mystra being murdered by petty little man Cyric, the drow losing Eilistraee and the only positive matriarchy that they had are all changes that points towards that direction. Some female leads made an appearance later in 4e (like Farideh), but the initial layout for 4e just cut them.
Compare with 5e, where it's revealed that Cyric failed at murdering Mystra, 5 of 7 Sisters are present and active again (in a form or the other, and the remaining 2 are not gone either and could reappear, according to Ed), where Cormyr is now ruled by a Queen (Raedra Obaskyr), Laeral is Open Lord of Waterdeep, the drow have Eilistraee once again (and Liriel is at least acknowledged, unlike 4e). The difference in the direction of the changes when it comes to this particular topic is quite deep.
I don't like to defend WotC, but I'm not inclined to think that the removal of prominent female characters for 4E was a deliberate, gender-based thing -- they nuked a lot of established characters; the list included most of the prominent female NPCs. I don't think it was a deliberate "no girls allowed!" thing as much as it was simple collateral damage.
Either way, I find it a disagreeable move, and I'll not defend the move itself. I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt, as to why they made that boneheaded move.
On a similar note, with 5E, I don't think it was deliberately bringing back the women, as it was returning to something approaching the 3E status quo. Once more, the maneuver just happened to include the female characters.
I've disliked a lot of what WotC has done since they released 3E, but I'm always going to try to find the logic behind their actions. I certainly won't always agree with them, but I'm going to look for that reasonable explanation, first.
I wouldn't say that it was deliberate either, but I'm not sure we can 100% exclude it, and we can say for sure at least that the authors of the changes didn't care about giving the Realms inspiring female characters. There's definitely a trend there, even more so considering that the two main villains (and of the worst kind at that, completely unrelatable) of the 4e metaplot were goddesses, Shar and Lolth, and the female counterpart of the former was completely ignored, while that of the latter was absent.
Again, I tend more to believe that it wasn't deliberate, but 4e surely didn't do a good job at providing the Realms with positive female figures (I mean the original direction of this edition, before some of the later novels) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Apr 2017 : 05:23:09
Wizbro's "logic" invariably floats around what they perceive will generate the most revenue. They cater their content to the "demographics" they value most as (paying) customers, and the central demographic has traditionally been young males. And young males (even the nerdy ones) tend to have certain rather unsophisticated expectations when they see heroic or villainous figures of either gender. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Apr 2017 : 04:46:21
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
4e did indeed look like it was doggedly trying to remove strong and positive female figures. The 7 being nowhere to be found, Cormyr losing Alusair and Filfaeril, Mystra being murdered by petty little man Cyric, the drow losing Eilistraee and the only positive matriarchy that they had are all changes that points towards that direction. Some female leads made an appearance later in 4e (like Farideh), but the initial layout for 4e just cut them.
Compare with 5e, where it's revealed that Cyric failed at murdering Mystra, 5 of 7 Sisters are present and active again (in a form or the other, and the remaining 2 are not gone either and could reappear, according to Ed), where Cormyr is now ruled by a Queen (Raedra Obaskyr), Laeral is Open Lord of Waterdeep, the drow have Eilistraee once again (and Liriel is at least acknowledged, unlike 4e). The difference in the direction of the changes when it comes to this particular topic is quite deep.
I don't like to defend WotC, but I'm not inclined to think that the removal of prominent female characters for 4E was a deliberate, gender-based thing -- they nuked a lot of established characters; the list included most of the prominent female NPCs. I don't think it was a deliberate "no girls allowed!" thing as much as it was simple collateral damage.
Either way, I find it a disagreeable move, and I'll not defend the move itself. I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt, as to why they made that boneheaded move.
On a similar note, with 5E, I don't think it was deliberately bringing back the women, as it was returning to something approaching the 3E status quo. Once more, the maneuver just happened to include the female characters.
I've disliked a lot of what WotC has done since they released 3E, but I'm always going to try to find the logic behind their actions. I certainly won't always agree with them, but I'm going to look for that reasonable explanation, first. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Apr 2017 : 03:23:40
quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan
Just look it up. Coming "dusk" for evening just after sunset, dusky means dark-hued or dark-skinned. Looking at pics online of people described as dusky, it's some degree of brown skin, though short of black. I feel the Realms are generally darker than the artists understand.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dusky
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dusky
Oh, I have no doubt that dusky means that. I say that's why I was so often confused by the descriptions, because the ART wasn't drawn that way for the people from those regions. So, I took it as TSR / WotC just didn't know the right word to use (and honestly, I find it hard to figure out the proper word to use to say "tanned but not brown"). So, people started throwing around "dusky" and it caught on. Honestly, I never noted it until this past year, and I was automatically reading "dusky" to mean "like Conan" just because I was looking at the art and then reading the text and matching up the terms unconsciously. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 28 Apr 2017 : 20:26:36
4e did indeed look like it was doggedly trying to remove strong and positive female figures. The 7 being nowhere to be found, Cormyr losing Alusair and Filfaeril, Mystra being murdered by petty little man Cyric, the drow losing Eilistraee and the only positive matriarchy that they had are all changes that points towards that direction. Some female leads made an appearance later in 4e (like Farideh), but the initial layout for 4e just cut them.
Compare with 5e, where it's revealed that Cyric failed at murdering Mystra, 5 of 7 Sisters are present and active again (in a form or the other, and the remaining 2 are not gone either and could reappear, according to Ed), where Cormyr is now ruled by a Queen (Raedra Obaskyr), Laeral is Open Lord of Waterdeep, the drow have Eilistraee once again (and Liriel is at least acknowledged, unlike 4e). The difference in the direction of the changes when it comes to this particular topic is quite deep. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 28 Apr 2017 : 08:08:35
... or just look at the google images for dusky complexion and dusky skin color.
This is a necro thread, as Wooly pointed out.
The "dusky" talk wasn't entirely irrelevant: like it or not, deliberate or not, almost all of the most notable characters in early D&D editions were depicted as "fair skinned" European (or Asian) sorts. With a few exceptions (like Drizzt and the other drow, of course, plus characters originating from Zakhara, Chult, Maztica, or other subsettings equivalent to regions in our world which have darker skinned populations). Text descriptions of people (like "sallow complexioned" Mulan-descended Thayans or "olive skinned" Calimshites) conflicted with artwork showing them as "white". Artists also had a hard time with drow right up to the 3E era, sometimes drow had bluish or purplish colouring, sometimes brownish or greyish, sometimes outright black, sometimes merely "dusky". By 4E the complexions of characters could range across white, black, or brown - dusky, olive, fair, or sallow - or even (for some races) vibrant red, green, blue, yellow, metallic, gold, silver, infernal, granite, flaming, or luminescent. I think limited complexion/features were less about racism than about limited quality of artists and artwork, and it was certainly something WotC revamped by 4E.
The gender talk also wasn't entirely irrelevant. The Realms has a fairly good gender balance overall. But it's not a consistent balance, it's more like an average between two extremes. Patriarchal figures like Elminster and Khelben and Drizzt and Ao are invariably the most potent and critical characters. Matriarchal figures like the Seven Sisters, Knights of Myth Drannor, and Triple Goddesses are also immensely powerful yet tend to be (slightly) less capable than their male counterparts - I think this is something inherited from Ed's early gaming traditions (itself influenced by Gygax's gaming traditions) in which D&D was essentially played almost exclusively by groups of males. The (Wiccan-like) female competency and power figures to the Realms seem to be more like "added" qualities than "fundamental" ones - I think influenced by the presence of females at the game table and within the (more matured) lives/outlooks of the male players. 2E certainly capitalized on the sexual appeal of female characters (like Alias wearing chainmail bikini, etc) to engage a male-dominated audience. 3E and 4E seemed to have a fairly equal representation of male and female characters (and generally less inclination to treat the females as merely sexual objects), with the obvious exception of well-established characters (Elminster, Drizzt, etc) whose overpowered roles were already well defined. So yes, I'd say Realmslore and Realms novels do contain biased sexism, even veiled male chauvinism (in the strictest sense, I mean just look at early D&D artwork!), but I wouldn't go so far as to label (most of) the representations of females as deprecating or misogynistic. |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 28 Apr 2017 : 03:01:19
Just look it up. Coming "dusk" for evening just after sunset, dusky means dark-hued or dark-skinned. Looking at pics online of people described as dusky, it's some degree of brown skin, though short of black. I feel the Realms are generally darker than the artists understand.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dusky
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dusky |
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 Apr 2017 : 00:58:37
So 'dusky' could be more of a 'leathered' look (even cowboys had that back in the Old West), and its not necessarily a racial thing (although I think a LOT of writers get it confused with 'olive' skin tones, which AREN'T green (that used to confuse me when I was young). More of a 'Mediterranean' complexion.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Alfalfa and Spanky got temporary control of WotC during 4e development, and the He-man Women-haters club rules were fostered onto the Realms.
Since most of that club sees to have 'gone elsewhere', we can only hope that some common sense can return. Chicks in-power are cool...
...especially when they wear leather. 
*Grammatical correction
This thread-resurrection brought to you by my urge to thank Markustay for this much-needed laugh I just enjoyed while investigating various old scroll-tubes. Please carry on, good sir!
(Also, it can't hurt to bring this particular topic to the attention of anyone who might happen to be writing something and pondering their cast of characters...)
Your welcome. 
My sense of humor varies from year to year, but it is ever-present, and always with just a hint of biting sarcasm (sometimes more than just a hint). |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 27 Apr 2017 : 23:13:50
umm to me dusky skin tones would be between white and black....
because the rashemi in the daughter of the drow was on one of the covers and did not look black to me, not white either though more like middleastern or the southern coast of the Mediterranean ....
just a comment on something I read in one of the posts... moving on now |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Apr 2017 : 18:10:28
quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU
This is an odd conversation to be having considering there aren't ANY Realms characters being written about at the moment (that we know of), male or female...
So it is, technically, correct that we're not getting female leads in novels.
(On a related note, it was technically correct when I once commented to my wife that she'd not done laundry the entire time we'd been married. Of course, we'd only been married for 2 or 3 days at that point....   )
On a more serious note, this discussion dates back to 2013. It was the recent subject of thread necromancy.  |
| KanzenAU |
Posted - 27 Apr 2017 : 17:56:17
This is an odd conversation to be having considering there aren't ANY Realms characters being written about at the moment (that we know of), male or female...
The novels that were published in 2016 almost got to 50/50. Death Masks had a good balance of both, I assume The Devil You Know is still about Farideh, and then there were 2 Drizzt novels. |
| moonbeast |
Posted - 27 Apr 2017 : 17:41:36
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Not all women, just most of them who are not Lolth’s pets. And it’s not that there are many of them anyway. The Realms’ women, evil and good alike, are hardly given the spotlight in any editions.
And it could be tied to the question of…. How many female writers/authors are still (actively) writing Realmslore novels?
And last I checked, the WotC management is dominated by guys. Chris Perkins, Jeremy Crawford, etc. It's only natural that the "guys" at WotC will be more comfortable writing about male (fictional) characters in 5E Realms. |
| moonbeast |
Posted - 27 Apr 2017 : 17:36:38
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I will echo that I would love to find a GOOD (or at least not evil) organization of men...I'm growing somewhat tired of all male organizations being "Brotherhoods of Evil" or what have you.
Well, duh, if they admitted women, they couldn't call themselves a Brotherhood!
They could admit both males and females, and just simply be called Hoods.
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 27 Apr 2017 : 13:06:27
hmmm, never saw the thread, but the people talking at the end.... I gotta say that the use of "dusky skin" has kind of confused me in the past in a lot of D&D products, and I've taken it to mean "sun-baked" and not African American brown. So, when they describe the Rashemi as dusky, I'm picturing "Conan-colored". I strongly base this upon the drawings we've seen of people from various cultures that are described as "dusky" and they definitely aren't very dark at all. The Mulan people are just exceptionally pale-skinned (which is admittedly odd for where they live and where they came from.... but hey, magic does stuff) |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 27 Apr 2017 : 09:02:08
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Alfalfa and Spanky got temporary control of WotC during 4e development, and the He-man Women-haters club rules were fostered onto the Realms.
Since most of that club sees to have 'gone elsewhere', we can only hope that some common sense can return. Chicks in-power are cool...
...especially when they wear leather.
*Grammatical correction
This thread-resurrection brought to you by my urge to thank Markustay for this much-needed laugh I just enjoyed while investigating various old scroll-tubes. Please carry on, good sir!
(Also, it can't hurt to bring this particular topic to the attention of anyone who might happen to be writing something and pondering their cast of characters...) |
| Rhymn |
Posted - 10 May 2013 : 00:08:47
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I am also given to understand that you can go to Africa and run into lots of native 'white people'. Note I said 'native', as in "born there', not 'indigenous'.
That distinction is quite arbitrary and gets into very problematic territory.
quote:
My assumption of the 'Dusky Skin' descriptor has always been 'not white' (or non-caucasian), and would vary in degrees.
This was my thought as well. Kara Mustafa Pasha was called "Black Mustafa" both for his temperament and his "swarthy" complexion. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 09 May 2013 : 00:10:37
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
yet oddly enough, if you go for ugly or hideous, folks tend to be very descriptive, and vivid on detail of how someone is messed up.
Actually, that's what I would expect. We don't all agree on what's beautiful, but we can usually agree on something being distinctive or off-putting. It's part of the "warning: danger!" response: we as humans are hard-wired to be repulsed by things that look unhealthy, maimed, or otherwise permanently damaged, because it's possible we might end up that way too. So if a character has a big vicious scar, odds are you can describe it in detail and most of your readers are going to have a certain reaction to it.
Less specific traits like "horse-faced" or "squint-eyed" play to a particular culture's view of beauty. In America, those are generally considered negative qualities of one's appearance, but in other countries, perhaps not. That's riskier, because not all your readers will necessarily read those cues as "unattractive," so often when writing I'll just leave it at that.
Plus, often "unattractive" traits are added for a specific purpose--to say something about a character or give a sense of that character's background, etc.
As a writer, I try not to make judgment calls about whether a character is attractive or not. Because A) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so really it's the other characters' opinions that matter; I make a specific point about one of my characters being really attractive to some people but not to others, and B) I'd prefer to let the reader visualize the character however he/she wants. How attractive you as a reader visualize the character often has more to do with how much you like that character than anything I say when describing them.
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
Yes, absolutely. This is important for written work because you want the imagination of the reader to fill in the gaps. This is important for describing the environment and the like as well.
The issues that I have here really have nothing to do with the novels or anything like that. It has more to do with artwork for the gaming products.
Indeed. I only brought it up as a tangential discussion relating to the discussion about referring to RLB's books to talk about how the Rashemi look. If I know RLB (and I do), I suspect he's fairly vague on things like skin tone and more specific about particular characters' traits.
And @Dennis: Indeed. Hence my use of the word "usually."
Cheers |
| Dennis |
Posted - 08 May 2013 : 12:35:35
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Hair color can usually be specified, because it's not an attractiveness-defining trait.
Generally, yes. But it’s not always the case. It depends which culture you’re focusing on. Among Thayans, of course it’s common knowledge that if you grow hair, you’re either an eccentric Red Wizard or a slave. Outside Thay, if you shave your head, people would likely assume you’re (a) too lazy to trim your hair, (b) suffering from alopecia areata, or (c) an exiled Thayan.
I vaguely recall reading something (from an old novel, I think) where it said that other than the obvious pragmatic reason (protection from the cold), the length (the longer the better) and the color of the hair of male northern barbarians both partly define their “attractiveness.” |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 22:28:59
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Speaking in my capacity as a professional novelist, unless you're specifically addressing race or racism as one of the core themes of your book, it's often a good idea to be vague about skin tones in a fantasy novel because you don't want to a) Attach too much importance to it, b) Make it seem like "race" functions the same way it does in our world, and c) Limit the reader's imagination as to what your characters look like.
If I portray a character as being attractive--for instance, having good features, a tanned coloration, and being well-built--all those descriptors are vague enough that you could really visualize whatever you want to. If I want a character to be "attractive," I want that to be whatever you the reader find attractive.
Hair color can usually be specified, because it's not an attractiveness-defining trait. It's not like we as a society generally find everyone of a particular hair color attractive or unattractive. (Though of course particular people may have their own preferences, and that's ok--they can visualize characters how they want.)
Interestingly, it goes the other way too. If I'm portraying a character as unattractive or off-putting, then dwelling too much on his/her skin tone could potentially open me to some problems. If all ugly people in my novel were very dark-skinned, for instance, well, that's a thing.
Cheers
Yes, absolutely. This is important for written work because you want the imagination of the reader to fill in the gaps. This is important for describing the environment and the like as well.
The issues that I have here really have nothing to do with the novels or anything like that. It has more to do with artwork for the gaming products. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 19:35:33
yet oddly enough, if you go for ugly or hideous, folks tend to be very descriptive, and vivid on detail of how someone is messed up. |
| Aulduron |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 19:25:52
That's the way I prefer it, Erik. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 16:37:19
Speaking in my capacity as a professional novelist, unless you're specifically addressing race or racism as one of the core themes of your book, it's often a good idea to be vague about skin tones in a fantasy novel because you don't want to a) Attach too much importance to it, b) Make it seem like "race" functions the same way it does in our world, and c) Limit the reader's imagination as to what your characters look like.
If I portray a character as being attractive--for instance, having good features, a tanned coloration, and being well-built--all those descriptors are vague enough that you could really visualize whatever you want to. If I want a character to be "attractive," I want that to be whatever you the reader find attractive.
Hair color can usually be specified, because it's not an attractiveness-defining trait. It's not like we as a society generally find everyone of a particular hair color attractive or unattractive. (Though of course particular people may have their own preferences, and that's ok--they can visualize characters how they want.)
Interestingly, it goes the other way too. If I'm portraying a character as unattractive or off-putting, then dwelling too much on his/her skin tone could potentially open me to some problems. If all ugly people in my novel were very dark-skinned, for instance, well, that's a thing.
Cheers |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 14:40:10
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Actually, Aldrick, there is discrimination in terms of skin color in Thay. Aoth Fezim, leader of the Brotherhood of the Griffon, was even a victim of such discrimination, as he looks more Rashemi than Mulan. It was more of a hush-hush type, which eventually petered out as he proved to be a quite excellent captain.
That’s the thing in Thay. They may think low of you, but once you’ve proven yourself useful—whether you are magically inclined and trying to crawl your way up to Red Wizardhood or you’re an just an ordinary mercenary smiled upon by Tymora and winning an important battle for some Red Wizard—then any discrimination toward you is either forgotten or locked away.
True. I didn't have Thay in mind, but you're right. It probably exists to a lesser extent in Mulhorand as well. However, in Thay it'd be quite prevalent. Though, I think Thay is the exception rather than the rule.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, you might run into it in Calimshan as well. Though the Calishite people extend way beyond Calimshan itself. I'm not so sure how the racial feelings of Calishites living in the Lake of Steam region are as compared to those living in Calimshan. They may still maintain some sense of racial superiority, but I don't think it'll be as pronounced. Calimshan itself has a lot of cultural reinforcement.
quote:
Calishites believe their culture is the only bastion of civilization on the Sword Coast and Shining Sea, if not the entire surface of Faerûn. To the descendants of a 7,000-year-old empire, the short-lived "barbarian" cultures of the northern lands are barely worthy of notice. Calishite arrogance is nurtured and codified in the class and gender divisions within their society, with a person's station at birth playing an important role in how he or she is measured. Although few speak of the class system in Calimshan or the lesser status of women, most Calishites live out their lives according to their station, risking death or enslavement if they do not. Calishites dwelling in the old Imperial lands view themselves as superior to non-Calishites and often act as if the Shoon Imperium had never fallen. Likewise, Calishites dwelling within the borders of Calimshan view themselves as superior to their provincial cousins.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 14:37:22
My assumption of the 'Dusky Skin' descriptor has always been 'not white' (or non-caucasian), and would vary in degrees.
I had a lot more here, but I realize that the number of RW examples I was giving was bound to offend someone. Anyhow, I don't think anyone is truly 'white' (or rather, pink/peach) except for the Northern Barbarians, and even they've been subject to quite a bit of racial cross-pollination for the past 10K+ years. Only the Reghedmen of the far north (Icewind Dale region) would be fairly 'pure'.
Unlike modern day people (us), people on a neo-Medieval world are outside most of the time. Even if you're in Caucasion group, you skin would be quite dark and rugged (like leather) because of the normal hardships of working and life in general. They don't sit in cubicles typing on computers - they are out tilling the fields and fighting Orcs, etc. Except in the big cities, you won't find the 'pasty-faced' types you find here.
You would also not find women who look like super models, with perfect skin, teeth, and hair. Trust me - if you were suddenly transported to FR, you probably wouldn't touch the woman (or men)... who may have never had a bath.  |
| Dennis |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 12:27:30
Actually, Aldrick, there is discrimination in terms of skin color in Thay. Aoth Fezim, leader of the Brotherhood of the Griffon, was even a victim of such discrimination, as he looks more Rashemi than Mulan. It was more of a hush-hush type, which eventually petered out as he proved to be a quite excellent captain.
That’s the thing in Thay. They may think low of you, but once you’ve proven yourself useful—whether you are magically inclined and trying to crawl your way up to Red Wizardhood or you’re an just an ordinary mercenary smiled upon by Tymora and winning an important battle for some Red Wizard—then any discrimination toward you is either forgotten or locked away. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 07:35:37
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So yeah, I am aware - in canon - of many 'oriental' looking people in the east, and by 1475 DR (or whatever) I am sure MANY people of that racial stock are born - native - to Rashemi and the Unapproachable East. It also stands to reason - with the large number of 'black' nations (like the nearby Turmish) that there are plenty of black Rashemi as well. In fact, given the numerous non-human races on Toril, things like skin color (or shape of eye, etc) are probably completely ignored within one's own race. After all, when you you have 7' tall reptilefolk and demi-fiends walking around, why would a slightly different shade of skin bother you at all? I am sure there is absolutely no stigma attached to marrying/procreating with/loving another human from 'elsewhere' in The Realms - it just wouldn't be important given all the other social issues that such a world would foster.
Yes, I agree discrimination and bigotry based on skin color and various facial features doesn't really exist in the Realms. Keep in mind that many Tethyrian are also "dusky skinned" folk just like the Rashemi.
What matters more is culture and land of origin. Sure, if you're a "fair-skinned" (white) person most people might ASSUME you're from the North and are an Illuskan. In a lot of cases they'd be correct in that assumption. However, there are other cues that give someone away such as their regional accent as well as their native dress.
So, the conflict between humans is more cultural in nature. Skin color would only be one cue, and perhaps not an overly good one at that in some cases.
Also keep in mind that the Rashemi in Thay think of themselves as Thayan and not part of Rashemen. Similarly, just because someone happens to be Tethyrian doesn't mean they consider themselves part of or even like Tethyr.
Skin color, on the whole, doesn't really decide much in the Realms. If someone faces discrimination it's because they're "an Illuskan savage" or a "Calishite slaver." |
|
|
