http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030801a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20030802a
Originally posted by themeecer
I agree ... I am mostly a WoTL fan and I haven't seen anything that has caused me to desire the age of mortals book. Give me a little more to whet my appetite.
Here's an idea of some of the Dragonlance goodness inside Age of Mortals.
Races - Stats on the Tarmak (Brutes) and Half-kender
Base Class - Introducing the Mariner!
Prestige Classes - Academy Sorcerer, Citadel Mystic, Kender Nightstalker, Legion Mystic, Legion Scout, Legion Sorcerer, Master Ambassador, Nomad Shaman, Rogue Knight, Solamnic Auxiliary Mage, Spellfilch, and the War Mage!
Just a note, a lot of the above can be utilized in campaigns set in the WotL, Chaos War, and other time periods as well. Even some of the materials that are Age of Mortals-specific can be adapted to other ages.
There's new feats, mystic domains, and spells. Tons of geographical info. Notes on dragons and the dragon overlords as well.
And that, my friends, is just a taste of what is inside.
.The dreaded double-post strikes again.
;)
.Originally posted by Bookwyrm
The PrC's sound particularly interesting. The 'Kender Nightstalker'...what is that, some kind of kender-assassin?. Although, I really do not think that would be possible
From what I hear from afflicted kender, it is possible.
Who you gonna call? Kender Nightstalkers!
Originally posted by Kipper Snifferdoo
The kender nightstalker is a unique kender PrC in which kender actively seek out and consult the dead through the use of mystiscm. They roam Ansalon looking for troubled spirits to put to rest. So I guess that makes them Ghostbusters, heh.
Who you gonna call? Kender Nightstalkers!
Better send them all to Nightlund immediately so we can get rid of the undead infestation there.
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
The PrC's sound particularly interesting. The 'Kender Nightstalker'...what is that, some kind of kender-assassin?. Although, I really do not think that would be possible
The Kender Nightstalker is a role from the SAGA products originally. It's a kender that talks to ghost companions! Plus it has other nifty abilities dealing with the undead.
Now, imagine this in the War of Souls. The Kender Nightstalker, who talks to ghosts, discovers the plight of the River of Souls. He goes to seek heroes to help out in the battle against the One God, but who will believe a kender?
Did I mention that the kender casts divine spells?
Personally, I find that this is a refreshing view of kender. It breaks a lot of stereotypes that one associates with the traditional kender handler. I'm hoping that we'll see more refreshing kender prestige classes in the future.
Originally posted by Kipper Snifferdoo
Who you gonna call? Kender Nightstalkers!
There's a somethin' strange
In Soth's neighborhood.
Who you gonna call?
Nightstalkers!
There's a River of Souls
And it don't look good.
Who you gonna call?
Nightstalkers!
I ain't afraid of no souls....
Kipper - I think we have the makings of a hit.
Anyway, I am certainly eager to see how this Kender type will be put to extensive use in my campaigns.
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Are the casting of divine spells for this PrC specifically related to undead, or is this just the equivalent of a Kender-style cleric?. What I mean is, is it the same as a handler being similar to a rogue?.
The Nightstalker is more like a mystic in his spellcasting. His spells are mostly related to the undead.
Or is the female pronoun just part of WoTC's political correctness campaign?
-Robert
-Robert
See, Solamnics are supposed to be "good" and as such, they follow what is "good" in our society. So thus, if you're all about equal rights and opportunities for women, to be "good" they have to be also.
Myself, I think people can be good, without being right. As such, I'm going to be tossing out women in the Solamnic Knighthood in my campaign, and restore them to their roles as male-centric, aristocratic, and having an elite military status. They will still be moral and noble, but they won't always be correct. I think that makes them much more interesting.
On a side note, I wish women could be women and still be heroic. Don't get me wrong, macho women with guns are fun, but it seems to limit the roles for women. Just once, I'd like a interchange between a Solamnic knight's son and daughter, in which the daughter realizes that she'll never be strong enough to carry around the weight of the armour or lift the sword. I've seen storylines where the son realizes that he is too weak, but not the daughter. It is as if there is a taboo about it or something.
As well, what's up with all these babe warriors... shouldn't they look like female bodybuilders if they have the same stats as their male counterparts? ;)
Your male character cannot be an Arachne, Bloodsister, Hathran, or Sword Dancer.
The Rashemi are not evil. Neither are the (usually Drow) followers of Elistraee. Matter of fact, the societies themselves are Good. At worst, you could neutral. But then again, isn't neutral all about equalness and ballance?
Or does the male ability write our name in the snow without using our hands ballance everything out :D
-Robert
Originally posted by Robert N.
Since when does good mean Equal opportunities. Or does Good only mean Equal opportunities for women?
It all depends on your perspective. For some, (particularly if you happen to be a woman yourself), a guy who doesn't approve of women in traditionally male-dominated fields (ie. politics or the military) is considered to be a close-minded, sleazy, chauvanistic pig. In other words, a bad person.
I don't agree with that myself. I think a person can be good, but mistaken. I also think that one can be a "traditionalist" or a "progressive" thinker and both can be "good" and still be "mistaken" about a few things.
I figured I should say something positive. ;) The problem with criticism is that an argument of why things are bad take more words. You have to explain why its bad.
Anywho, if the Knight of the Crown is this good, I can't wait to see the Knight of the Rose :D
Anywho, as for "close-minded, sleazy, chauvanistic pigs." Does that assessment include followers of Elistraee and the Rashemi? They limit access to males, yet they are listed in D&D's "Absolute Morality" (as spoken of in the Book of Vile Darkness) as Good.
Is this sheer hypocrisy, or what?
-Robert
Originally posted by Robert N.
Is this sheer hypocrisy, or what?
It does reflect current morality. That's why gentleman's clubs and golfcourses are being sued, while tea rooms and other clubs exclusively for women are not (or at least not as often).
Is it hypocrisy? Perhaps. However I don't mind it so much. I minded it much more when I was in my teens, but since coming into my full status an adult male... I have so many advantages that women can't even dream of. Without a college education, I'll earn at the very least $2 more an hour than a woman. Why? As a guy, I can lift heavy things. If I have appropriate connections, I have access to jobs in construction, on oil-rigs, in the mines, etc. Women, without education, are stuck as cashiers.
I don't have to spend $30 a month on feminine hygene products. I don't have to spend much, much more on shoes, clothing and makeup in order to be considered attractive. As long as I keep myself clean and scented with old spice, I'm good to go.
I don't have to choose between work and family. I am almost invulnerable if I wear a cup. So physically and financially I am always one step ahead.
If I was born a woman, and I knew what I know as a man, I'd demand the right for women to have their own exclusive institutions, even if it meant that I'd have to leave some for men. I'd demand female only units, with female commanders, in the military for example. I'd demand exclusive clubs and golf courses. I'd construct a "good old girls club". Why? It's simple really. People will not always be "progressive" forever. If women want real power, it has to be independent from the general power structures of society. Just ask the women of Afghanistan. If you are let in, you can easily be forced out.
-Robert
Ok, aparently I need to hurry up and read the War of the Souls trilogy ... maybe then I won't be so down on the 5th age. I have accidently read most of the spoilers and am curious to how it all fits together. I am wondering about the marrying of an Age of Mortals campaign and a Ghost Walk one. Would this mesh well with the fiction? I have time before I do anything like this since I want to play through the WoTL first and somehow play through the Legend series.
Odd that we associate knighthoods with male institutions as a matter of course and remark upon their female members as exercises in political correctness. You'd almost suspect we wanted to use real-world political entities in a fantasy setting or something.
I'll remember your objections next time you complain about folks lifting history and adding it into D&D worlds, Terry.
Is it not enough for you that female knights make up a small proportion of the Knighthood? There's your natural selection and male advantage right there.Cheers,
Cam
Well, since there does not seem to be many females on the DL board, I guess I will have to defend my sex as best I can, without being rude, although my first instinct upon seeing ferratus' posts was to post something less than polite...
First of all, addressing the game world: the WotL changed many things on Ansalon, including the Knights of Solamnia. Having Laurana play a major role as a leader, and even Kitiara's role on the other side of the fence may have influenced them. I do not see women joining the Knights of Solamnia in the Fifth Age as an unrealistic development. The Knights have also relaxed their standards as far as allowing young people without a pedigree into the organization, and frankly, I think they may have also come to the realization that they need all of the good people they can get...
Second, addressing the issue of feats of strength: what major female character in any of the novels has been portrayed as having extraordinary strength? As far as I have seen, most females in positions of power have displayed extraordinary leadership skills, charisma, ruthlessness, or a heavy cast iron frying pan ;) , but never super, Buffy the Vampire style, unrealistic strength. I have not read much about Linsha, and she could be the exception to the rule, but otherwise, I have not seen what you are talking about in the major novels.
Third, I will try to contain my outrage, but please explain how you find that women are unfit for politics??? Other than the fact that they have been marginalized for centuries, how are women less capable of taking leadership positions? Please enlighten me, this ought to be fascinating. I mean, since you are obviously not a "bad person" for feeling this way, you must have a very logical reason, right?
Finally, congratulations on being happy that you are male. Sorry to burst your bubble, however, but heavy labor jobs like construction work are not the only well paying jobs for non college educated adults. Believe it or not, but many employers would rather have the pretty young girl representing their company in customer relation positions rather than the big strong male.
Sorry to continue the hijacking of the thread (what was the original topic again???) but I couldn't help myself. I guess it's all my raging female hormones, right Ferratus?
The issue of male vs female doesn't really belong on these boards. This board is supposed to be about Dragonlance, which has many fine characters BOTH male and female.
Lets keep it away from the battle of the sexes ok people
...Ahem...
On to the female members of the knighthood, in Dragons of a Spring Dawning(favorite Chronicles book, though Sturm's last stand is my favorite scene), Astinus recounts on how there have been many female knights(he only mentions one specific one), one who was a hero and became a Knight of the Sword.
a) need to be from Solamnia
b) need to be male
c) need to be human !!!
while I see a non-evil minotaur applying to the knights, what about elves, dwarves and gods forbid kender !
What would the Knights of Solamnia do when a non-human applies to the order? Are they so desperate in seeking new knights or will they reject these applications?
Originally posted by Nicodemus
According to the prerequisites, a Knight of Solamnia, does not
a) need to be from Solamnia
b) need to be male
c) need to be human !!!
while I see a non-evil minotaur applying to the knights, what about elves, dwarves and gods forbid kender !
What would the Knights of Solamnia do when a non-human applies to the order? Are they so desperate in seeking new knights or will they reject these applications?
Whoa is this a test? uhhhhhhhh the answer is A.
Sorry couldn't resist, but it does look like a multiple choice question.
Just my 2 copper, I think in order to join the Knighthood you have to be human, or half-human(ie. half-elf) in order to join.
Originally posted by Dragontooth
Whoa is this a test? uhhhhhhhh the answer is A.
Sorry couldn't resist, but it does look like a multiple choice question.
Just my 2 copper, I think in order to join the Knighthood you have to be human, or half-human(ie. half-elf) in order to join.
And being half-human is very complicated when trying to become a knight.
My wife is playing a female Kendar character for some time now. She started out as a ranger and was your typical female kendar with wanderlust. But Laika Evergood - as her name was given - was not like most kendar. Brought to the world by an innkeeper and his wife in Hylos, Laika grew up around barfights and the typical anarchic life in a kendar city, and slowly she developed some - to kendar - strange and misplaced sense of fairness. She constantly meddled in the affairs of others if she thought some form of injustice was being done.
Fast forward a few years. Laika has wandered a large part of Ansalon and has beun travelling with a group of various people. Among them is a half-ogre and a minotaur and despite their differences they become good friends. But trouble is brooding (Note; we play post-WoS 5th age) and a - small - blue dragon is threatening a local area. The heroes battle the dragon for almost a full day and it is Laika who delivers the fatal blow to the dragon. While the large beast is busy attacking the large fighters the small kendar - out of curiosity more than anything - decide to see what the dragon is guarding back in the cave. In there she finds half of a broken dragonlance, which has been in the posession of the dragon since the dragon purge.
Laika then attacks the dragon from behind with the broken dragonlance and manage to critically wound it, causing it to collapse on the cave floor to draw its last breath.
Fast forward a few months. Clingning desperately to the broken dragonlance, Laika has now become famous in large parts of Solamnia for her deed and she is commonly named Laika of the Lance.
Enjoying her newfound fame Laika decides to put her fame to good use in righting wrongs and making sure fairness prevails (maybe she took a hit to the head or something!).
She then seeks to be accepted into the Knights of Solamnia, and given her reputation she is accepted without problems, and now she enjoys life as a Knight of the Crown, doing what she loves and enjoying the fame.
So... A Female Kendar Knight of the Crown with a broken Dragonlance! Eat Dirt, HUMA!
Btw, she's currently trying to train a Felldragon to be her steed!?!?!?!
Greatness comes in all sizes.
Before the politcal correctness movement, was there any move on the part of the writers themselves to create female knights of the various orders? I notice that it seems to have happened only as of late.
-Robert
Originally posted by Robert N.
Before the politcal correctness movement, was there any move on the part of the writers themselves to create female knights of the various orders? I notice that it seems to have happened only as of late.
Use of "she" in the class writeup is not an indication of anything but the current policy of mixing up gender usage in descriptions. What's more common at the moment is to refer to the player as "he" and DM as "she" but even this isn't consistent. Either way, it shouldn't bother you.
As for female knights, Riva Silvercrown appeared in the first issue of the (officially sanctioned, at the time) Dragonlance comic book, published in 1988. That character is now head of the Order in Southern Ergoth's Castle Eastwatch, aided by Arlena Plata (who is Silvara, but that's another story). It's not a recent thing by any stretch, especially given Astinus' comments in the novels.
Not allowing female knights in a Dragonlance campaign won't make you a male chauvanist necessarily, but it does mean you haven't been paying attention.
Cheers,
Cam
Before the first cataclism Female Knights were un heard of. None exsisted(I think, don't remember any female Knights in this time period. If I'm wrong my appoligies.)
After the first cataclism when the Knights where in shambles. Female Knights were allowed. Mainly to fill the ranks that were empty due to many Knights leaving the order. Since that time Female's have been allowed into the Knighthood.
Matthew L. Martin
Originally posted by Robert N.
Reguardless, Bold print and pretending not to see the direct connection to Dragonlance does not a moderator make.
FYI, B'naa is a moderator on these forums. After the boards switchover, the non-WizO moderators were not listed as moderators. WizO Paradox is working on remedying that.
Anyway, back to discussion.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
FYI, B'naa is a moderator on these forums. After the boards switchover, the non-WizO moderators were not listed as moderators. WizO Paradox is working on remedying that.
That's right. The moderators are on stealth mode so:
'you better watch out,
you better not flame,
you better go by the coc way,
the moderators cannot be seen.'
Strikingly blonde news reporter: "we now break this public service announcement to go live to the scene of a startling incident over at the Wizards boards. Reporting the story is our very own Gary Coleman lookalike. Gary?"
GC lookalike: "thank you Janice. The Wizards boards staff had been finishing their upgrade of the boards software when it became apparent that all of the moderators had disappeared."
Strikingly blonde news reporter: "disappeared, Gary?"
GC lookalike: "that's right, Janice. Disappeared."
Strikingly blonde news reporter: "what does this mean?"
GC lookalike: "it means to vanish from sight, so that the subject is no longer visible, Janice."
Strikingly blonde news reporter: "that's fascinating, Gary."
GC lookalike: "yes it is, Janice. Anyway, when the matter came to a closer scrutiny the investigators discovered that the moderators had in fact gone stealth."
Strikingly blonde news reporter: "Stealth, Gary?"
GC lookalike: "that's right, Janice. Stealth. They were there, but no one could detect them anymore."
Strikingly blonde news reporter: "is there anything that can be done to the poor moderators, Gary?"
GC lookalike: "I think that a better question at the moment would be: is there anything that can be done to the poor innocent board members who can longer detect the moderators."
Strikingly blonde news reporter: "oh. Thank you Gary. We now return you to regular posting. Good night, this has been a special news report live from the Wizards boards."
Nice song by the way...although you might want to change one letter in the second line (I think it completely changes you apparent original meaning of the song) heh heh
Originally posted by Brimstone
Nice song by the way...although you might want to change one letter in the second line (I think it completely changes you apparent original meaning of the song) heh heh
Doh. :embarrass
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Not allowing female knights in a Dragonlance campaign won't make you a male chauvanist necessarily, but it does mean you haven't been paying attention.
::stands up and claps:: Woo!!! You go Cam!!!
Seriously, though, I don't want to come off as a hit and run flamer, this is an interesting topic. I think that as far as 5th Age campaigns go, there should be no reason why a female could not at least attempt to become a Knight of Solamnia. If I were DMing a 4th age or earlier campaign, I would probably tell the player that wanted to be a knight that the character is going to have to really impress the knighthood, as another poster mentioned in his post about the female kender knight. If the players in your group are serious about their goals, roleplay well, and meet the requirements, why would a DM want to stop them from at least trying to become the class they want to be???
Well, alright. It's your game, you can do what you want - But don't do it under the pretense that female knights did not exist in history. They did. They weren't 'one in a million' like most think, either. They were infrequent and uncommon, and naturally had to work harder to achieve less than their male counterparts, but they did exist.
If anyone cares for game/history context, male knights gain the title 'Sir', and female knights gain the title 'Dame'.
As for the prestige class entry - This collective reaction is a fine example of why they might have done it. We're stuck in a stereotype. Not all Knights of Solamnia have to be Sturm. A pronoun is just a pronoun. It's not the rule.
I just wanted to know, what's up with D&D sexism, specifically if it applied to the Dragonlance Orders, and if that was a fictional element from Dragonlance, or a PC effort by SS or WoTC or even TSR (rip).
As for the historical accuracy of female knights, not one of the people I've spoken with can come up with any proof of anything more than extremely isolated cases, where honorary knighthoods (such as the orden de la Hacha) or the far removed female descendant of single families (such as Anne-Claude-Louise d'Arpajon, who bore the Grand Cross in the Order of St. John) are mentioned.
Sir vs. Dame... that sounds... no that is the SCA title! And, in unbeliveable coincidence, similar to the samurai-ko, which refers to a woman in the samurai 'class' married to a samurai, Dame actually refers to the wife or widow of a knight. Not any mention of knighthood or military command or experience for a female.
Additionally, for those who point to Joan of Arc as a historical examply of a female knight, that's not quite the case. Jeanne d'Arc played a major (and somewhat mysterious) role in rallying the flagging forces of Charles VII against the English occupier in 1429, leading her troups to breaking the siege of Orleans and having Charles VII officially crowned king in Reims the same year. She was later captured and sold to the English, who burned her at the stake for heresy and perjury in 1431, in Rouen. Because of her remarkable actions, Charles VII granted her family arms and nobility. The arms were: Azure a sword per pale argent hilted or between a crown in chief and two fleurs-de-lys of the last. The symbolism of the arms is fairly obvious. She testified at her trial that she never used those arms personally, only displaying her famous banner (white, with an image of God holding the world between two angels, and the words Jhesus Maria).
As for women being in a Knight of the Crown, I'd not have a problem with that in my game, it's just, given my lack of funds to buy many Dragonlance novels, I've not known if this was a PC move on WoTC or not, given that the Orders seem based upon historical knighthoods. It seems that if WoTC discriminates on men with sexist governments that are supposedly "Good", that it would also be the case with those governemnts and orders would also be sexist.
As for B'naa, if you do not see how a question about the sexual policies of the Order of the Crown directly relates to Dragonlance, it's time to retire.
-Robert
Special: Must be able to grow a moustache.
Seriously though, I agree with ElvesRock, Udjat, Cam, DH, MLM, Daedavias, and others. As previously stated, there's no real reason to preclude males or females from any organization under most circumstances. As stated previously, there have been a number of female knights through the ages.
RobertN, Cam pretty much nailed the pronoun usage. WotC didn't start this trend even though they've been doing it for about 5 years, and numerous publishers have either followed suit or blazed the trail (White Wolf was the chief forerunner IIRC).
Originally posted by Eidolon
Seriously though, I agree with ElvesRock, Udjat, Cam, DH, MLM, Daedavias, and others. As previously stated, there's no real reason to preclude males or females from any organization under most circumstances.
That's right! My character Shain Bartis a human male is going to join Cam's Widows of Ansalon because his wife (a female Solamnic knight) died during the War of Souls.
Originally posted by Robert N.
As for the historical accuracy of female knights, not one of the people I've spoken with can come up with any proof of anything more than extremely isolated cases, where honorary knighthoods (such as the orden de la Hacha) or the far removed female descendant of single families (such as Anne-Claude-Louise d'Arpajon, who bore the Grand Cross in the Order of St. John) are mentioned.
-Robert
One of the chief differences between RL and DL knighthoods is the influence of the Church, which has strong ties to most knighthoods. Whereas the Christian Church tended (and tends) to downplay women, the DL religions openly approve of clerics both male and female. This carries over much more easily to military matters, hence a greater chance of having female knights.
Hopefully I haven't just started another problem. I definitely like the Widows of Ansalon idea!
Here are two more knighthoods that were gender-neutral and/or female-centric, for everyone's benefit (also see RobertN's post):
Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, and the Legion of Honor.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
I'll remember your objections next time you complain about folks lifting history and adding it into D&D worlds, Terry.
Oop, I stepped in it. Luckily though, it was simply a matter of people misunderstanding me, rather than me being a "chauvanist pig". I also think this underlines the fact that chauvanists are generally considered to be slimy individuals and bad people, which is why the Knights of Solamnia (being paragons of good) are equal opportunity recruiters.
Oh, I completely agree that women should be allowed to be knights in the core setting. In fact, if I was to writing for the dragonlance line officially (which btw, I don't want to do), I would definately have women as female knights of Solamnia. It will also be the case in anything I post online. Dragonlance is after all about fantasy and certainly women should be able to fantasize about being as strong or as powerful as they wish. As I said, macho women with guns are fun.
At home, unless female players object (which they may) I'm going to have a backlash within the knighthood against "modernizing" influences. I do beleive that people can be good and moral and noble without being correct in their beleifs. As I also said, I love the contrast between the Knights of Nereka (the paragons of evil) recruiting by talent, and the Knights of Solamnia (the paragons of good) recruiting because of an accident of birth (sex and social status).
When I complained about "trends in fantasy" I was pointing out that it is the case that women have to have the biggest pair of balls to be considered a hero. In other words they either have to be either amazons or sorceresses. Whereas I can see my father and my grandfather in various heroic figures in fantasy fiction, I do not recognize my mother and my grandmother. I find that rather distressing.
Originally posted by Elves Rock the House
::takes deep breath, tries to control urge to rip into misogynistic chauvinist...::
Where? ;)
Second, addressing the issue of feats of strength: what major female character in any of the novels has been portrayed as having extraordinary strength?
Karada in the Barbarians trilogy, one of Tol's wives (whose name I forget at the moment) in the Ergoth Trilogy, various short stories, and of course Linsha. If you go beyond DL, it is even worse.
That's not a bad thing in and of itself. As I said, "macho women" are fun to play too. Some guys I know have even played a macho woman a time or two. What I found distressing is that there is a lack of female heroes who aren't either super agile killing machines, or powerful mystical spellcasters. Of course, the same criticism could be made for effeminate men (as many RPGer's are). Raistlin and Drizzt Do'Urden are the most popular of WotC fantasy characters for a reason. There should be more effeminate men who are heroes and not super-agile killing machines, or powerful mystical spellcasters!
Third, I will try to contain my outrage, but please explain how you find that women are unfit for politics???
I don't. Nelly Mclung and Debra Grey are two of my political idols.
In fact, if you read my post again, you'll find that I am all in favour of not only women in politics, but having political institutions for women to undergird their political power in the mainstream. That includes lobby groups, military units, advocacy groups, and circles of social influence at the elite level.
However, do I think old grandpas who things that women are best if kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen are evil? No, I think they can be perfectly decent men... just mistaken in their beleifs. Everybody, no matter how pure, no matter how politically correct, has beleifs that are not acceptable to the mainstream. Whether they admit it or not.
Sorry to continue the hijacking of the thread (what was the original topic again???) but I couldn't help myself. I guess it's all my raging female hormones, right Ferratus?
No, just your eyes. You should read more carefully. ;) Otherwise, I need better grammar.
For a final note, everyone should be allowed to take from life whatever they can squeeze, beat, or pummel out of it. Use the abilities you have, set realistic goals, work hard, think smart. That is the true path to power. Above all, don't let fantasy interfere with the above.
That's the final word I'm going to say about all this. Sorry about the divergence. I went from trying to discuss how it should be the case as to why women are (and should be) in the knighthood, to why women should have their own exlusive organizations in the real world. That was a step I shouldn't have taken, and was completely unnappropriate to the purpose of this message board.
Originally posted by ferratus
What I found distressing is that there is a lack of female heroes who aren't either super agile killing machines, or powerful mystical spellcasters.
I think this just touches on the general broad stereotypes we expect out of fantasy and the exceptions which highlight them. Female characters in fantasy have about as many archetypes as the males do. Men and women share a lot of those archetypes, also, because gender really no longer has any substance in fantasy fiction outside of characterizations.
Even in Chronicles we had some excellent examples of women and men filling each other's stereotypes. Kitiara was extremely bad-ass, yet used her sex to get ahead as often as she used her sword. Raistlin was routinely in a position where he needed a brave, strong man to rescue him. In these examples, the characters are treading in the areas often occupied by the other gender, yet remain characterized as male or female.
Tika, Laurana, and Goldmoon all kick butt as characters, but then ultimately all heroes do. I think we'd think less of Tika if she didn't bash people with a frying pan. And Laurana's shining example of being the Golden General succeeded precisely because she wasn't a Knight of Solamnia.
My suggestion? Mix it up a little. Throw in the occasional archetype-busting character or cross-gendered role. Those are the individuals we tend to remember out of the legions of cliches.
Cheers,
Cam
Finally, I would recommend that all those who can't imagine females as "realistic" knights to read The Deeds of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon...who was in the military herself, as I recall. It's one of the only fantasy series I've ever read that features a by the book paladin (though it's not a D&D novel) as the main character, and though Paksenarrion was a little too goody-goody for my taste, it was very well written, and realistically portrays the life of a soldier.
Originally posted by Elves Rock the House
For fear of incurring the wrath of B'naa in moderator mode, I will make this post short and sweet...
Ever thought about just trying to not be an !@@ ^((#.
Originally posted by Brimstone
Ever thought about just trying to not be an !@@ ^((#.
wow, that's so brilliant. if you have a problem with anything I've written, you could actually write what I said that offended you, instead of proving what a swell guy you are by insulting me. I'm an adult, I was having a discussion with another adult. Get over yourself, little boy. :rollseyes:
Originally posted by Elves Rock the House
wow, that's so brilliant. if you have a problem with anything I've written, you could actually write what I said that offended you, instead of proving what a swell guy you are by insulting me. I'm an adult, I was having a discussion with another adult. Get over yourself, little boy.
I did write what you said that offended me. In fact, I think I quoted it quite clearly.
You being an inconsiderate jerk to Keith, who was just doing his job as Moderator. You obviously felt spanked and humiliated by being put in your place by a person in authority, and couldn't afford to miss an opportunity of getting in a snide comment to someone who didn't deserve it.
You're the one who needs to grow up, not me. "Little boy?" Come on now, that's just childish.
Okay, that's enough, guys. Let's all take a breather here, grab a soda (or adult beverage of your choice), and chill a bit.
The role of women in the Knights of Solamnia, or fantasy in general, is one that is quite fascinating to discuss. Does one go with traditional roles that one sees in historical earth, or does one go against those roles and portray women in a different light?
Unfortunately, it is also the type of discussion that leads to inflammatory remarks or people being offended.
If everyone wishes to continue this discussion, then I would ask that we do so with consideration for other board members and in an intelligent, adult manner. If the discussion continues to be inflammatory, then I will report this thread to the WizOs.
---Your friendly neighborhood moderator.
Originally posted by Brimstone
You being an inconsiderate jerk to Keith, who was just doing his job as Moderator. You obviously felt spanked and humiliated by being put in your place by a person in authority, and couldn't afford to miss an opportunity of getting in a snide comment to someone who didn't deserve it.
Okay...I understand your reasoning for insulting me now, but still don't see how I was being offensive. I referred to B'naa's comment after my original post simply because I wanted to let him know that I was aware that he was watching, how in the world was that snide??? I in no way, shape or form feel "spanked and humiliated" by B'naa's post, I was a community leader on a pregnancy expecting club message board, (yes, I'm a mother) and understand and empathize with the job and responsibility of a moderator. You really did overreact and take my words completely out of context. Perhaps I did the same thing when I remarked on ferratus' posts...but that's why I was posting again, to explain myself. I never expected to get blasted for it, with no explanation.
As for calling you a little boy...I assumed that you were attacking me because I had the audacity to debate with ferratus, and felt that, yes, you were being extremely childish, thus the name calling. So, it's mature when you do it, but I'm out of line when I call you on it???
Originally posted by Elves Rock the House
As for calling you a little boy...I assumed that you were attacking me because I had the audacity to debate with ferratus, and felt that, yes, you were being extremely childish, thus the name calling. So, it's mature when you do it, but I'm out of line when I call you on it???
Nope. It was out of line when I did it too (especially the second post)...but I felt like I needed to call you on it, since you felt like calling me a "little boy."
Anyway...it had abosolutely nothing to do with the debate and everything to do with your debunking the only authority we have around here that keeps this place from turning into another alt.fan.dragonlance atmosphere.
That one comment was rude andcompletely disrespectful to Keith, which I didn't think he deserved, hence the reason for my post. And I felt that I made it completely clear as to what I was responding to. After all, I did quote the only part of your post I was commenting on.
B'naa--I hope you didn't see my remark as being snide or rude, because I had no intention of writing that way. I had no problems with your other post in this thread, and meant no disrespect whatsoever.
Brimstone--I really had no idea why you were calling me a bunch of punctuation marks, and reacted accordingly. I have nothing against you, and as I said, really did not intend to insult anyone.
Ferratus--see my post above, I reacted too strongly without knowing your intent, nothing personal.
umm...so I hope I have covered everyone. thank you, good night. :D
Originally posted by Elves Rock the House
Brimstone--I really had no idea why you were calling me a bunch of punctuation marks, and reacted accordingly. I have nothing against you, and as I said, really did not intend to insult anyone.
I was just defending a friend...
Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit on that (I have a tendency to do that). I'm just going to try and forget this thread....
As for the question about Wizards practices of using "she" and "her" being a editorial decision to represent gender equally or a reference to setting choices, I can say--having been in the editing departmen in the past--that the use of she/her is an editorial one. It is "house style" to alternate between gendered pronouns.
Whether you find Wizards house style to be inanely "Politically Correct" or refreshingly "about dern time" is an opinion that you are unlikely to change in someone else.
So, while you are posting to explain the reasons you love/hate the decision, please refrain from calling your neighbor a nincompoop becuase they do not feel the same.
For fun reading check: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/wom-kn.htm
And as for female samurai, they were expected to fight on the homefront, but not on the front lines. I just finished an historical account of the Shogun era yesterday.
WotC_Mel
What, exactally, is the difference between the DLCS and the Age of Mortals books? I assume that one deals with pre 5th age and the other is 5th age and ahead...but which is which, and am I right to begin with? Thanks for the help...I need to know which to buy, probably both. ;)
The DLCS is the "core" rulebook for Dragonlance. There's no doubt that it gives information on the Age of Mortals, but it also details other time periods and possible campaign settings.
The Age of Mortals sourcebook fleshes out the Fifth Age more thoroughly and includes a new core class as well as new races, prestige classes, critters, and spells.
And, uh, yeah...he/him, she/her, or it/they - go pronouns go.
*gets this sudden image from Spider-Man*
Originally posted by vader42xx
Sorry if this has been said and I missed it, but I have a question.
What, exactally, is the difference between the DLCS and the Age of Mortals books? I assume that one deals with pre 5th age and the other is 5th age and ahead...but which is which, and am I right to begin with? Thanks for the help...I need to know which to buy, probably both. ;)
DLCS is the primary sourcebook for the Dragonlance setting. Age of Mortals focuses on the time period following the Chaos War.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
I think this just touches on the general broad stereotypes we expect out of fantasy and the exceptions which highlight them.
I was thinking about this very thing today while jogging along the river. Is fantasy fiction itself too dependant on violence? Is D&D fiction (DL, FR, DS etc.), a game which is primarily about combat, especially so?
I mean, if you read your average fantasy book, there is usually two or three small fights, then a final big showdown, either against a big boss villain, or a clash of armies, or both.
So is it easy to have main characters who are doing vitally important things, but are not engines of destruction? Could you, in fact, have a fantasy novel where not one drop of blood is shed?
Originally posted by ferratus
So is it easy to have main characters who are doing vitally important things, but are not engines of destruction? Could you, in fact, have a fantasy novel where not one drop of blood is shed?
I should say it's very difficult in today's market. In the 60's, when writers were less strapped into the publishing chair and somewhat more free and loose with their works, there were a number of less violent and more prosaic novels written in what we now call fantasy. There were also some amazingly bloody and violent ones, but we're already familiar with that.
I've known Dungeon Masters who run campaigns with very little sword-swinging and more of the kind of political activity you'd expect from, say, Frank Herbert's Dune. I'm inspired frequently by the series A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin as he has both complex and thoroughly brutal characters mixed in with savvy and hands-off political characters. He's also not too bothered about killing off main characters! That series has a number of appealing female characters who are very different from each other, ditto male characters.
Guardians of Order have the license to produce d20 roleplaying material for the series, too, so that's something to look forward to.
As for bloodless novels, if I had my wits about me I'd suggest some of the ones I was talking about. Silverlock comes to mind, but it's been many years since I read it and I could be mistaken on whether anyone gets killed in it or not.
Cheers,
Cam
So the Age of Mortals book is really only worthwhile if you are planning on playing in the time just after the Chaos War right? Meaning when the Gods are gone, etc. The DLCS starts the setting six months after the War of Souls books right (meaning it's the most current and the AoM book is used for those wanting to play in the past)? Thanks again.
Originally posted by vader42xx
Thanks for the help.
So the Age of Mortals book is really only worthwhile if you are planning on playing in the time just after the Chaos War right? Meaning when the Gods are gone, etc. The DLCS starts the setting six months after the War of Souls books right (meaning it's the most current and the AoM book is used for those wanting to play in the past)? Thanks again.
Age of Mortals covers everything after the Chaos war, from the early Age of Mortals, to the War of Souls, up to the current time period.
While it is focused on that time period, there are lots of goodies in there that players of any age would be interested in. There's the half-kender and Tarmak (brutes) races, the mariner base class, and several prestige classes are usable in any age (i.e. master ambassador and war mage). Plus, rules on "generalist wizards", and tons of geographical info.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
Age of Mortals covers everything after the Chaos war, from the early Age of Mortals, to the War of Souls, up to the current time period.
While it is focused on that time period, there are lots of goodies in there that players of any age would be interested in. There's the half-kender and Tarmak (brutes) races, the mariner base class, and several prestige classes are usable in any age (i.e. master ambassador and war mage). Plus, rules on "generalist wizards", and tons of geographical info.
SWEET:D :bounce: