Interesting analysis Reckall.

I'll give your medieval sources, with their medieval motivations, the benefit of the doubt for now. I have read different books than you, but it was too long ago and I cannot effectively argue against the level of detail you've provided.

Still, she did get captured and died at 19. Surely she did some things wrong leading up to that brutally short career? Could you point to them?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 13, 2023, 07:45:23 AM
Interesting analysis Reckall.

I'll give your medieval sources, with their medieval motivations, the benefit of the doubt for now. I have read different books than you, but it was too long ago and I cannot effectively argue against the level of detail you've provided.

Still, she did get captured and died at 19. Surely she did some things wrong leading up to that brutally short career? Could you point to them?

Mostly, she didn't know when to stop.

After Charles VII was crowned King in Reims, he was basically bankrupt. Joan said that her "mission from God" was to conquer Paris and end the Hundred Years War, but Charles simply couldn't support her with troops and money anymore. She did more than expected with what she had left, but the campaign for Paris sputtered out.

Joan was not captured at Compiegne because "she was betrayed" (another common myth). She led a skirmish outside the city when a superior force of Burgundians surprised her. She refused to retreat inside the city until the rest of her men were safe, and when she attempted to do it, it was too late.

Yet, she was prisoner of the Burgundians, and, while they were allied with the English, their King, Philippe le Bon, was considered one of the most honorable leaders in Europe. The English offered an incredible amount of money for Joan, but Philippe said that Charles had the "first right" to pay her ransom (to be clear, Philippe considered her a heretic, and still basked in the glory of having been the one who captured Joan).

IIRC, the English made four offers, each one with more money than the last, and every time Philippe wrote to Charles - who either didn't answer or said he was not interested, so, at the end, Philippe gave Joan to the English. This is what was considered a most ungrateful act - so dishonourable that Charles actually weakened his political position (Guillaume de Flavy, a captain, governor of Compiegne, who was considered a hero after commanding the defence of the city during very grim times, had his career ruined by the simple fact that Joan was lost under his watch).

No one knows why Charles did this, as, while he was bankrupt, the money for ransoming someone like Joan was not a lot if compared to the one needed to launch another full military campaign (and actually a lot of lords and commanders from both sides had been captured and ransomed: it was that common). Some say that Joan fought on when the King had ordered her to stop, so, technically, she was a traitor. This could have been the legal reason for Charles to say "I can't ransom a traitor", even if not a politically astute move (Charles VII was not a good King at all).

The English, of course, put her on a fixed trial, hoping to prove that she was a fraud, a witch, anything - thus, somehow, undermining the authority of Charles. We know everything about her trial, as some English bishops were truly scared; everything was transcripted verbatim and we even have some personal testimonies (basically: "If we condemn her we are f***ed). Joan, most famously, said "If you believe in God with the fervor you show, you know that you are putting yourself in BIG TROUBLE."

Charles stopped at Reims, Paris was not freed and the Hundred Years War was not stopped. What Joan did was to bring back balance is a war that the French had basically lost, and to undermine the confidence in England about the same thing. In England they started to wonder if France was now worth the trouble, even if the war went on until 1453.

Final factoid. Back in Chinon Joan told to Charles that "either he followed her until the end, or Christianity would suffer unending grief". Fast forward, and Constantinople was menaced by the Ottomans. They were so desperate that they sent emissaries to the Pope with this offer: "If you help us, we will become Catholic." Imagine. However the Pope couldn't launch a Crusade with the two biggest Christian Kingdoms locken in an unending war (and not even shortly thereafter, as it was impossible to recover strength in time - not to mention that another war would have caused revolts in both kingdoms). Aniway, the Hundred Years War ended in 1453 after the battle of Castillion - the same year that Constantinople fell. Make of this what you want.

[We have to throw a last bone to the "Myth! Hearsay! I don't need to READ!" crowd - don't we? ]

Quote from: Reckall on August 13, 2023, 09:04:36 AM
[We have to throw a last bone to the "Myth! Hearsay! I don't need to READ!" crowd - don't we? ]

"The smaller the mind, the greater the conceit." – Aesop

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 09:25:28 AM

Quote from: Reckall on August 13, 2023, 09:04:36 AM
[We have to throw a last bone to the "Myth! Hearsay! I don't need to READ!" crowd - don't we? ]

"The smaller the mind, the greater the conceit." – Aesop

"Let's see if you have the self control not to have the last word." - Grognard GM

Quote from: Reckall on August 13, 2023, 09:58:53 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 09:25:28 AM

Quote from: Reckall on August 13, 2023, 09:04:36 AM
[We have to throw a last bone to the "Myth! Hearsay! I don't need to READ!" crowd - don't we? ]

"The smaller the mind, the greater the conceit." – Aesop

"Let's see if you have the self control not to have the last word." - Grognard GM

This has turned into an intellectual slap fight.  I brought popcorn so continue.

You know what Reckall, I think you are arguing in good faith. You do not seem to be motivated by ideological revisionism on this occasion.

Your citations are detailed, extensive and balanced. They might not all be 100% reliable (as always with historic sources), but I can't prove that, so they are good enough for me to accept at this time and move on.

I will say it was confusing earlier when you kept jumping from talking about real women to fictional women and back. I know the points you were trying to make, but tangling them up like that didn't do you any favors.

I think people get emotional and defensive about this topic because (rightly or wrongly) it feels like part of the ongoing project to minimize or vilify whatever place males as males have in the world and history. Some factions are eager to say:
1) men are more hostile, more violent, more criminal, and more perverted as a biological fact.
AND
2) Liberated women are equal or even superior to men in strength, boldness, and other warrior qualities, on top of being the more important reproductive role.

That sure makes men look like nothing but downsides, doesn't it? Almost like sub-humans next to the morally, intellectually, physically superior women. 

You can understand how that makes people defensive. So sure, the 'warrior woman' trope was mostly an amusing bit of spice added to old fiction, but these days she's often bundled up with some unpleasant connotations.

Personally, I see no problem with making room for Bradamante types in games about Charlemagne's legends, the same way we handwave away Charlemagne's uglier massacres. But I understand why some people want to keep her super rare or non-existent.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 13, 2023, 11:51:56 AM
I will say it was confusing earlier when you kept jumping from talking about real women to fictional women and back. I know the points you were trying to make, but tangling them up like that didn't do you any favors.

I mentioned Joan of Arc as the "real world" counterpart of these heroines, as in good popular culture there always something "real" one could relate to."From great powers come great responsibilities" may have been popularized by Spiderman, but the core concept is good wisdom for everyday life.

The super heroines of that age were very rare (again, every cycle of tales had them, but the rule was "one or two, with the stray sorceress" - amid scores of males). They acted alone, were independent and single-minded, and pulled feats that many men had failed to do. They also had a clear destiny: either, soon or later, become a gentlewoman, or die.

Notice how all the above can be applied to Joan of Arc. She was an exception. She had talents that astounded her generals. She didn't obliterate whole English armies - but, in a way, she did (just think to the battle for La Tourelle). She could stop at Reims and become from a nun to, dunno, the manager of a dance club. Instead she fought on - and this led to her death.

This is why I mentioned her, and for no other reason. In a fantastic tale many things become... well, fantastic - but it is always interesting to look beyond the symbolic and find the real inspiration.

Then the stray guy arrives, spews the most banal myths about Joan, states that he doesn't believe in those myths (NO WAY!) and thus what I had written about Joan (i.e. everything but) was wrong. And, oh, those female warriors from the legends couldn't exist because it is proved that they can't exist in the real world (NO WAY 2!) Fine, here are my sources. Yours? (I'm still waiting)

Quote
I think people get emotional and defensive about this topic because (rightly or wrongly) it feels like part of the ongoing project to minimize or vilify whatever place males as males have in the world and history.

This is the reason why I wrote how Joan cut feminism at the knees immediately. SHE was on a mission from God, the other women had to obey their husbands and fly low.

Quote
Some factions are eager to say:
1) men are more hostile, more violent, more criminal, and more perverted as a biological fact.
AND
2) Liberated women are equal or even superior to men in strength, boldness, and other warrior qualities, on top of being the more important reproductive role.

...And I wrote how, at the end, these fun heroines decided that their final arc was to become a "gentlewoman" (or die). I explicitly wrote: some think that the final message was "a woman doesn't belong to an arm and armors world". I wrote this in this very thread, you can check. It is fun to have them around (maybe the kids in those times wanked thinking of Bradamante - even if, personally, I would have wanked more thinking of Marfisa; Clorinda was a clear PitA). But then everyone, characters and readers, has to grow up.

Quote
That sure makes men look like nothing but downsides, doesn't it? Almost like sub-humans next to the morally, intellectually, physically superior women. 

They weren't, and for a very good reason. If Tancredi wasn't on Clorinda's level, Clorinda had no merit. Think about woke productions and you will see how this is the truly enormous mistake that is leading them to their doom.

Quote
You can understand how that makes people defensive. So sure, the 'warrior woman' trope was mostly an amusing bit of spice added to old fiction, but these days she's often bundled up with some unpleasant connotations.

I'm a writer, and right now I'm writing a script for a comic book (156 pages) with two female leads: a blind criminologist from Paris and a matter-of-fact policewoman from Montpellier. They are the best in what they do but flawed elsewhere. Actually, my favorite character is the long-suffering boyfriend of the policewoman - condemned to always point to her the obvious that she missed. He is a bit what Faramir is for Eowyn.

What I fear is that many common tropes - common because they are interesting - risk to be thrown away with the bath water. "Prey" is not a perfect movie, but I liked it. The plot? A Comanche girl kills a Predator in the 1700s. This started screams of "wokeism!" for a movie that it is not woke at all. What was once an interesting concept that made you go to see a movie ("A Comanche girl kills a Predator?? I want to see the scene!") now causes knee-jerk reactions. We can't lose this.

As far as the female uber knight needing to be a NPC so as not to upstage the PC's...why? Sure the woman is an incredible warrior...in her own story. But the world of Pendragon is a world full of such heroes.

Any knight of the Round Table, for instance, could be the hero protagonist of a book series or action movie. The Arthurian tales are akin to when the Avengers assemble for a team-up.

Celtic myth is an extreme example of this kind of thing. Practically every footnote character is the strongest/fastest/bravest in his county, often with a magic backstory and enchanted item.

A final pop culture analogy would be John McClane. In Die Hard he single handedly takes out a small army of heavily armed terrorists, and survives with reasonably minor wounds. But how exceptional would he be if John Matrix (Commando), Chance Boudreaux (Hard Target) and J.J. McQuade (Lone Wolf McQuade) shared his universe?

"Yet, I hear more and more about "Chaosium going woke". Do they now just force pronouns or woke content is seeping in the published material? What about Call of Cthulhu? I have all I need (i.e. compatibility with 40+ years of published material) but the thought of CoC with "trigger warnings" is hilarious. "

Chaosium has been headquartered in Berkeley for decades. It's amazing they aren't more woke.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 13, 2023, 06:15:06 PM
"Yet, I hear more and more about "Chaosium going woke". Do they now just force pronouns or woke content is seeping in the published material? What about Call of Cthulhu? I have all I need (i.e. compatibility with 40+ years of published material) but the thought of CoC with "trigger warnings" is hilarious. "

Chaosium has been headquartered in Berkeley for decades. It's amazing they aren't more woke.

^This^

Although I believe that they are out of the bay area now - it truly is amazing that the woke is really only now starting to trickle in to any visible extent.

But I do think that they know in the back of their minds that their core audience would balk if they went full Baizuo or Wotzi on them. They are an old company with lots of grognard goodwill yet to loose...


Honestly I could care less if Joan of Arc was good at what she did or not. Because fundamentally it just doesn't matter.

Joan of Arc was an exceptional case. Not an example of the typical woman during her era.

All the myths and historical cases cited in this thread are of exceptional women. Not how the overwhelming majority of the women in those times and places acted and behaved.

I don't disagree that there can be exceptional women.

What I am against is taking those examples of exceptional women, and using those outliers to push the narrative that what they did was not unusual for women in general.

It's like if I was making a swashbuckling RPG, and in my setting info I used the example of the stories of La Maupin to construe that Swordswomen that routinely defeated men, wore men's clothes, and seduced nuns, was not something too out of place for the time and era...

That would be an absolutely ridiculous assertion to make.

And I think that is why you see the pushback against "Female Knights" being a general thing.

"But, But, the PC's are supposed to be exceptional! So being one of those exceptional females is no big deal for a PC because 'muh fantasy RPG..."

Cry me a river.

That's not the point. Intent Matters.

If they just had a sidebar explaining the exceptional cases during Chargen, and 'talk to your GM'; no one would care. Plenty of games do that.

But noooo, the message presented is clearly this:

"We now have FEMALE knights (with bonus holes) because 'muh diversity and inclusion! You must celebrate this!"

"Wait, what? Why!?"

"You dare look askance!? Bigot! Misogynist! Bigoted misogynist right here!!!"


So yeah, Chaosium might just get a little push back...

Quote from: Jaeger on August 13, 2023, 07:24:15 PMAll the myths and historical cases cited in this thread are of exceptional women. Not how the overwhelming majority of the women in those times and places acted and behaved.

I don't disagree that there can be exceptional women.

What I am against is taking those examples of exceptional women, and using those outliers to push the narrative that what they did was not unusual for women in general.

It's like if I was making a swashbuckling RPG, and in my setting info I used the example of the stories of La Maupin to construe that Swordswomen that routinely defeated men, wore men's clothes, and seduced nuns, was not something too out of place for the time and era...

That would be an absolutely ridiculous assertion to make.

And I think that is why you see the pushback against "Female Knights" being a general thing.

Indeed. When we saw the female marines in Aliens, there wasn't any pushback or complaint. Vasquez was even shown as being tough and sassy, but they didn't show this by making the male marines weak little bitches, and while she walked the walk, there was no hint that she could dominate someone like Hicks if shit went down. The ratios were good too, several females, but very much a minority.

Cut to modern media where the women are swaggering badasses that are the intimidating leaders, melee combatants, and heavy weapon fighters. Having women as combat leaders, as the 'strong guy,' as at least 50% of the warriors...it just screams a lack of verisimilitude, and the mind rebels. In period settings it becomes a clown show.

Quote from: Jaeger on August 13, 2023, 07:24:15 PM"But, But, the PC's are supposed to be exceptional! So being one of those exceptional females is no big deal for a PC because 'muh fantasy RPG..."

Cry me a river.

That's not the point. Intent Matters.

If they just had a sidebar explaining the exceptional cases during Chargen, and 'talk to your GM'; no one would care. Plenty of games do that.

But noooo, the message presented is clearly this:

"We now have FEMALE knights (with bonus holes) because 'muh diversity and inclusion! You must celebrate this!"

"Wait, what? Why!?"

"You dare look askance!? Bigot! Misogynist! Bigoted misogynist right here!!!"

Again, yes. The swap from exceptional to widespread. Red Sonja turns from a unicorn, always underestimated (often to her benefit), to dime a dozen.

Much like with Hollywood and British movies. Let's set something in Georgian England, then make half the cast Black and Indian. "But Georgian England had a tiny minority of Black people and Indians, so it's possible, bigot!" But is it REPRESENTATIVE? I wouldn't advertise something set in 16th century Japan by making it all about Portugese traders! Make it an option, sure, but they make the exceptions the rule.

Quote from: Jaeger on August 13, 2023, 07:24:15 PM
Although I believe that they are out of the bay area now -

They are in Hayward about 15 miles south of Berkley on the I-580

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 08:02:17 PM
Indeed. When we saw the female marines in Aliens, there wasn't any pushback or complaint. Vasquez was even shown as being tough and sassy, but they didn't show this by making the male marines weak little bitches, and while she walked the walk, there was no hint that she could dominate someone like Hicks if shit went down. The ratios were good too, several females, but very much a minority.

Regarding "Aliens", Sigourney Weaver said that she didn't really want to do a sequel because she hadn't faith in the ability of a different writer (than Dan O'Bannon) to write Ripley. She said "It is easy to write Ripley as a basketball coach. You go there! You do that! Go! Go! Ripley is scarred and deeply scared. Much of her strength and cool come from desperation..."

Then she read James Cameron's script and immediately fell in love with how he had written Ripley. Having said  that, my favourite scene from "Aliens" is when she faces the Queen in her nest. ONE egg opens (and maybe it was by mistake!) and Ripley obliterates everything. Even she had a Clorinda moment.

Vasquez is much beloved because she is part of the group of marines, full parity. She is desperate when Drake dies and almost loses it (their backstory was that they grew up together in a prison for underage criminals). She may joke about Hudson but they are fully professional when the s**t hits the fan. When I first saw "Aliens" in the theatre and she "makes peace with Gorman" I almost cried.

A very underrated scene is when Ripley tries to explain the nature of the menace to the Marines, and they laugh - because they have seen and fought a lot of things, and who is this civilian? So Ripley confronts Vasquez and says that she, too, hopes that everything will be a joke. Pause. "Because one of those creatures killed all my crew in less than 24 hours. And we don't know how many colonists may have been exposed." All of sudden Ripley switches to something that the Marines can understand very well, and immediately the whole atmosphere changes. Hicks is the first to realise that this s**t can be very dangerous, but Vasquez understands it too and shuts up. This is how you write "strong female characters".

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 13, 2023, 06:15:06 PM
Chaosium has been headquartered in Berkeley for decades. It's amazing they aren't more woke.

I met Greg Stafford once in a convention and he went around for three days wearing a Confederate uniform. I guess that things started to slide after his death...

Quote from: Shipyard Locked on August 13, 2023, 11:51:56 AM
You know what Reckall, I think you are arguing in good faith. You do not seem to be motivated by ideological revisionism on this occasion.

You are mistaken, unfortunately.  Let's examine the original topic of this thread: Did Chaosium go woke?  How did that get to Renaissance poetry and Aliens?  Because Reckall wasn't asking a question.  He was laying bait.  Note that his interactions here have not been information-seeking.  He has consistently attempted to defend/rebut/dismiss examples that might answer his question.  That's because his question was simply an attempt to argue the point... not as a genuine attempt to answer that question.

This thread could have been over in two or three posts.  For example, how do you define "woke"?  If we frame the definition as follows: "Woke is when modern leftist political concerns are shoe-horned into games where they are not necessary (for the game's conceit)."  Has Chaosium done so?  Yes.  One example is adding pronoun spaces to characters sheets for games that take place long before even modern leftists supported the idea of transgenderism.  Then there are changes made to Pendragon and warnings added to CoC, neither of which were necessary for the conceits of the game (and were obviously motivated by politics).  Thread over.

But now everyone has gotten into the weeds over Joan of Arc and other irrelevancies.  Which IS the point of the "question."  Let's see if we can't defuse some criticism of woke infiltration of the hobby via obfuscation and arguing irrelevancies.

Chaosium has bent the knee.  Arguing over whether it's the right or left knee doesn't change that fact...