Brovo

Holding Corperations responisble for their pollution.

It's hard to measure, quantify, and enforce an appropriate response to a corporation doing environmental damage. Our very existence as a species causes environmental damage: We need trees for homes, concrete for roads, gasoline for cars, jet fuel for jets, plastic for fucking everything, and so on. Should we punish people for cutting down trees to make log cabins, or for buying them from Home Depot for Christmas holidays? Should we levy bans on goods that use genetic modification to enhance the output of farms? Because if we do, a lot of people are going to starve to death very quickly. Should we punish people who kill animals, even if its for food or to control pest populations that would otherwise overwhelm the environment?

Yes, it sucks that oil is occasionally spilled. Yes, the companies that do that should pay for it in some manner. Do I have any idea how to do that? No. I'm not going to feign super intelligence or something else along those lines. Hell to write this post it required several hundred miles of network cables to send this data--which is using electricity to be produced--down a line to a server that is probably raping an electricity bill somewhere.

It's the price of industrialization. Without it, though, none of us would be having this conversation, and a lot more of us would be already dead due to some disease or otherwise.

That being said... A monetary fine maybe? How to enforce that, though, and what amount is "fair", is spilling oil in some areas better than in others, how do we make it price point viable for them to continue making a profit... :-\ Because remember, any increased costs thrown on a corporation, will be passed along to the consumer. If it costs 50 cents more to make a certain brand of toy for example due to new safety laws or otherwise, that 50 cent cost will be passed along to the people buying it, because the stockholders in that company sure as shit won't be happy with the bottom line getting screwed.

Bah. Too hard to think of a clear answer. Issue is not black and white. Needs further thought.

Modern Feminism

To update my views: I will never take modern feminism seriously when shit like this is given significantly more time, effort, funding, and even celebrity support and commercialization, than, say... This immense travesty of human rights.

That's not to say that there can't be good arguments from modern feminism, don't get me wrong. There can be. There are some feminists that still reflect the ideology of equality for all under the face of the law, scrutiny of the government, and ability to work and live independently. I like those feminists. I count some of them as friends even if we don't always agree on how that equality should be found, created, or even enforced...

... But seriously. I could never call myself a feminist while shit like the above example happens so staggeringly often as to warrant understanding why some would outright dismiss feminism as a lost cause at this point. (Because, really, if all it took to persuade a girl to cease and desist all leadership roles was a single word, then they're not fit to be leaders. As this isn't the case, bossy is probably not the issue. It probably has a lot more to do with, say, biology, sociology, and psychology, and all the complexities that come with that territory... Than a word.)

Legend of Renalta 2 (Dark Fantasy)

Amazonia Imperiia post delayed: Waiting on a post from Icarus and continuing a collaboration with Brand, something I forgot to do. My bad.

Y'all may also notice some changes to the first two OOC posts over the next few days. I finally worked out a solution to lore being... Unwieldy to say the least. Also hinting at something in the future.

@First Blow: Gat stumbled on one of the Gargoyle's weaknesses, and now a demon joins your ranks... Oh ho ho. Now things are getting interesting.

Also, FYI: Thailen would have sustained a significant wound had she been hit while off balance. Thailen's life was saved by Maher. Teamwork! Fuck yeah!

Legend of Renalta 2 (Dark Fantasy)

"Yet they didn't force the door open? So they must have found a switch or something? That or something else." -Sarzu, Page 2.

First Blow

Wren heard the commands issued by Thailen and after a brief moment of hesitation, decided to follow them with a quick nod of approval. It seemed likely though that she would have preferred to remain fighting the Gargoyle rather than move to engage her dead compatriots. It was at this point that the undead gecko came running over to her and with an unholy sounding squeal of joy, hopped onto her ankle and quickly dashed up her side, to her shoulder. A soft smile indicated she knew it and was even reassured that it had survived. Underneath her cloak, though, was the reason why she was likely important to the plan: A strange looking, red coloured tube with a fuse and a painted dragon's warhead were attached... A dragon rocket from the Kingdom of Dreams.

Thailen's attack came first, as the others had to reposition to surround it after all, and with a resounding snap the whip strikes the Gargoyle's wrist... Though after a moment it grabs the whip before it can return to Thailen, and with a vicious grin it yanks on it with unholy levels of strength, pulling her a couple feet into the air and rendering her out of balance. "Zealots came before you, and died, female, what chance do you think you have when your male counterparts all fell before the wrath of my master?" It states smugly as it dives for her. The attack likely would have succeeded if not for Maher's assault. The creature didn't seem able to detect magic, and thus thought it could ignore the water heading its way, but was surprised when struck with it. It is pushed a few feet away from Thailen, and for a moment, twitches, almost like it had been stunned by the blow, but there was no serious damage apparent on its skin. Still. It was something, and it was now only five feet away from Erasmus.

At the same time, Alex's shots pierce through the fog accompanied by the sounds of what seemed like thunder emanating from him as it echoed from the top of the hill. Both shots find their marks, one blowing out a knee cap and the other blowing apart a head. That left two of the undead shambling up the hill: One now crawling up with its arms, and the other untouched. Just as Wren was about to move to engage, ignoring Alex's request to watch his back, something appeared from the shadows cast by the fog behind the remaining undead. The single remaining functional undead turns, only to receive a crossbow bolt through the head. As it falls, the form of D.H. can be seen, his demonic origins clearly visible even now.

D.H. Himself arrived as reinforcements from the ship, a late arrival that then crossed the few hundred feet of sea with haste using his aeromancy, boosted and aided by a few mages on the deck of the ship. A few quick footed steps through the fog and there he was, ready to assist the group at large. What he would do now, however, was entirely up to him... Though his intuition as a wanderer likely told him that strength in numbers and caution around Thailen would be the best principles he could wield.

The Library

chukklehed said
Cold AND motherly. That takes skill.

Essentially speaking, the combination of traits makes sense when put into this light.
Cold: Her father was a recluse, fell deeply in love, got married. Alexander (her father) lost his wife to childbirth: McKenzi. Her father eluded sorrow by diving head first into his work, science in general, but based around spirits and amplifying or lowering the powers of said spirits, a weapons specialist essentially who disguised his work to his daughter as being "for the greater good of humanity." McKenzi looked up to her father throughout her childhood and the two did care for each other, though she mimicked his outward nature of being absolutely logically-driven, and this carried on into her own work of becoming a scientist, like her father.

After Alexander interrogated her viciously, though, she's having a bit of an identity crisis, but seeing as how being cold is the only way she knows to control her emotions and think clearly enough to keep her allies protected, she clings to it like a sailor overboard to a piece of wood.

Motherly: While outwardly she's cold and logical, she didn't exactly lead a bad life. She mimicked her father in many aspects but she still became educated, lived moderately well off, had childhood friends, and had many normal aspects of life. Being that her father told her that he was working to better humanity (little did she know that he considered weapons tech "bettering" humanity) she learned in childhood to value life and other people. She expresses this in missions by devising plans and covering allies, making sure they can succeed without coming to harm.

Her abilities reflect this: She's mainly utility-based, she can make an ally invisible, or mind control an opponent to stop them from harming an ally. Her mental and emotional scarring are also reflected in her ability kit through Jester, a malevolent, callous being that does whatever it can to entertain itself. Even at the cost of human life, though he protects Bishop so that he can keep his tether to the world intact. Most of her abilities are mind-based, making people hallucinate or go mad, invisibility to the eyes of others, mind control, etc.

I love this character, she's one of the best I've ever made. :3

The Library

chukklehed said Anyway, I was bored so I made a list of my characters Likes/Dislikes.

Hmm...

McKenzi Bishop: Cold, motherly, logic-based, emotionally-scarred.
Likes: Vologhn, mercy, kindness, positivity, optimism tempered by realism, logic, tactics & strategy, leaders who listen to her advice, Jester.
Dislikes: Jester, blind hatred, pessimism, emotionally-driven acts (especially in combat!), lone wolves, obscenely arrogant leaders (especially men!), committing murder with a smile.

Kurotori Uekira: Disciplined, foreigner, born for war.
Likes: Strength, discipline, competency, women who "understand" their place, honour, those who understand his culture, spirits, indomitable will.
Dislikes: Weak men, women who buck traditionalism, disrespect towards elders, incompetency, hatred, pain and death levied against children and women, failure, lone wolves.

Abortion Discussion

mdk said
I was about to respond to this, but then this happened.and I just started laughing out loud.Tell you what.Can we be done now?

... You mean the part where I connected your political beliefs to other parts of your political beliefs to put into question the logic behind why one thing is okay and another is not despite them having similar consequences?

Then declaring that an ad hominem has taken place whilst simultaneously using an ad hominem?

My, why yes, I think we are done here.

Legend of Renalta 2 (Dark Fantasy)

@Everyone: I'll be posting on Tuesday/Wednesday for the first two missions, whether or not you're ready. *Pushing ahead*

Abortion Discussion

mdk said
Where it fails is 'at the woman's expense,' in that it implies this is a pure negative for the mother (most mothers tend to disagree). I would argue it's a symbiotic relationship. This allows for some 'parasitic' traits, but as a more general (and significantly less loaded) term, also acknowledges the positive aspects of the relationship.Neither is technically correct, because all forms of symbiont (including parasites) are required to be of another species from the host; biologically speaking this is natural reproductive process, which cannot be categorized in either sense we're talking about. But, hey, language is cooler than science, so eff it.

Feelings =/= Technicality.

There are no medical benefits to having a baby developing in the womb. It consumes resources, makes the host more vulnerable to diseases, and can potentially result in the death of the host upon its escape.

An example of a symbiotic relationship is nurse sharks cleaning other fish. Nurse sharks remove parasites in exchange for amnesty from larger predators.

A baby doesn't give any construable positive benefits to its mother aside from emotional ones, which can vary from person to person, ergo nonscientific, and not technical.

I'm pro-choice because after a woman has been given all possible options and is informed of the consequences of each decision she advocates to be allowed to abort a baby, she should be allowed. After all, as I recall, you don't believe in welfare states--yet tens of thousands of impoverished people would starve to death without them. There are people who live or die off the taxes you make on your paycheck, and in a construable sense of the word, you wish to abort fully developed adults who are incapable of standing on their own financially, but you are against a woman having the right to choose to abort a parasitic entity in a world where we have so many orphan children or single parent children that we are actually in a crisis concerning what to do with them... In the first world. Don't even get me started on the third world.

A christian woman can choose not to have an abortion. A non-christian woman shouldn't be forced down the same path because of some republican rhetoric that states that babies are special and adults are cannon fodder.

Gender Roles in Fantasy/Historic Roleplay, where to draw the line

ShonHarris said I see what you mean and would agree if history weren't recorded by humanity.

"History is merely the chronicling of events based on the perspectives of those who lived within those times and what physical evidence remains of it all.



Perspectives are verified to physical evidence left behind. Fields like Archeology contribute to this immensely. There are some assumptions made based on quality of character, such as when Alexander the Great or Caesar makes a claim about a conquest, and it's verified by several other sources of the times, it probably happened. This is why the Bible isn't considered historical literature: Many of the events contained within have no physical evidence, or worse still, contradictory evidence, such as the Egyptians recording no great flood, pestilence, frogs, mass first child deaths, or even a mass slave escape by Jewish peoples.

History isn't perfect, but it's as close to it as we can make it, and is constantly edited and repaired as more information is discovered about our pasts. Ergo why Archeology is a science.

If anything, history reveals nobody is particularly squeaky clean. Nobody.

ShonHarris said As an idea history should not have failings, as it should be an objective account of what happened. However, history is recorded and in a sense sculpted by people, each group, and within reach group each individual holding their subjective wants and passions. History is absolutely chronicling of events based on the perspectives of those who lived, but if those who lived held a perspective not actually the truest account -- just the only surviving one-- then really history is an attempt at objectivity that can be bought and manipulated by influence. Physical evidence is also a great way of finding objective truth, but many peoples have destroyed any remnants or accounts of their enemies, either leaving gaps or placing false histories.

I don't hear about placing false histories. Ancient peoples didn't tend to care for such things. They just cared to have the land, slaves, and less enemies.

ShonHarris said So, I would say that history should be a like science in that it should be objective, but history has really proven that there is often more to it than what's visible at the surface -- ironically, history shining light on history.

That's what history does though. Because history is based in the sciences. Science changes opinions on things when new evidence is revealed about it. That's literally how it works. Honestly. :-3

ShonHarris said All that just to say, I agree with you abstractly, but in reality, I would say history have failings in relation to the people and peoples it describes.

... Generally, yes? History's goal isn't to identify the true nature of people as that task is impossible even now save to perhaps psychologists. It's to identify the best truth we can. Stuff like Joan de Arc's witch trials. We have her word and the church's word. One truth and the other truth. History's job is to do the best it can in representing what the truth of it all was. It's not perfect because information is missing and some information is misleading, and that's how it works... But then, history often provides different versions of the same tale or conflict for everyone to read. Mein Kampf is for sale after all.

ShonHarris said We look with a modern eye and I don't think it's necessary to remove judgement of our predecessors simply because we're born later.

Except yes it is. They literally didn't know better. This is like being condescending to a child because they aren't born knowing calculus and Shakespeare. Well, older peoples weren't born knowing what we know about genders and the sciences and social revolutions. There was no feminism as we know it, no social justice, most of the time there wasn't even the shrewdest sense of equality but plenty of people who felt righteous and indignant towards those around them. That was all they knew. To them, the world was flat, God was real (to the point of killing anyone who disagreed or decrying them as insane), there was no sovereign rights of a country that couldn't easily be annihilated even against first world powers with sufficient Cassus Belli, the diplomatic consequences of war were often totally irrelevant in the eyes of the rest of the world powers, world powers constantly shifted in strength...

It was a chaotic time. To judge our ancestors for what we know now is to damn the ignorant for their lack of knowledge... In doing so, we are jackasses laughing at our reflection in the mirror, as we'll be mocked soon enough by our descendents for how backwards we were.

We can learn from them only if we first accept them for what they were. Primitive, and living in terrifying times.

ShonHarris said I know! Besides the imaginative worlds and evolving plots, that's another thing I enjoy about your roleplays.

The only way to learn from the past is to explore it in all of its beauty, and all its flaws. That is the only way to further illuminate the wall.

ShonHarris said I agree with you and see how my lack of elaboration could be misconstrued. I did not mean suggest that male dominance would be solved by simple exchange, resulting in female dominance. What I meant to say, is that media representation already favours a specific group of people based on a specific set of characteristics.

They're what the industry calls the FOTM, or flavour of the month. Things come and go as society changes and people grow weary of old archetypes and want to see new ones. ex: Disney princesses used to be portrayed along the lines of Sleeping Beauty--something to be won, a damsel in distress in every traditional way. Now they're more like Mulan or Merida, strong women who take charge of situations and move forward, or like Tiana, someone who is deliberately non-white in a traditionally white-dominated role (princess).

Even in ye olde times, the idea of what should and shouldn't be portrayed in the media, what was and wasn't popular, changed as society did and people's tastes did. This ranges wildly, from a True Roman to a Powerful Celtic Warrior, to an honour-bound knight, and onwards through to a gentleman with a pistol and a learned mind. A war hero, a medic, a healer, the rise of the anti-hero to surpass their traditional cousin of the ideology hero, and so on.

Hell, even in The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones we have examples of non-whites getting clear character development, and women in powerful roles such as knights. Battlestar Galactica featured Starbuck (albeit not the best example imho), and so on.

Expect more as time passes. It's very much a generational thing, just like hair or clothing styles.

That being said, there's no reason to exclude traditional or FOTM choices. They only service to enrich the tool box. One can even use them to validate new forms: Having a party which contains the traditional mentor, the middle aged war veteran, with some younger woman or otherwise who becomes a fighter over the course of the story... Kind of like boxing. This also tends to be the more accepted and believable method of portraying a world: Because that's the world we live in today.

I'm not trying to say that your way is wrong, just that there are other ways to do it that might get better results. :-3

ShonHarris said The roleplays I take part in and create are media, though not that broadcasted compared to film or published literature. Because of this I constantly try to flip our expectations to create questions. I recognize that creating a world that reflects history is safe as it abides by our records -- not fault on me, logically. I recognize that creating a world where things are pretty balanced tempts a few questions and gets things flowing -- bit riskier, but I'm not exposing myself to get those questions. Finally, I recognize and prefer to create worlds that have elements that are drastic, overt when they appear, and bring big questions. I do not have a quota for how many female bodied leaders should be in my roleplays, but I consider what powers my ideas reflect in history and fiction and how they might've been different were a few apparent characteristics flipped -- would it really be different?

It... Actually is very different even simply flipping the gender on a historical piece. There are reasons why Elizabeth and Isabella are known as remarkable women, and why that's one of their most memorable traits. According to biology, men have more testosterone. Testosterone inspires aggression. Men also evolved to be more disposable than their female counterparts: A few men with several women can continue the species, or tribe. Several men with few women is a species-ending event, or at least a death knell to the tribe. Ergo men, with their increased aggression, developed a need to prove themselves worthy. To gain power, respect, adulation, and so on. Women became the caretakers because they were the ones who had to carry children within them, and being wired to be less aggressive, tended to be better suited to be caregivers.

Entire societies and cultures built up around this biologically wired tendency.

So yes, to change just the gender alone in a historically based piece is enough to destabilize all of history. Because it goes against our instincts that our primitive ancestors depended on. It's also why a lot of conservatives tend to resist change: It goes against every intrinsic feeling they have.

It's a very difficult topic to appropriately broach and explore, especially if one wants to do it realistically, which is another reason why a lot of people tend to go to fantasy. It's an easier method to explore such topics without making something unbelievable out of it. Because once you break suspension of disbelief, it's over, your audience is gone.

ShonHarris said I see a lot of characters who are male and white, and I know in the shared lore common today this fits the profile for a hero in most of fiction. I get that.

And that sucks, but it's changing, slowly. When generation Y takes the helm of the film industry expect to see a lot more LGBT and female empowerment characters, as well as some minorities getting more spotlights. Another generation after that and things should ideally stabilize quite nicely, but I still encourage you to definitely continue what you're doing. "Wait, Brovo, didn't you just say--" yes, that the traditional archetypes shouldn't be taken out back and shot just because they're usually white and male, but that's no reason to not make a Hispanic heroine, or a black captain, or a so on and so forth. The more of these appear, the better, until things stabilize. (Note: Equalizing doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, perfect-- a 60/40 split that flips on its head from time to time would be perfect for FOTM reasons and will likely be what ultimately happens given enough generational change.)

ShonHarris said So I want to see if anything changes when the heroes don't match up with that expectation any more.

It changes as much as the author and audience wish it to. The magic of fiction is that the words will always reflect what you will them to. I can think of no better example than comic books and their evolution through the decades. The golden, silver, and bronze age of comics each showed entirely different flavours of the exact same characters, right from their origins to their potential endings. Batman had a corny 60's TV show, which contrasts heavily against the new film series that puts him through a lot more pain and depicts him in a more human light, entirely destroying the corniness that the 60's show had, and that's honestly probably the worst example I can think of.

ShonHarris said See I agree with you that a character is interesting because of their character, not because they lack specific genitalia and rule. My way of engaging that topic is to change the common lore though. The heroes could be white males, absolutely, but the canon I personally create is apt to be more diverse with a range of populations based on the world's history and challenges. So yes, yes, a thousand times yes to what you're saying. I just choose to go about a bit differently, not thinking that reversing majorities magically changes everything, but creating a world where the lore reflects our own in substance, just not appearances. I think that's something that I love about the Assassin's Creed label.

Footnote: Assassin's Creed is probably not the best example of racial diversity in gaming, but then, Battlestar Galactica's Starbuck is not the best example of a strong female character, so yeah, I get what you're saying.

ShonHarris said While I wish they'd push more boundaries, one they do well with is casting gaze upon times and cultures we don't usually talk about. Often these cultures look different than what we'd expect.

They also butcher history for the sake of entertainment value. Again, not the best example, but I get what you're going for.

ShonHarris said Inequality is a big problem in history.

Inequality is a core part of the history of our species. Whether that be racial, sexual, financial, or otherwise.

ShonHarris said Specifically, in the histories certain countries we tend focus on more.

Certain countries get more focus because certain countries held more weight in the world and certain countries have more people who can actively consume the products produced by writers and others of the like. You see a lot of stories focused around the United States for example, or the perspective of your traditional white hero from the USA, because for a long time (read: decades) the USA was (and still is) a powerhouse economically speaking and in the way it affected history, especially recent history. The GDP of the United States alone is only surpassed by the entirety of the European Union, and even then, not by much. That speaks volumes about it, leave alone the fact that it's the birthplace of what we consider modern cinema and entertainment to be. (ex: Hollywood & significant portions of the film industry, music labels, entire genres of music, and so on.)

Ergo, it's not too surprising that most stories tend to be from a USA-centric standpoint, and emphasize points that the US culture deems integral or important, like freedom, civil disobedience, loyalty, patriotism, firepower, and so on. These stories had an effect within the United States' sphere of influence during the Cold War while most first world nations were rebuilding from the aftermath of World War 2, which in turn affected their cultures and start-up local industries which aped the successes of American cinema.

It's only been recently that other countries have even really gotten anywhere near a fair share of the spotlight because it's only been recently that Globalization and the Internet has finally had its effect of blurring national boundaries. (Even then, I have to admit that I'm getting tired of shit like the latest Call of Duty game making a villainous threat out of South America... Really? South America? That's where we're gonna go now to make mook villains Activision? Brilliant.) There's also the fact that the world has a mind numbing amount more people than it has ever had before and gained those people at a very dramatic pace over the last 60-ish years of our 200,000 years of history as a species. With more people comes more voices in a louder chorus which cannot be ignored from a much greater number of identified cultures and social groups.

ShonHarris said Power dynamics are created by society though, and the -isms are social constructs. That means certain societies may have inequality, to many of us meaning women, people of colour, and non-hetero individuals have are usually undervalued.

Because by mostly random chance...
#1: Europe historically outperformed its "competitor continents" by constantly molesting itself with wars that it needed to think of better ways to defeat itself with. Europe happens to be filled with mostly white people, and being primitive with the total lack of understanding about biology, while they recognized other coloured peoples as being humans, they weren't the same in appearance. Which they used as a justification naturally because we humans are really good at making life miserable for ourselves.

#2: Men has testosterone and are more disposable biologically than women. Ergo development of the culture that men had to prove themselves worthy of power, women had to be care takers because they were too valuable to lose, as cold as that is to say. Totally irrelevant now, but still holds to the foundation upon which our culture came, and such instincts do still exist within us.

#3: As above with the babies: Homosexuals do not reproduce. This is bad for a tribe. Also as above with people of colour: Fantastic dehumanization tactics employed by twisted bastards who needed scapegoats, mostly the religious surprisingly, as the Greeks had no problems with it. (Though the Romans did.) I haven't done enough research to confirm that though. Take it with a grain of salt.

Most power dynamics nowadays are societal based though, definitely.

ShonHarris said Other societies may have inequality that looks very different, perhaps even the opposite of all that. I do enjoy stories that remind us that history is more complex than white people being the age-old oppressors despite borders and passing millennia.

Well, another big problem that just came to mind: Most of the Americas (perhaps all of them) do not have written histories. They never invented writing. Ergo the only side of history we have is verbal accounts written by white men whom at the time viewed them as a lesser, savage people.

It's perhaps one of the worst parts of history to try and understand from the "people of colour" perspective. No written history. :(

So far as I'm aware, Africa has the same problem.

Asia did manage writing though, and we do actually have a lot of stories from their perspective. So nyeh. Hm.

ShonHarris said Inequality has formed favouring different groups, including the overvaluing of women rather than men, and some cultures even placed women as the dominant hunters as we've placed men. So, historically is a weird term.

A big issue with this though is a lot of history from tribal cultures that may have actually been this way are skewered with their own mythos and legend. Take the Greek example of Themiscyra. Some are convinced it was a real place. We haven't found any concrete evidence of that with archeology, though. The point being this: It's hard to define what is true about a culture if there are no archeological or written documents to truly support it. Then, even if said culture did exist, if we know very little about it, portraying it accurately is a near impossible task, as is making the public care about it. (Because we are such an egocentric society, honestly. The ethnocentrism is something that still needs to be worked on, but, generational thing, it'll probably be one of the last things to go, if it ever truly forever perishes from human society.)

ShonHarris said The Minoan cultures are believed to have been a matriarchal society with the suggestion women were seen in a way we see men. Other cultures have done this too. That's also history, perhaps centuries of it, but we're not approaching all this from the perspective that could be solid belief. So when I say I'd play with inequality to stimulate questions, that's what I mean. I should've spoken more about that before. We really approach all this from a small perspective amplified some by books and studies and cultural teachings. Our experiences too, all that's valid, but we really need also consider that history does hold more than we have as of now -- personally, I mean, but also as a world. We keep focusing on certain aspects of history and it's like we just expect the whole world was like medieval times in Northern Europe.

Because medieval Europe has a written history, detailed in a manner that few, if any, can match, and Europe ended up dominating the world in terms of culture and power for a very long time by human civilization standards. Ergo our focus upon it.

ShonHarris said Inequality can mean different things and I think recognizing it when it doesn't look so obvious, especially through roleplay, teaches us and actually creates a more creative story.

Inequality is hard to represent truly. It usually goes too far or not far enough, or portrays it in a way that always makes the character who has such views out to be evil. For every one knight that may wish to save women because he truly and sincerely believes they're fragile flowers that need to be protected and cared for (admirable but blatantly sexist), you'll have a hundred piggish knights that just want to rape and pillage "cuz' reasons". It does make stories more creative, but consistently representing it poorly one way or the other doesn't do anyone any service, leave alone those still experiencing it day to day.

ShonHarris said The story is something I've been working with off and on for years. That may sound silly, but I've been careful to obtain as much perspective as I can around the time and the topic.

That's not silly. That's actually very respectable, a thing called "research" and appreciated by all.

ShonHarris said I'd like to avoid specifics in a general forum, but I'd be happy to share with you the premise through PM. I'm not sure it'd be good form to air out an idea I've put so much into, and will continue to, on an easily searchable forum -- not that's probably worth stealing.

It's fine, I understand.

ShonHarris said Very generally, the perspective is that of a young mixed boy living in a time and setting where racism exists as we think of it now, as well as in a form that recognizes more than visible extremes of colour. The story covers a lifetime, well, and more, and includes the ways we change in our perception of the world, morality, and sexuality. I'd like to engage with topics surrounding gender-queer individuals in times where we presume such was not a topic. The character's race will be a factor, but considering the time and situation not one that takes over the story. That said, so far, I have not ignored the life of one who cannot hide their characteristics in a world where certain characteristics are worthy of harsh repercussions. As a whole, the story actually surroundings a series of events this character witnesses, but the events reflect a greater problem building in teh world. As they grow up their recognition of the bigger problems grows too, so the story expands from personal experiences and anguish to a greater, loftier issue that reflects those of today. All this is very vague, and I know it might not be super helpful, but I would be happy to share with you a premise that doesn't describe just about every action/adventure story ;).

It was helpful enough and told me all I needed to know: That it's a story featuring a minority character in a world not friendly to minorities is the brief of it.

ShonHarris said That's sort of a slippery slope, right? Change one king to a queen and suddenly the entire state of the planet changed. At some point or another I'm certain a king died and, in that time, a queen was at least a figure-head ruler until a male heir or some other solution came around.

Elizabeth and Isabella come to mind. Joan de Arc as well. I'm sure I could think of more if I gave myself more than 60 seconds. (I make it a rule of thumb that if I can't think of an example for something in 60 seconds or less that either I'm uneducated on the topic or there is a serious, critical problem I haven't noticed yet.)

ShonHarris said And no, this is not a request for specific examples suggesting such thing unthinkable.

oops.

ShonHarris said Gender order is established in a certain form by certain societies. In those societies Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings pull most from, absolutely, changing the gender order would be pretty drastic.

Actually I used GoT and LoTR as examples where the gender order did end up being defied for the sake of empowering women, and in a good way to boot.

ShonHarris said But what happens when say 'oh hey, what about societies or mythos that actually set the same expectations? What happens when suddenly we choose to focus on a time in history that defies what we've grown to expect and use as a springboard for a roleplay or narrative.

You get Pocahontas?

ShonHarris said Or, even better, what happens when we use a time and an event we know largely from one perspective and find sources from the other, perhaps the society that was nearly wiped out, and use their perspective and order to build a story from.

You mean like the Gauls? (Actually this has been happening a lot lately.)

ShonHarris said Absolutely, gender order was probably similar in many areas, but it wasn't everywhere, and it wasn't always exactly the same.

No, it wasn't, but the general rule of thumb: People write what's familiar. To most people, that is the standard gender order, the regular dichotomy we've come to know throughout human history. (Or at least the European-dominated version of it.)

ShonHarris said So it's not ground-breaking, and absolutely not history-breaking, to highlight parts of history that have wonderful story potential, and happen to not follow the gender order we see as historically common. Again, I agree with you, I just think it's maybe more valuable to use stories and histories that are just as valid to introduce ideas that are relevant to today.

Certainly, but then you have to sell it, and that's where it gets tricky...