In his last post, Gestalt wrote about creating characters with more traditionally medieval values in his fantasy games. Now in reality, if you are striving to recreate (for lack of a better term) the most historically accurate medieval fantasy game ever to exist, that’s going to be very difficult. Many of the pieces of literature and other historical accounts that we cite as examples of medieval values were written with a very specific, subjective agenda and should be taken as the behavioral ideal, not the behavioral reality.
The chronological boundaries of the medieval age are very loose, even for scholars so depending on the time we are talking about, it may be difficult to pin down particular values. The time of Charlemagne was drastically different than the age of Chaucer. But throughout that period of history, the status of women (though it improved significantly by Chaucer’s time), generally stayed the same; women were either exalted from afar for their modesty and piety or they were seen as the wretched daughters of Eve, the cause of man’s fall.
Here’s one reason why I do not think you should strictly adhere to what you believe is as “traditional” medieval system of values in your games: it severely limits the role of women. If you have a player who is playing a female character, she will end up with less flexibility in what kind of character she will play, and here’s why:
man or woman, I'm still kicking ass, taking names, and protecting the kingdom.
What if I wanted to play a knight? I could always choose to play a male character, but for me personally, it would be very hard for any of the other players to take me seriously when I spoke up in the party. It would be comical if I tried to sound like a man every time I opened my mouth and my normal voice, is well, unconvincing (just listen to the podcasts…I’m the one that sounds like a 5 year old).
So if playing a male character is not an attractive option and I want to play a knight in a “traditional” medieval setting, I am left playing a female whose knighthood necessitates some ridiculously complicated back story as I am as a knight, and must be an exceptional female who has to constantly prove herself to everyone to earn their respect.
And my question is: why can’t I just play a normal knight who just happens to be a woman?
There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a character that has an unexceptional back story; normalcy is often underrated. Normal men and women can become heroes when faced with adversity…a heroic back story is not a necessary prerequisite for a noble and courageous person.
Yet in a “traditional” medieval world where women aren’t off adventuring, there has to be a way to “explain” her presence in the party, and that siphons your female PC’s into one of two categories: you will force the player to either play his or her character as submissive (because she’s abiding by society’s standards for women) or belligerent (because she has no choice but to rebel against society).
My DM could also choose not to let me play a knight because I’m a woman, but that’s just plain silly. I’m playing in a fantasy RPG because it’s fun. I want to play a character that I find interesting and intriguing, and I certainly don’t want that character to be bound by sexism.
The end of the story is that whatever sort of campaign you are in, beware of hidden sexism. If you choose to play in a society where women are valued differently than men, beware of what it will do to your female PCs: they are forced to be either submissive or belligerent to “fit” the world. Women in real life don’t fall into just two categories, so female PC’s shouldn’t have to either, regardless of how historically accurate you would like your campaign to be.
Happy Gaming!
Lady Medieval
If your fellow players are unable to accept that you are playing a male because of your voice, that’s a limitation on your part. I have a deep baritone voice, nobody seems to mind me playing a female elf.
And, of course, there are other options too. Want to play a female knight? Play as one of the many cases of women dressing as men that actually occurred and are documented.
This is all a bit silly, really. If someone makes a game, you pick a character that fits into the game, you don’t say that that person shouldn’t run the game they want to run because you don’t like the available choice of characters. Of course, if you’re friends, then often the world-building can be at least a little flexible. But ‘don’t try to play historically accurate games?’ Silly.
Yes! What he said, a thousand times yes. If you don’t want to play a male in a game where the most likely “adventuring party” will consist mainly of males, that’s not your GM’s fault. And if you don’t want to come up with an elaborate backstory explaining your female knight, then why are you playing in a story-based game? As a lady gamer, my best characters are the ones most different from myself, because they force me outside of the box and let my imagination run rampant. My favorite character of all time was a gay lumberjack in a fairly “realistic” fantasy game. It was probably the best campaign of my life, and I was playing a 6’6″ bearded dude. Step outside the box and put the story first! That’s what you’re doing in a role playing game, after all: writing an epic story. Make it a good one!
Adding another viewpoint:
I wouldn’t want to play in a world, that is completely sexist, because that is too limiting, but the idea of having different cultures having different attitudes adds IMO a lot to roleplaying. You could have the “normal” culture, where the genders are treated more or less equal and you could have a historical culture, that severely suppresses women and on the other side a stiff matriarchy with amazons and all that and just experience, how your group works with these settings!
Same for social classes: Have a feudal system neighboring a theocracy and experience the differences
I think the perception of women’s role in the medieval world has been skewed by popular culture, or more accurately by Victorian historians. First off, you are completely correct, the role of women in the time of Charlemagne and the role of women in the time of Chaucer, and social attitudes towards them differed. Do not make the mistake of thinking that all history is simply an even march towards equality and progress. Also, gender roles and social expectations varied dramatically based on region and climate as well. Playing a woman in an authentic medieval setting? No, you’re probably not going to be a noble knight, that’s why we play fantasy.
On the other hand, it does not restrict you only to the virgin/whore dichotomy. Women in the medieval period were successful traders, ran businesses, joined, founded and ran craft guilds, acted as unquestioned sovereigns of nations, owned land and noble titles, received advanced educations, wielded power within the church, led armies, waged war, and even occasionally fought on a battlefield, and in general were an important part of society as a whole. Gender roles were clear, and what was expected of a man and what was expected of a woman was quite different, but don’t confuse gender roles with sexism. They are merely gender roles, equally confining to both sexes. I strongly recommend reading “Daily Life in Medieval Times”. The subject of women in the period is given a thorough treatment.
I would recommend you also read up on powerful women of the period: Eleanor of Aquitaine, Grace O’Malley, Marjorie the Countess of Carrick, Boudicca, Joan of Arc (of course), Elizabeth the 1st, Queen Isabella of Spain, Hildegard of Bingen, Catherine the Great, Hilda of Whitby, the list goes on.
I also strongly recommend reading up on the gender roles in various medieval European and world cultures. I also recommend doing some research on the periods where restrictions on women increased, such as the early 1400′s when you see the “sins of eve” being preached in the church for the first time in a thousand years (it holds on for 30 years or so and then disappears again for another 400 years).
I suppose what I’m saying, is that you are only as restricted by your gender in a more realistic medieval setting as you choose to be, and the role of women in medieval history is broader and more varied then you may have been lead to believe. I urge you to explore it further.
I really appreciate your reply.You’re sources are excellent, I’m a student of medieval and early modern history of literature so I am familiar with all of the texts and major figures that you mention and have done extensive research in the field already (albeit not from a womens studies angle directly). The attention to both time period and location are important and I appreciate it’s mention. For example, Italian women in the middle ages on average had more legal freedom, because unlike Northern Europe, they benefited from the holdovers of Roman law.
My intention in this post was not to debate actual history, but rather the results of the skewed perspective of popular culture. My interest was in describing games in which female characters were limited by the tropes and backstories that are assumed appropriate by popular culture’s view of the medieval. I was not attempting to be particularly academic in the post, but I certainly can be now, that there is interest
The extraordinary women that you mention are great examples of women who were exceptions to the rules (and unfortunately in many cases have been given a romanticized treatment by later historians). Monarchs such as Elizabeth I were anything but unquestioned. Men were still not in large part comfortable with the idea of female power; to use Elizabeth as an example was constantly fashioning herself as a king or accentuating masculine characteristics. The predjudice against women in power was absolutely there. Also from some scholarly perspectives, the emphasis on women and womens experiences in the middle ages has recently exploded due to the emphasis on the feminist critique that has gathered steam in other areas of academic studies. This can also lead to the overemphasis of womens studies in the field that is a result of our time.
My academic discussions have led me to believe, as you state in your last paragraph, that the role of women has been varied and diverse throughout the period. I am certainly not arguing with that women were immensely important in the middle ages. I was merely attempting to point out that many times, female characters in medieval game settings tend be forced by society to force themselves into two categories, that may not have been reflective of actual history (thus my frequent use of “medieval ” in quotes) but certainly reflective of the majority of visual representations of women as images of the virgin or images of Eve that are further accentuated in popular culture and in unfortunate high school and survey course classrooms who often preach popular history rather than examining the sources.
My post was more or less intended as a response to the one before it on the benefits of trying to get at the values of a traditional medieval society by citing a possible danger of adhering to those values too closely. I, like you agree that playing fantasy allows us to bend those rules. Your response points out a lot of the great scholarly issues at stake, I was writing more from the perspective of society as a whole’s conception of medievalism in popular culture. (If you’ve never read it, Marcus Bull’s short book, “Thinking Medieval” is great)
I hope this helps illuminate my intentions more for you. Additionally, your post has given me an idea for a character…Thanks so much!
Okay, so Grace O’Malley was post-Medieval. (Elizabethan.)
Never mind. Doesn’t matter. Fact is, the culture that spawned her was dying in Elizabethan times. She was MORE likely in the Medieval world than in the Elizabethan.
I think you probably need to tack the words “Judaeo-Christian” up there in front of “Medieval”. Seems to me that there were plenty of other societies out there in the world where women could be recognised for their merits, not just their… ahem… assets.
There was some bias in England because of the studies done into the Viking settlements of Briton: all the graves had male warriors, there was a few artifacts that showed there was a handful of women, but not even 5% of the invading force. So, viking raiders and settlers were obviously male, and they left the women at home and brought them over later once the fighting was over.
… except this isn’t true at all. Turns out, when the original archaeologists were digging into the graves, they found warrior tools and clothes and decided on the spot “oh, this must be a man because it’s a warrior’s grave.” That’s just bad reasoning, but years later we only hear the conclusions. Just this year, a biologist returned to the graves to do a study on the genetic backgrounds of Britons, and thus had to actually get into the bones of these graves… and after fining more than one grave mistakenly labelled as a male warrior, dude immediately went to a dozen more graves and found that a little less than half the warrior graves were actually women’s bodies. So when the vikings went on coastal raids, it was women and men fighting side-by-side, and wearing the same clothes and using the same tools (no breastplates-with-cleavage here).
“Confirmation bias.” Expecting all warriors to be men, so when the graves have warriors in them, then the bodies must be male, which just proves that all warriors are male. Whoops.
I agree. The kicker in this whole argument is that we are essentially playing a FANTASY game. It is not real! People should and can play anything they want, regardless of sexe, orientation etc…
Silly people who limit others.
My 5 cents.
[...] recentemente no More Than Dice que geralmente quando um jogador faz uma personagem feminina, é uma imitação de Joana D’Arc, [...]