Transvestite Flaw

Games Discussion Ars Magica
129

I don't want to blow this out of proportion. Your post was far too well thought through for one issue to make a difference.

It is a fact though that the claim made many of us curious. Even if I did not post at the time, I was looking forward to the answer to the question made by others, because I wanted to look into it and understand how players and designers thought at the time. It's a different topic, but still one I would have found illuminating to look into.

If it turns out to be a case of faulty memory, as you put it, nobody is going to hold that against you (or at least I hope so). Thanks for clearing it up. Now I am happy to move on.

5 Likes
130

The topic of engagement, I think it's worth looking in to.

What is posted, not who posted it, should be the main reason to agree or disagree on an issue. The prevailing attitude seemed to be remove the flaw, until 3 key moments. We discovered a trans-gendered individual added the flaw to the books initially; a member of the LGBTQIA+ community recommended keep the flaw; and then someone who described themself as obese also said obese should be there, and the tone changed.

While clearly one should give a bit more weight to someone with a degree of lived experience, the forum is a tiny microcosm of the world. No group of people agree on everything. I am confident there are many people in the LGBTQIA+ community who would want the flaw removed, and many who want it kept.

Prior to post 78, it was a few dissenters saying keep the flaw, and most people were saying it is horrible, similar flaws are horrible, it must go, burn it with fire, if it must be kept the name flaw must be removed, Atlas should do better, etc. Post 78 we get someone saying the same as the dissenting voices previously but they say they are part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Third highest like count on the page, and the first saying keep the flaw that goes more than 3 likes.

The dynamic changes. That is mildly concerning. Is the outcome due to a well considered combination of arguments looked at based on their merit, or would it just depend on who was at the forum on any certain day and how they present?

I think earlier on I should have mentioned I have a genetic disorder called Dariers Disease (if you are bored,look it up. In Mythic Europe I'd be shunned, and also not have Bepanthan or Elocon). Maybe I could have changed the dynamic 50 posts earlier.

1 Like
131

Oh, this is a very good question, and one that I had not fully grasped in your original post.

First of all, remember that "Flaws" in ArM5 are aspects of a character that allow you to take Virtues, i.e. perks. Flaws are of three types: "normal" Flaws, that handicap the character (so they "balance" the perks); Story Flaws, that allow the SG to drag the character into external events (by taking them, you are "bribed" for making the SG's job easier); and Personality Flaws, that mostly constrain the behaviour of the character, allowing both more colourful characterization and more story opportunities.

Transvestite is a Personality Flaw. As written it does not make a character transgender (at least not in the sense of a mismatch between birth sex and gender self-image); neither does it make a character non-binary per se. It just says that one has chosen not to follow societal roles assigned to one's sex/gender, thus constraining behaviour and raising interesting story possibilities. Bradamante (the famous female warrior from Orlando Furioso) is a typical character with this Flaw -- she fights with men and attired as a man, but she still feels and looks a woman, and is attracted to men. A woman leading a congregation as a (rather heretical!) priest would be another good match.

Why is Female not a Flaw in ArM5? The answer "because it would not be politically correct" is not the only one; it's also not the most interesting one, in my opinion.

It would be hard to make Female a "normal" Flaw. The average female probably does incur, on average, slight in-game mechanical handicaps compared to the average male. For example, females are on average slightly smaller and slightly weaker than males. Also, in medieval times, they are often beholden to their husbands and fathers. However, they also enjoy a number of perks: for example, they are often far more shielded from violence by custom. The crux is that in that "average" there's a whole lot of perks and handicaps packaged together, most of them of really small mechanical impact, and typically eclipsed by an individual's own specific characteristics. So it is far more effective to just ignore the vast majority of those little "nudges", select the aspects that are most relevant to the character, and upgrade them to full Virtues and Flaws, that are often available to male characters too. I would stress this is true of social status too: a sizable minority of women in the middle ages were the head of their household, de facto if not in name.

It would be even harder to make it a Story Flaw. Just being female does not mean external stories tend to hit a character any harder or in any very specific way. Sure, one can be a coveted Heirress, an Envied Beauty, etc. but those are not intrinsecally tied to being female -- despite perhaps being associated more often to females in folklore.

A slight case could be made about Female being a Personality Flaw: it could be argued it's an internal trait that tends to constrains a character's behaviour, and generates story opportunities; note that this could be equally argued about a Male Personality Flaw. But it is too vague, generic and stereotypical to make for good characterization. It is much more effective to force a player, who wants to play a character strongly defined by being female, to think more deeply about the specific way in which being female defines the character -- and take the corresponding Personality Flaw. Transvestite is a fitting example: it's strongly character-defining, and a story magnet, to be female for a warrior or a would-be priest in most of medieval Europe. Hence, in this particular case, Transvestite is a good Personality Flaw for a female character.

3 Likes
132

ugh. Some of y'all really do know how to leech all the joy out of a game.

I raised a suggestion. I didn't want an endless argument. When the topic blew up, in my first response, I tried to reply to as many folks as possible, but the interface limited me to ~10 name mentions, so I scaled it back. After that, it seemed a fool's errand to reply to every thing that was posted, especially because there were so many other thoughtful voices in the mix, so I didn't bother.

One person kept calling me out by name, and put up several posts asking the same question over and over. To me, that indicated a sense of entitlement... that I was somehow required to respond to him merely because he wanted attention. As a forum reader, I'd seen lots of threads devolve from rich discussions into these ping-pong parleys between just two people. It's a bad outcome.

I answered Ben's question for two simple reasons. The first was that he asked nicely. The second is more complicated, but here goes...

In my late teens I played a few sessions of Ars Magica. I was told the rules required me to take a certain flaw, so I did. During play, I was told that flaw meant there were penalties to some actions (trying to threaten an innkeeper) but bonuses to others (just try to flirt with the innkeeper.) I eventually stopped playing with those guys. But I've always been kind of embarrassed about the whole episode.

Fast forward over a decade. It wasn't until Ben's post that I realized..."wait, what if that wasn't in the real rules at all?" It's a pretty sad realization that I was not only dumb enough to play act some weird as*****s weird turnon, but I'd been gaslit into doing it. I'm also kind of ashamed at myself for never insisting on seeing the written text. And more embarrassed that I brought my misunderstanding up here.

So... since people are harping on it "Yes, I was wrong about the text in earlier editions. Yes I'm an idiot."

Does my limited bad experience still matter? Well, yes, it kind of does.

I still don't play table top games very often because that sort of stuff keeps happening, and not just to me. An earlier post'er told a really sweet story about playing with his young niece. That story got me in the feels because I grew up playing rpg's with with parents and uncles. But eleven year old girls don't stay eleven year old girls forever. They become seventeen year old girls, and twenty year old women, and sometimes even seventy year old men. And as they do, the tabletop can become less like arcadia and a lot more infernal.

The "transvestite" flaw irked me so much because I saw it as a way for some bigot to weaponize the rules against another player. I thought that was what happened to me. In fact, what happened to me wasn't supported by the rule set; but the RAW could put a butch woman or more effeminate man in the same pickle. All the while, a bigot could hide behind their supposed mastery of, and fidelity to, the core rules.

This thread has spiraled so far off the original point. For the record, I never tabbed anyone's post as inappropriate. I just tried to turn my own attention to more enjoyable threads.

12 Likes
134

I believe you are referring to me. I just want to clear up any misunderstandings about it, so that there are no hard feelings. I certainly do not wish to be a bully. I'd also rather not pass as one, but that is less important.

Let me get the facts straight. I just thought that your point about "Female as a Game Flaw" was interesting and I politely explained in a post (that got censored) why. So I asked about it, exactly twice, in a concise and polite fashion. The first time I did not tag your name. Since that brief post was quickly drowned in many other posts, some of which you responded to, I asked a second time, with the @Colleen tag, to make sure you saw it, and you were actually choosing not to answer rather than having simply missed it. That was all.

I am sorry if you saw it as "repeatedly calling you out by name". I cared about attention only insofar it might get me an answer to my question. I did hope you would politely provide such an answer (people on these forums usually do), but certainly did not feel entitled to it.

Please note I never said or implied you are an idiot. I don't think you are at all an idiot, quite the opposite. I would find bizarre to consider one an idiot because one recalls a rule incorrectly in a 5000-page line (and that's counting the most recent edition alone). Some of the people I most admire on this forum have repeatedly recalled rules incorrectly. Including the line editor :slight_smile:

Also, I do not think asking a reference to a stated claim, and answering once to a question about its importance, is "harping" on it.

I can totally sympathize, as I have been irked by "ideological tiranny" in the rpg scene before (rules, rule-changes, setting elements etc.). I think it's quite common, and getting more common, unfortunately. It killed some really exciting discussion venues. But I still have this ... Delusion Flaw that if people talk in a civil fashion about it, things can be sorted out.

1 Like
135

@ezzelino Hey, it feels like you are trying to turn this from a discussion to a debate that you can win. From the outside, it seems especially like you want to be proven correct over the other people in the thread and especially Colleen, despite any consequences that might have.

Perhaps treating other board members with respect and not engaging with things that obviously make them feel more attacked is more important than winning an internet discussion.

Also, maybe don't come into this threat to have a fight about "ideological tyranny" with people who are not here to have that discussion.

4 Likes
136

@Zaleramancer I am not trying to win any debate. I think my intentions (and actions) have been misunderstood and misrepresented. Sometimes people see ill-intent where there is none, and feel attacked by a sentence that was never meant to attack them. I believe it's important to dispel any confusion on such issues to avoid fights and hard feelings. That was all my last post was trying to achieve, as I clearly stated from the onset.

Let me also say I think I have treated people with far more respect on this thread than I have been treated with (once again, my reaction about Paizo being the single exception).

Last but not least, I don't want to have a fight about ideological tyranny. In fact, quite the opposite. It seemed to me Colleen had suffered from it; so I expressed my sympathy on the issue, because I had often been discomfited by it too. That is all.

1 Like
137

I want to say that I appreciate Colleen opening up about the episode that lead her to her misunderstanding about the text … because I have a couple very similar stories myself.

I think we've actually gotten to a pretty good spot to end this, so I'm going to oblige.

15 Likes
140

I'm reopening this thread briefly to post our decision.

First, I'd like to thank Colleen for raising the issue, and everyone else for discussing it in a largely constructive way.

We are going to replace Transvestite with a very slightly rewritten version of the Gender Nonconforming Flaw that I proposed, as below.

Gender Nonconforming

Personality, Major or Minor

You do not conform to the expected behaviour for a person of the gender that your society would assign to you in the absence of social cues such as clothes and behaviour. This may mean, for example, that you dress as a member of another gender, or that you structure your life in a way considered appropriate to another gender, or that you are sexually attracted to members of the same gender. It does not necessarily mean that you disagree about what your gender is, although it may. As a Minor Flaw, it does not normally cause you problems, whether because your society accepts your behaviour, or because you can turn people who object into newts, or for some other reason. As a Major Flaw, it does cause you problems.

(I added some language to make it clearer that the concrete examples are just examples, not an exhaustive list, and revised away from gender binaries.)

We decided that there were enough problems with the phrasing of the original Flaw that we couldn't just leave it as it stood. On the other hand, the Flaw was originally introduced to the game by a trans person, and at least one member of the LGBT* community posted a strong request to keep something like this in the game. Representation and visibility are important, and we decided that a less-prescriptive version of the Flaw was the way to go. By including the Flaw, we are saying that these sorts of characters are a valid choice in Mythic Europe.

On a purely practical level, the Flaw is referenced in several supplements, and it was much easier to errata them to refer to Gender Nonconforming than to rewrite them to avoid referencing any specific Flaw. (One of those cases is magical tortoiseshell cats, and Gender Nonconforming is a much more appropriate name for the Flaw there.) We are planning to update the for-sale versions of the supplement PDFs, but this will take some time as we need to consult and ensure that we are making the right changes.

The insert about Flaw choice is too big for errata, strictly speaking, but I will see what we can do…

Thank you again for all your input. I am now going to close this thread again.

18 Likes