Are the Patrons all male?

Faded

Personofsecrets wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Ilsabet wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Loremaster Celarus is...I can only assume that ZOS did not name it after the Psijic woman who should be representing her order only because she's a spoiler for the Summerset Chapter:

Ritemaster Valsirenn

I'm guessing Celarus is seen as a particularly notable Psijic because he is mentioned as the group's leader in texts found in earlier games (indicating that he takes over at some point after the events of ESO). So if they were going for long-established lore, they probably picked him out as having more cachet than character(s) who only appear in ESO.

Yeah...it IS just a tiny bit awkward when there's like three named Psijic women of rank and the other two eventually get expelled from the Order. I suspect that's a prime example of older lore not giving us any named Psijic women since as far as I know, since having Ulliceta be a Psijic before appearing as a necromancer in Oblivion is something that ESO made up.

But this is kind of still going to prove my point. I'm sure the ToT Devs wanted recognizable characters for the in-universe players and ESO players to recognize as important figures in their factions.

It's just that in choosing the factions they did, there's a limited selection. And every single time, out of eight different factions and themes, that figure was a man.

That's indicative of a deeper problem than just "the Devs accidentally picked all guys." That's indicative of a older game series' lore that was written largely by guys for guys and has a dearth of recognizable, famous women at the head of their faction.

And before anyone rolls in with counterexamples, of which there are a number throughout the games and some in the historical lore to pick from like Alessia or Almalexia, I'm just going to note that none of those counterexamples were picked for the launch of Tales of Tribute.


A final note for anyone going, "Why is this a problem?"

If you can't see a problem with the idea that the Devs went looking for recognizable characters from older lore (except for the one they made up for the game) to serve as patrons for their game and came up with eight men and zero women for the launch decks, I'm not really sure what I can say. I certainly can't make you agree with me.

I don't think this was malicious from the Devs. I think it's a systemic problem with the older TES lore that has a dearth of named women in leadership roles. As ESO continues to create new historical lore about the areas they explore, that's something they should keep in mind.

And you can't fix a problem if it's being swept under a rug.

How do you know that all of the Patrons are men?

My sarcasm detector is on back order, sorry.

They are all explicitly identified as male in their lore, appearances, and/or use of gendered title.

Share some of that lore.

Feel free to peruse the UESP at your leisure. The patron articles also link to their lore pages: https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Tales_of_Tribute

Why don't you show us all where Grandmaster Delmene Hlaalu is explicitly stated to be a man?

Also, what titles make these characters be men?

This is the last time I'm going to give you easily Google-able information. If you care enough to find the answers to your questions instead of merely wasting my time by not looking at the sources I've directed you to, you have what you need to do so.

https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/62165

Now, I hope you have yourself a great day!

And what titles make these characters men?

If you have a point to make, make it.

VaranisArano

FluffyBird wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Rajhin was one example here the Devs had options within a broader theme of thievery. I like Rajhin, but he is distinct from choices like Red Eagle or Orgnum in that there were options for women that weren't used and thus I think it's worth pointing that out.

Coming at this from the perspective of the singleplayer games, I think of Nocturnal as the patron of Thieves from Oblivion and Skyrim. I think it's cool that we've got a Khajiit God instead, but it also clear to me that ZOS chose not to use Nocturnal here for whatever reason seemed good to them. Maybe they want to avoid daedra - only the devs know.

And I like Zeira. Sue me. I figured that a Thieves Guildmaster deck would just be a mysterious female figure in guild armor because in ESO the guildmaster is female right now.

I'll give the Devs a fair shake here. The Khajiit are known for their stance on thievery, for good and ill, and Rajhin is a fun character. It's just that in this lineup, his inclusion helps illustrate some of the choice the Devs and Lore people didn't make.

Nocturnal and Zeira don't have that "trickster" aspect.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Finally, Potema isn't an option because she's from the 3rd Era. She's a Septim.

Can you think of some more notable women from the 1st and 2nd era that you'd like as a patron in this 2nd Era game?

Potema is a good example, because author of the comment came up with a reason why she is actually interesting. For that purpose it's irrelevant whether she actually could be a patron.

I don't know lore too well, unfortunately. Arlimahera seems to be quite ruthless too. Alessia could be a terrific rebellion-themed patron. If we still can pick daedra, Vaermina or Dibella sound like their decks could be a ton of fun.

Well, I'm sorry I didn't expand on why I found Nocturnal and Zeira interesting in their own right in the first post. I didn't because I thought it was already a wall of text without it, and that's after editing.

But since you asked, I'll wax rapsodic about some more female characters.


Some women I'd like to see as Patrons for future decks:

Alessia: it's hard to go wrong with the woman who led the overthrow of the Ayleid heartland, forged a covenant with Akatosh to protect Mundus from daedric invasions, and had a huge impact on religious practice in Tamriel.

Leki: Now, we've already got an Ansei deck in Frandar Hunding, but Leki's a pretty awesome goddess of swordsmanship in her own right. Her feats include inventing a new move to decide who would lead the Redguards against the Left-handed elves and its counted a great feat of Rada al-Saran that he was able to duel her for several days.

Lamae Bal: the first Vampire and patron of all ESO vampire players is a natural choice for a vampire-themed deck. She's got a tragic backstory driving her to take vengeance on Arkay and Molag Bal alike. What more could we want?

Almalexia: in ESO, the lore, and the other games, she's always been the most politically active of the Tribunal since she lives in the capital of Mournhold. While Vivec is more iconic with the TES player base because he's in TES 3, Almalexia is the face of the Tribunal most familiar to the other nations of Tamriel. She'd be the logical in-universe choice for a Tales fan to design a deck for. She's known for being extremely protective of Morrowind and vengeful to those who offend her.

Arlimahera: yeah, she sounds awesome, and might have a deck similar to the ruthless playstyle imagined for Potema.

The Night Mother: if we ever get a Dark Brotherhood themed deck, she's a solid choice for patron. Not the only choice, but a solid one given her prominence in TES IV and V and the role she played in splitting the DB from the Morag Tong.

Empress Hestra: unfortunately, I think she'd fall into the same category as a lot of the other female options did, since she's far less recognizable than another Imperial Emperor: Reman Cyrodiil. She's still an extremely competent empress in her own right, battling the Grey Host, running anti-piracy campaigns, and expanding Cyrodiil's empire.

This isn't an exhaustive list, and I'm sure others can figure out more.

There's also loads of opportunities for ZOS to create new women to represent their factions: a Magnifica to represent the Merchant Lords, a female assassin for the Shadowscales, a Khajiit Clan Mother, a Kinlady for the Altmer, and many others, a female Naheesh or Nisswo (argonian tribal elder or priest respectively), etc.

The lore people who pick and create the Patrons have options. I hope to see more women chosen as Patrons in the future that reflect Tamriel's relatively egalitarian society.

VaranisArano

Faded wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Finally, Potema isn't an option because she's from the 3rd Era. She's a Septim.

Can you think of some more notable women from the 1st and 2nd era that you'd like as a patron in this 2nd Era game?

Sad, isn't it. As soon as I thought of her I wanted to see that deck, but she'll only be in whatever standalone money grab they may release.

If they're avoiding gods and deadra, in the 2nd era they're looking at a lot of bros. Pelin probably precludes Alessia making an appearance. Spoiler would have been cool but I can see why they went with Celarus. The Green Lady and Almalexia are both problematic. And that's all I can think of without a lore refresh. Maybe the Direnni patron. Edit: or the Beldama Wyrd, that could be awesome.

I agree: it's not the devs, it's the loremasters.

I think you might have Pelin mixed up with Pelinal Whitestrake. (I, uh, made the same mistake at first glance). St. Pelin's a breton guy who made a last stand and heroic sacrifice against the Gray Host at Bangkorai to buy time for the garrison and Empress Hestra's troops to finish the horde off.

You know, I didn't think of The Green Lady/Silvenar combo. Now that pair might have interesting offensive/defensive gameplay possibilities.

Faded

VaranisArano wrote: »

Faded wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Finally, Potema isn't an option because she's from the 3rd Era. She's a Septim.

Can you think of some more notable women from the 1st and 2nd era that you'd like as a patron in this 2nd Era game?

Sad, isn't it. As soon as I thought of her I wanted to see that deck, but she'll only be in whatever standalone money grab they may release.

If they're avoiding gods and deadra, in the 2nd era they're looking at a lot of bros. Pelin probably precludes Alessia making an appearance. Spoiler would have been cool but I can see why they went with Celarus. The Green Lady and Almalexia are both problematic. And that's all I can think of without a lore refresh. Maybe the Direnni patron. Edit: or the Beldama Wyrd, that could be awesome.

I agree: it's not the devs, it's the loremasters.

I think you might have Pelin mixed up with Pelinal Whitestrake. (I, uh, made the same mistake at first glance). St. Pelin's a breton guy who made a last stand and heroic sacrifice against the Gray Host at Bangkorai to buy time for the garrison and Empress Hestra's troops to finish the horde off.

You know, I didn't think of The Green Lady/Silvenar combo. Now that pair might have interesting offensive/defensive gameplay possibilities.

! Ha, I did have them mixed up!

Good, Alessia could be great. And now I want a Lamae Bal vengeance deck. Brilliant.

This is more fun than playing ToT.

FluffyBird

@VaranisArano thank you for that list!

But it supports my point: Nocturnal, Zeira and all the ladies are awesome in their own right (as you said), not as a replacement for a male or as someone who "got replaced" by a male. So saying that ZOS could have picked one of the women instead of Rajhin is... meh.

VaranisArano

FluffyBird wrote: »

@VaranisArano thank you for that list!

But it supports my point: Nocturnal, Zeira and all the ladies are awesome in their own right (as you said), not as a replacement for a male or as someone who "got replaced" by a male. So saying that ZOS could have picked one of the women instead of Rajhin is... meh.

Since I'm not saying Rajhin should have been replaced, that's all cool, right?

I'm making a broader point about how we got to this point of eight male patrons and zero female ones in a card game supposedly invented by a fairly egalitarian society.

Well, it wasn't actually the Bretons of High Isle who invented this game or picked the patrons. It was the lore people and devs at ZOS who decided what eight decks got launched.

And at every step of the way, they picked factions with no major female characters, did not use female characters who exist and fit the deck's theme, skipped over female characters in favor of male characters who were no doubt considered more recognizable, or created an entirely new character who is male.

I'm not calling for replacement of an existing patron. It's far too late for that. I'm pointing out that alternatives existed during the early development process and ZOS did not choose any of them. Whatever criteria they used to pick factions and patrons resulted in zero women as patrons at launch. Unless they reevaluate, those criteria are very likely to keep excluding female characters during the development process.

That is a crucial distinction that I'm afraid you are missing by focusing on replacing an existing deck patron. The lore people and devs must understand how their decision making got them to this position of 8 male patrons and 0 women in order to fix the problem for the future.

Because female characters being awesome in their own right, while true, clearly wasn't enough to get them on the patron roster for launch and they were excluded by the other criteria in play. That happened eight times. Maybe you are more optimistic that I to think that won't happen again.


The only practical answer for my concern as player who doesn't control the decision making process is "Wait for ZOS to release more decks and hope their decision making process gives us more (well, any) women as patrons."

SilverBride

Honestly, I don't care if they are all men. It's just a symbol on a card game deck. I am not any less of a strong woman because the Patrons are male.

Sync01

Like so many others have already mentioned, it makes sense that the patrons are male lorewise. Could they have found ways to throw in at least one woman in there? Probably, but I don't really care. Three of the founders are women and there are a lot of female npcs you interact with for the quest so I don't feel like there's a lack of representation.

FluffyBird

I must have misinterpreted the "could have been a good choice" part as "should have been there in place of"

VaranisArano wrote: »

That is a crucial distinction that I'm afraid you are missing by focusing on replacing an existing deck patron. The lore people and devs must understand how their decision making got them to this position of 8 male patrons and 0 women in order to fix the problem for the future.

Because female characters being awesome in their own right, while true, clearly wasn't enough to get them on the patron roster for launch and they were excluded by the other criteria in play. That happened eight times. Maybe you are more optimistic that I to think that won't happen again.

I'm not optimistic, I just don't see as a problem the fact that in one small spot in the game there happened to be no women. Especially given that ESO does a great job at having very diverse cast of characters without pushing agenda in you face (maybe a tiny little bit in Greymoor).

VaranisArano

FluffyBird wrote: »

I must have misinterpreted the "could have been a good choice" part as "should have been there in place of"

VaranisArano wrote: »

That is a crucial distinction that I'm afraid you are missing by focusing on replacing an existing deck patron. The lore people and devs must understand how their decision making got them to this position of 8 male patrons and 0 women in order to fix the problem for the future.

Because female characters being awesome in their own right, while true, clearly wasn't enough to get them on the patron roster for launch and they were excluded by the other criteria in play. That happened eight times. Maybe you are more optimistic that I to think that won't happen again.

I'm not optimistic, I just don't see as a problem the fact that in one small spot in the game there happened to be no women. Especially given that ESO does a great job at having very diverse cast of characters without pushing agenda in you face (maybe a tiny little bit in Greymoor).

Hey, then my wording wasn't as clear as it could have been. Glad we could work it out! It's been a good discussion nonetheless.

gronin

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They probably already have other decks on the backburner as more will be coming, and some of those are probably ladies. All the companions were ladies. I think they just do a mix of stuff and it happened to work out this way.

All of the of the companions were not women, the majority were, but not all. That being said, even if all of the companions were female, that doesn't change the fact that all of the patrons are male. That argument smacks of the "why can't they just be happy with what we gave them" school of thought.

As for things just "happening to work out" a certain way, that's not acceptable. Inclusion takes active participation.

spartaxoxo

VaranisArano wrote: »

Hey, then my wording wasn't as clear as it could have been. Glad we could work it out! It's been a good discussion nonetheless.

@VaranisArano

Your wording was perfectly clear. Anytime these types of discussions get brought up people make these types of assumptions. I find it tiresome but it comes with the territory of gender discussion at this point. In fact, I found that your wording was not only incredibly clear but very insightful. They didn't just help me to understand what likely happened with the male patrons better, but it actually helped me to understand my own attitudes towards this franchise a bit better. Reading about the patrons helped me to articulate thoughts I had had for years about female representation in the Elder Scrolls.

As a young girl, I had felt like Elder Scrolls game weren't for me and didn't feel welcome to playing them despite my brother loving them. But as I got older, around the time of Oblivion, I started to really like them. I'm a full grown woman now and this is one of my most beloved franchises.

Some of that was I assumed the art direction. They show similar to the same amounts of skin now, so it's not about that at all. But rather, how it was presented.

But reading your post, I think it was more than just a few better female characters and shift in art style. I think overall there was more care in how women were represented, the leadership roles they were given, etc. And I think the devs when they go back to the older lore, they run into the problem of how they used to write for females (and how many females in leadership positions they were) versus how they write them now.

So I just wanted to thank you for your post, not only for helping me see the patron issue more clearly. But for giving me some serious food for thought. One of the most surprisingly insightful posts I have personally had the pleasure of reading!

gronin

VaranisArano wrote: »

FluffyBird wrote: »

@VaranisArano thank you for that list!

But it supports my point: Nocturnal, Zeira and all the ladies are awesome in their own right (as you said), not as a replacement for a male or as someone who "got replaced" by a male. So saying that ZOS could have picked one of the women instead of Rajhin is... meh.

Since I'm not saying Rajhin should have been replaced, that's all cool, right?

I'm making a broader point about how we got to this point of eight male patrons and zero female ones in a card game supposedly invented by a fairly egalitarian society.

Well, it wasn't actually the Bretons of High Isle who invented this game or picked the patrons. It was the lore people and devs at ZOS who decided what eight decks got launched.

And at every step of the way, they picked factions with no major female characters, did not use female characters who exist and fit the deck's theme, skipped over female characters in favor of male characters who were no doubt considered more recognizable, or created an entirely new character who is male.

I'm not calling for replacement of an existing patron. It's far too late for that. I'm pointing out that alternatives existed during the early development process and ZOS did not choose any of them. Whatever criteria they used to pick factions and patrons resulted in zero women as patrons at launch. Unless they reevaluate, those criteria are very likely to keep excluding female characters during the development process.

That is a crucial distinction that I'm afraid you are missing by focusing on replacing an existing deck patron. The lore people and devs must understand how their decision making got them to this position of 8 male patrons and 0 women in order to fix the problem for the future.

Because female characters being awesome in their own right, while true, clearly wasn't enough to get them on the patron roster for launch and they were excluded by the other criteria in play. That happened eight times. Maybe you are more optimistic that I to think that won't happen again.


The only practical answer for my concern as player who doesn't control the decision making process is "Wait for ZOS to release more decks and hope their decision making process gives us more (well, any) women as patrons."

This right here. Very well put.

ZOS made a choice, most likely without malice. but a choice nonetheless.

VaranisArano

spartaxoxo wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Hey, then my wording wasn't as clear as it could have been. Glad we could work it out! It's been a good discussion nonetheless.

@VaranisArano

Your wording was perfectly clear. Anytime these types of discussions get brought up people make these types of assumptions. I find it tiresome but it comes with the territory of gender discussion at this point. In fact, I found that your wording was not only incredibly clear but very insightful. They didn't just help me to understand what likely happened with the male patrons better, but it actually helped me to understand my own attitudes towards this franchise a bit better. Reading about the patrons helped me to articulate thoughts I had had for years about female representation in the Elder Scrolls.

As a young girl, I had felt like Elder Scrolls game weren't for me and didn't feel welcome to playing them despite my brother loving them. But as I got older, around the time of Oblivion, I started to really like them. I'm a full grown woman now and this is one of my most beloved franchises.

Some of that was I assumed the art direction. They show similar to the same amounts of skin now, so it's not about that at all. But rather, how it was presented.

But reading your post, I think it was more than just a few better female characters and shift in art style. I think overall there was more care in how women were represented, the leadership roles they were given, etc. And I think the devs when they go back to the older lore, they run into the problem of how they used to write for females (and how many females in leadership positions they were) versus how they write them now.

So I just wanted to thank you for your post, not only for helping me see the patron issue more clearly. But for giving me some serious food for thought. One of the most surprisingly insightful posts I have personally had the pleasure of reading!

Well, thanks! And thank you for sharing your perspective of how representation for women changed over time in the games. It really goes to show why representation matters - maybe not to all players - but to enough players that good representation makes more players feel welcome and invested in an established franchise. I'm a relative latecomer who played Skyrim first in college and then went back to the other games, so that's a perspective I don't have.

ESO's really done a lot to push the needle on representation in a lot of areas and in ways that are more substantial than just checking off boxes. So I guess I was more surprised than anything to realize that the OP was right, and then went "hang on, how'd that happen on a team that's usually pretty good about this stuff?"

At least one great thing about ESO is that when future games happen, they'll have lots more historical women to draw on. Maybe Fifth Era Tales of Tribute has a Queens of Solitude deck with Svana, Potema, and Elisif in it. General/governor Keshu totally deserves her own deck for her exploits. Who knows? It'll be fun to see where the franchise goes.

guarstompemoji

Growing up as a gamer in the earlier decades, a person grows to appreciate representation. We can say, "it doesn't make me less of a woman," but it does make an impact when, after walking into a gaming store, the only representation we see are dudes. A comic store, same.

It's also easy to fall into old patterns without thinking about it. For example! Some executives were patting themselves on the back over how inclusive children's cartoons had become. After a while, they were approached by someone who had been quietly doing research in the background.

"You think you have," they said. Then, showed the execs the actual cast makeups over a broad range of cartoons. The case was so compelling (it didn't go to court...stop that) that it caused them to realize that the reality did not match up with what they'd hoped were their own expectations.

...shortly after, Paw Patrol received another female character, and a few other shows were revisited. Again, a few years ago, and this is something I learned from contacts in industry. It occurred behind the scenes.

I grew up gaming in the 80s. No wont or need to go back to the sweaty gamedens of dudesonly. It isn't about "being less of a woman" or "more of a man" ... In the end, having a colorful cast of characters: it's about being people.

Unfortunately, part of being people is how easy it can be to fall into old habits...which is why discussions of these are important. They serve as a check and balance, a cause for us to re-evaluate ourselves and assess how we are faring in our own goals.

This is especially important in areas where there is a history of these habits--not because of "ratios" but because we don't turn into those executives, patting ourselves on the back while in reality, being blind to what's in front of us.

Oh, and...try to get your female friends involved in gaming/comics in the 80s. Or early 90s. It wasn't fun.

So, thank you for bringing these up. I am not surprised at the trolly comments. I am though, appreciative of the discussion. We should have this discussion. We should keep having it, we should keep challenging ourselves, and we should keep moving forward.

gronin

Lots of great suggestions here of what might be good decks with femail Patreons and yet we get the Druid King. Very disappointing.

gronin

gronin wrote: »

Lots of great suggestions here of what might be good decks with *femail* Patreons and yet we get the Druid King. Very disappointing.

Female

ocdcoder

I'm female and hadn't even noticed their genders until I saw this thread. I don't really think of them as people anyway, they're just dials on the game board. But I don't usually try to guess the genders of my player opponents and only notice the gender of npc opponents in passing (my interest is in their rank), so overall, it's just not something that I think or care much about. It's a card game. Except for the actual ToT questline, there's not really any kind of interaction/roleplay involved, especially not within the games themselves.

Zyva

I am also female and did not notice any genders rofl. Who cares? Its a sucky card game, hardly any RP to it. Next people will be bringing out a standard card deck irl and saying its bad because there is only 1 female queen to 2 males (king/jack)

And the Crow *could* be female.

VaranisArano

Zyva wrote: »

I am also female and did not notice any genders rofl. Who cares? Its a sucky card game, hardly any RP to it. Next people will be bringing out a standard card deck irl and saying its bad because there is only 1 female queen to 2 males (king/jack)

And the Crow *could* be female.

The Duke of Crows is not female. You're like the third person this thread to bring that up, so here's the source: https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Duke_of_Crows_(Patron)
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Duke_of_Crows

And you're the first person to bring up the gender distribution in standard card decks here. (Though hilariously, standard card's 2:1 is better than ToT's 9:0 ratio.) I'd suggest we drop such an off-topic strawman. Whether you like ToT or not, that's the card game we're discussing.


One of the reasons I want more women as patrons is not merely for role-playing, but because of the lore and the world building.

With Tales of Tribute, ZOS has the chance to create or highlight notable authority figures as patrons of their respective factions. It adds to the prominence of that character in the lore for future content and even future TES games. With that in mind, the choice of patrons is more important than just within the card game.

This is a card game developed by a egalitarian society, yet we see nine male patron/authority figures in the first nine decks released. That's indicative of some problems with the worldbuilding, probably stemming from the older lore written for earlier games was largely written by guys for guys. Nornally ESO does a better job of writing for their diverse audience, so this feels like a bit of a let down. Moreover, it's reinforcing the problem with the older lore rather than fixing it.

It also represents some missed chances for the Devs to highlight preexisting notable women, to add to their lore, or to create new female characters with interesting backstories like they did with Delmene Hlaalu. Again, there are plenty of options for ZOS to choose from in the Lore, but none of those options made it into the first nine decks released.

Why does that matter? Because ESO is writing canon lore and doing worldbuilding that will be reflected in future games. When we talk about notable figures, it matters who gets highlighted as a person famous enough to be a Tales of Tribute patron, especially when its a man chosen over some of the qualified women in the same faction, or a man created out of whole cloth for Tales. The more prominent a figure is in the lore, the more likely they are to be recognizable to players, and thus to get more lore - so it matters when men get picked and women don't.

The Lore/ToT team presumably didn't pick their Patrons willy-nilly. Nine men made the cut. Zero women did. If they don't consider their criteria carefully or ask themselves the question "does this new character have to be a man," we're likely to continue to see an extreme imbalance that is wholly at odds with the egalitarian societies that they've tried to portray well in so many other areas.

SilverBride

Tamriel is a fantasy world and that includes its card game. It is not a reflection of real life nor should it be expected to be.

Personofsecrets

VaranisArano wrote: »

Zyva wrote: »

The Lore/ToT team presumably didn't pick their Patrons willy-nilly. Nine men made the cut. Zero women did. If they don't consider their criteria carefully or ask themselves the question "does this new character have to be a man," we're likely to continue to see an extreme imbalance that is wholly at odds with the egalitarian societies that they've tried to portray well in so many other areas.

Zyva

@VaranisArano

This is what a strawman argument is: "A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version. In creating a straw man argument, the arguer strips the opposing point of view of any nuance and often misrepresents it in a negative light. "

My irl example was not a strawman argument, as I did not argue against irl card decks nor was it an extreme version of anything we are talking about (I could have brought up chess and its female/male ratio pieces as well, or go Google some other male-oriented card game).

The definition goes on: "The straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy, which means that the flaw lies with the arguer’s method of arguing rather than the flaws of the argument itself. The straw man fallacy avoids the opponent’s actual argument and instead argues against an inaccurate caricature of it. By doing this, the straw man fallacy is a fallacy of relevance, because with it the arguer doesn’t engage with the relevant components of their opposer’s position. "

If anything, calling my example a strawman argument is just trying to make my viewpoint irrelevant, when I think its a very good point that out in the real world, and its games, male dominance exists and is rarely challenged, in fact to challenge it just feels like nitpicking and few people care because they just want to play a game and relax, not debate the downfall of the female psyche because *gasp* they are exposed to a majority male influence.

I'm pretty sure there have been entire psychological studies on the male dominance in card and board games, and how its mostly men that play them and are attracted to them, because of their representation to fighting/warfare, and ability to get out such tendencies without actual violence. (note I said mostly, not all, as has already been shown here quite a few females enjoy card games lol).

And I am not arguing against any of it. My original point was that its all silly, arguing about male patrons in tot AND arguing about the ration in irl games.


But as for the Crow patron, even if you are right that the Duke of Crows was represented as male in the Clockwork City storyline, does not mean that I cant decide, in my fictional storyline in my fictional game, that the Duke of Crows was a Duchess all along, pretending to be a Duke, just because she wanted to attract a female mate and be head of the Blackfeather Court. I'm sure this story is coming soon to Clockwork City Two: The Rise of Duchess Blackwing.

Skvysh

VaranisArano wrote: »

That's indicative of some problems with the worldbuilding, probably stemming from the older lore written for earlier games was largely written by guys for guys.

Where are you getting that from? Ria Silmane, a woman, guides you on your very first adventure in TES universe. Iszara plays a major role in Stros M'kai rebellion. 3 of the 8/9 divines are females. Daedric princes are on a whole different level, but Azura in particular plays a huge role in Morrowind. Several powerful/important women with enough depth to them appear in Morrowind as well - Almalexia, Barenziah, wise women of ashlander tribes, Mehra Milo. You could write a whole book on what Vivec is and the list goes on. At every step in TES universe you had both men and women play both small and big roles.

VaranisArano wrote: »

It also represents some missed chances for the Devs to highlight preexisting notable women, to add to their lore, or to create new female characters with interesting backstories like they did with Delmene Hlaalu.

On one hand I agree that it's at the very least odd to have no women represented in the existing patrons, however, now they're in a tricky situation - adding a female character as the 10th patron would definitely scream "token woman character", making it look worse. On the other hand, doing nothing is just as bad. No matter what they decide to do next isn't going to make it "better".

However, I disagree with this part:

VaranisArano wrote: »

Why does that matter? Because ESO is writing canon lore and doing worldbuilding that will be reflected in future games.

ToT is already a small part of TES universe, patron genders matter even less in the grand scheme of things. I can't really foresee any (logical) scenario where, say, TES6 includes some - or all - of the existing patrons, developing further on their role; nor why should anyone at that point care that those specific characters were the all-male team of patrons in ESO's minigame. ESO already gets bad rep for "not being canonical" among some fans, whatever happens in ToT will have basically non-existent impact on TES' future lore.

If anything, I'd be more concerned about the lore implications of all the nonsensical cosmetic items that appear in ESO's crown store and how it always needs to have a "logical" explanation why we have guars made of gears, lightning, fire, and all sorts of other colours, but only in middle of 2nd era and are never seen again.

Personofsecrets

Zyva wrote: »

But as for the Crow patron, even if you are right that the Duke of Crows was represented as male in the Clockwork City storyline, does not mean that I cant decide, in my fictional storyline in my fictional game, that the Duke of Crows was a Duchess all along, pretending to be a Duke, just because she wanted to attract a female mate and be head of the Blackfeather Court. I'm sure this story is coming soon to Clockwork City Two: The Rise of Duchess Blackwing.

Perhaps an interesting idea.

VaranisArano

Skvysh wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

That's indicative of some problems with the worldbuilding, probably stemming from the older lore written for earlier games was largely written by guys for guys.

Where are you getting that from? Ria Silmane, a woman, guides you on your very first adventure in TES universe. Iszara plays a major role in Stros M'kai rebellion. 3 of the 8/9 divines are females. Daedric princes are on a whole different level, but Azura in particular plays a huge role in Morrowind. Several powerful/important women with enough depth to them appear in Morrowind as well - Almalexia, Barenziah, wise women of ashlander tribes, Mehra Milo. You could write a whole book on what Vivec is and the list goes on. At every step in TES universe you had both men and women play both small and big roles.

VaranisArano wrote: »

It also represents some missed chances for the Devs to highlight preexisting notable women, to add to their lore, or to create new female characters with interesting backstories like they did with Delmene Hlaalu.

On one hand I agree that it's at the very least odd to have no women represented in the existing patrons, however, now they're in a tricky situation - adding a female character as the 10th patron would definitely scream "token woman character", making it look worse. On the other hand, doing nothing is just as bad. No matter what they decide to do next isn't going to make it "better".

However, I disagree with this part:

VaranisArano wrote: »

Why does that matter? Because ESO is writing canon lore and doing worldbuilding that will be reflected in future games.

ToT is already a small part of TES universe, patron genders matter even less in the grand scheme of things. I can't really foresee any (logical) scenario where, say, TES6 includes some - or all - of the existing patrons, developing further on their role; nor why should anyone at that point care that those specific characters were the all-male team of patrons in ESO's minigame. ESO already gets bad rep for "not being canonical" among some fans, whatever happens in ToT will have basically non-existent impact on TES' future lore.

If anything, I'd be more concerned about the lore implications of all the nonsensical cosmetic items that appear in ESO's crown store and how it always needs to have a "logical" explanation why we have guars made of gears, lightning, fire, and all sorts of other colours, but only in middle of 2nd era and are never seen again.

Women have been fairly well-represented in the games themselves. They've been underrepresented in the older lore, in particular the 1st Era lore and earlier from when the Lore team is largely pulling their Patrons. Even Alessia wasn't really fleshed out until Oblivion, when she became necessary for the plot.

I like the women you listed (Wisewoman Nibani Maesa's a fave), but most of them are from the 3rd Era, and of the ones are earlier who could have been patrons like Almalexia or Nocturnal, I'm going to repeat myself from earlier this thread, and remind everyone that none of those prominent women were chosen for the first nine patrons.

Sorry, but this thread got resurrected with the new Druid King deck, so I suppose it's inevitable we retread some old ground.

I'd say that 9:1 is better than 10:0, but what I'm hoping is that the teams keep adding decks, and they add more interesting male and female Patrons as they do. Yeah, it's awkward that the teams got themselves into this situation in the first place, but I'd be happy to see them work to do better one deck at a time. See, it's less about the numbers for me and more about fixing how they got to that point of embarrassing numbers.

As for what we spend our energy caring about, hey, we can all care about the lore impact of different things!

Personofsecrets

Skvysh wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

That's indicative of some problems with the worldbuilding, probably stemming from the older lore written for earlier games was largely written by guys for guys.

Where are you getting that from? Ria Silmane, a woman, guides you on your very first adventure in TES universe. Iszara plays a major role in Stros M'kai rebellion. 3 of the 8/9 divines are females. Daedric princes are on a whole different level, but Azura in particular plays a huge role in Morrowind. Several powerful/important women with enough depth to them appear in Morrowind as well - Almalexia, Barenziah, wise women of ashlander tribes, Mehra Milo. You could write a whole book on what Vivec is and the list goes on. At every step in TES universe you had both men and women play both small and big roles.

It's also the case that 4 out of the 5 Tales of Tributes founders are women. So a group of mostly women decided that their egalitarian society could withstand having a tabletop game with male characters.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

Tamriel is a fantasy world and that includes its card game. It is not a reflection of real life nor should it be expected to be.

The lore of Tamriel does not suit to patrons only being males either. It's an egalitarian society, that nobody could name a notable female when creating the cards makes zero sense from a lore perspective. That they are all males is a reflection of the real life creation of this game, in particular that people use to develop video games as a "boys" hobby, so earlier video games skewed heavily male.

Jaimeh

I also think it's a strange omission, both from a modern society perspective and a Tamrielic perspective, and I would expect for game that's a brand new feature to the ES world, that they wouldn't feel restrained lore-wise to go one way or another, thus creating more variety in the patrons. I wonder how the ToT team went about choosing them, and whether they consulted with the lore team--also, as far as I know the Loremaster stepped down a while ago, not sure who filled the position, and if that transition also affected the game.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Tamriel is a fantasy world and that includes its card game. It is not a reflection of real life nor should it be expected to be.

The lore of Tamriel does not suit to patrons only being males either. It's an egalitarian society, that nobody could name a notable female when creating the cards makes zero sense from a lore perspective. That they are all males is a reflection of the real life creation of this game, in particular that people use to develop video games as a "boys" hobby, so earlier video games skewed heavily male.

The day that gaming was considered a boy's hobby is long gone, and I do not believe that the choices they made had anything to do with an outdated idea when choosing the Patrons.

I hadn't even noticed that they were all males, and once it was pointed out I didn't read anything into it. It is a card game in a fantasy game.