Gender Restricted Classes

[Refa]

I think the Tellius outfits should stay for female pegs anyway. They were IMO the best.

THIS SO MUCH

Well, for Falcoknights anyways. Gotta love those capes.

[thetiger39]

I can see the male pegasus knight wearing some white pants and a black fancy dress shirt and cape.

[Thor Odinson]

If we're talking diversity for stylistic reasons, I think that would be great. If we're looking at what "real" soldiers in Fire Emblem would look like, we're comparing apples to oranges. Athletes specialize in one physical activity, and can dedicate themselves to peak physical performance in that one thing: Sprinters can focus on sprinting, lifters can focus on raw strength and lifting. Soldiers need both strength and mobility and are conditioned for that regardless of their roles (pilots, infantry, artillery, armor units). Looking at women in RL militaries, they seem to have rather similar musculature that offers the best of both. I'm sure the devs use that physique for its visual appeal, but perhaps that body shape is so appealing because it reflects good health and physical ability; both of which are important in military service.

I was more talking about that even with similar amounts of muscle mass or strength, it would manifest in each person differently.Just for example's sake, some women have naturally thin waists and even when they bulk up their waists will be pretty thin, and that is fine. Other women tend to gain mass easily around the middle and when they bulk up they will have a thicker middle and that is also fine. The athletic reference is just to show that women aren't all one build with only minimal height variation and cup size variation as a lot of character designers tend to forget or flat out ignore when designing female characters, not just in FE.

in any case I'd expect them to look at least more like athletes, who have intense physical strength/agility requirements, than supermodels, the latter of which is far more common for female character design even for warriors.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Thor Odinson

[Rehab]

I think that's actually a little insulting to the development team. Fire Emblem is really good about gender equality. FE women aren't just sex appeal or damsels in distress like in many other games. They're capable, competent, and make up a good number outstanding units in the series. If anything, I'd say the devs imposing arbitrary class limitations says more about how they think men and women are equally capable. If they have to make a few classes gender-specific for no other reason than to create jobs that only men or women can do, I'd say they consider men and women pretty damn equal.

If we're talking diversity for stylistic reasons, I think that would be great. If we're looking at what "real" soldiers in Fire Emblem would look like, we're comparing apples to oranges. Athletes specialize in one physical activity, and can dedicate themselves to peak physical performance in that one thing: Sprinters can focus on sprinting, lifters can focus on raw strength and lifting. Soldiers need both strength and mobility and are conditioned for that regardless of their roles (pilots, infantry, artillery, armor units). Looking at women in RL militaries, they seem to have rather similar musculature that offers the best of both. I'm sure the devs use that physique for its visual appeal, but perhaps that body shape is so appealing because it reflects good health and physical ability; both of which are important in military service.

FE is indeed relatively good about its treatment of gender, and does indeed have a great number of competent female characters, which it does a much better job of not objectifying than do many other series. The existence of gender-restricted roles is one way in which it could change for the better, however, and it cuts both ways. Having gender-based restrictions implies that they hold an essentialist view of gender- that one's gender decides some certain things about what they can potentially do. There is no way to portray that as "equal."

One of the big reasons we're going on about body types in the first place is to preempt the idea that "there are just some things (sex) can't physically do." Even just speaking with respect to rl militaries, I have a really hard time believing that every fit-for-service person of each sex shares the same body type. The message I'm trying to get across is that there's no evidence that there isn't a type of man out there who is not total fantasy from head to toe that could ride a winged horse (yes I recognize the irony in using the word fantasy here, thanks for asking), and there's likewise no evidence that there couldn't possibly be a woman out there who could fit the axe-fighter design.

My primary conclusion is thus that gender-based role restrictions are neither truly realistic, nor necessary, nor a good idea.

Admittedly, not every FE character looks fit for service in the first place, but that's another rant

[Anouleth]

FE is indeed relatively good about its treatment of gender, and does indeed have a great number of competent female characters, which it does a much better job of not objectifying than do many other series. The existence of gender-restricted roles is one way in which it could change for the better, however, and it cuts both ways. Having gender-based restrictions implies that they hold an essentialist view of gender- that one's gender decides some certain things about what they can potentially do. There is no way to portray that as "equal."

One of the big reasons we're going on about body types in the first place is to preempt the idea that "there are just some things (sex) can't physically do."

But there are some things that women can't physically do. No woman in the world can run 100 metres in 10 seconds. In general, women are slower runners than men.

Even just speaking with respect to rl militaries, I have a really hard time believing that every fit-for-service person of each sex shares the same body type. The message I'm trying to get across is that there's no evidence that there isn't a type of man out there who is not total fantasy from head to toe that could ride a winged horse (yes I recognize the irony in using the word fantasy here, thanks for asking), and there's likewise no evidence that there couldn't possibly be a woman out there who could fit the axe-fighter design.

Of course there exists a woman, probably more than one, that could probably fit the axe-fighter design. The question is if there are so many that they need to be "represented". Or if we care at all at ensuring that every body-type demographic gets "representation", no matter how ludicrously small it is.

My primary conclusion is thus that gender-based role restrictions are neither truly realistic, nor necessary, nor a good idea.

Admittedly, not every FE character looks fit for service in the first place, but that's another rant

If every FE character looked fit for service, that would be placing a restriction on character design, which is apparently Bad.

Do people really have to say "We want GOOD diversity" to satisfy you? You can have gender equality and not shitty designs at the same time, you know. You seem to think we're asking for the Awakening designs to show up again (heeeell no, and not even just for Nowi or stuff like Dark Mages).

Oh, well that's fine. So what you're saying is that variety in character design is always good, when it's good. I don't disagree!

[MajorMajora]

I'm a man. I want my Avatar to ride a pegasus. Why shouldn't it?

Yes, we get it, you've proved a point about not every woman who exists is a perfect example of not conforming to stereotypes. You have yet to answered that question.

[Anouleth]

Yes, we get it, you've proved a point about not every woman who exists is a perfect example of not conforming to stereotypes.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

You have yet to answered that question.

What question?

[Rehab]

But there are some things that women can't physically do. No woman in the world can run 100 metres in 10 seconds. In general, women are slower runners than men.

Okay, so today I learned that the women's 100 meter dash is one second slower than that of the men's. What that has to do with gender-based class restrictions in Fire Emblem, you have left me to puzzle. I'm getting bored of it.

Of course there exists a woman, probably more than one, that could probably fit the axe-fighter design. The question is if there are so many that they need to be "represented". Or if we care at all at ensuring that every body-type demographic gets "representation", no matter how ludicrously small it is.

The answers to those questions are yes and yes, respectively, as they're much more respectable than you give them credit, and have seen poorer representation in the past than they deserve. Yes, deserve.

If every FE character looked fit for service, that would be placing a restriction on character design, which is apparently Bad.

It was a jokey, non-sequitur observation poking fun at myself. I must protest you trying to make an actual point of it, because there is none to be made.

Oh, well that's fine. So what you're saying is that variety in character design is always good, when it's good. I don't disagree!

There was a point here. It's gone now.

You're having a really hard time getting your head around that I don't think every character should be like this, and are conveniently eluding actually giving a statement of your own on the merits, or lack thereof, of gender-based class restrictions.

[Anouleth]

Okay, so today I learned that the women's 100 meter dash is one second slower than that of the men's.

Well, it doesn't matter how much slower it is, but I think pretty much everyone should know that men's records are faster than women's records in pretty much every Olympic event. That's why, y'know, Olympic events are segregated.

What that has to do with gender-based class restrictions in Fire Emblem, you have left me to puzzle. I'm getting bored of it.

According to you, the reason why we're going on about body types is to preempt the idea that there are some things that women just physically can't do. But there are things that women can't do. I personally don't see the relevance either, but you brought it up!

The answers to those questions are yes and yes, respectively, as they're much more respectable than you give them credit, and have seen poorer representation in the past than they deserve. Yes, deserve.

I thought about it, I still don't give a shit about giving representation to buff, muscular women. I don't think that they deserve anything, any more than anyone else does. Nobody "deserves" representation in video games. What is so special about buff, muscular woman that they deserve representation above that what other underrepresented body-type demographics get?

It was a jokey, non-sequitur observation poking fun at myself.

Oh rehab, you are such a card! with your rants on video game character design! how wacky etc.

You're having a really hard time getting your head around that I don't think every character should be like this,

When have I ever said that.

and are conveniently eluding actually giving a statement of your own on the merits, or lack thereof, of gender-based class restrictions.

That's because I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject. I don't really care what gender my units are, at least not consciously. Edited June 18, 2013 by Anouleth

[Steampunk]

The athletic reference is just to show that women aren't all one build with only minimal height variation and cup size variation as a lot of character designers tend to forget or flat out ignore when designing female characters, not just in FE.

Fair enough.

The message I'm trying to get across is that there's no evidence that there isn't a type of man out there who is not total fantasy from head to toe that could ride a winged horse (yes I recognize the irony in using the word fantasy here, thanks for asking), and there's likewise no evidence that there couldn't possibly be a woman out there who could fit the axe-fighter design.

Yeah I don't think there's a reason why they couldn't. I will say though, speaking as a man who's ridden horses IRL for a long time (and has taken jumps), landing a Pegasus could be a little hard on the boys if you get my drift.

[The Void]

So how does it help the game mechanics for only women to ride flying horses (which is a retcon) and use staves on horses?

Edited June 18, 2013 by The Void

[Anouleth]

So how does it help the game mechanics for only women to ride flying horses (which is a retcon) and use staves on horses?

It doesn't, because gender doesn't affect any game mechanics aside from making children. If every character in FE7 was a man, the gameplay would be completely unchanged...

[MajorMajora]

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

What question?

I'm saying that What you are arguing, about how not every woman is an olympic athlete or something along those lines, has NOTHING to do with the point that WE'RE arguing.

The question was the sentence with a question mark at the beginning of my post.

[Shin]

If a dude wants to ride a horsebird or if a woman were to start hitting people with axes, it really wouldn't bother me. Having a few male/female only classes isn't the end of the world, but I wouldn't say no to anything a little different. It's not that ground-breaking.

[Anouleth]

I'm saying that What you are arguing, about how not every woman is an olympic athlete or something along those lines, has NOTHING to do with the point that WE'RE arguing.

I think it does. Someone said that female fighters should exist to give "representation" to different body types. But if big, buff, muscular women are an extremely small demographic, then there isn't much reason to give them representation.

The question was the sentence with a question mark at the beginning of my post.

I don't see why I have to answer that question.

[BlueFire]

I like the additional slight amount of depth/complexity that it adds to the game. It's not many classes, and many characters are already restricted from so many other classes anyways that saying that a certain gender can't use a few classes isn't a big deal to me.

[Florete]

I don't think I'm fully in either direction, but I'd sooner say yes than no. As far as I can tell, the only class currently in FE that pretty much has to be gender-specific is Valkyrie, but they could just create a male variant for a male Troubadour or change the name entirely. Female Brigands would also be strange. I wouldn't mind female fighters and male Pegasus Knights, though.

[RJWalker]

Troubadar was used to refer to males anyway.

From wikipedia:

Since the word "troubadour" is etymologically masculine, a female troubadour is usually called a trobairitz.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Constable Reggie]

I personally have no problem with gender restricted classes. IS has gone as far as making nations specific to these kinds of gender specific classes (Silesia, Ilia, etc), to the point where its practically engraved into the Fe series. It's a video game series and swords and dragons and shit, I'd rather not have equal gender representation just for the sake of having it.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[MajorMajora]

I think it does. Someone said that female fighters should exist to give "representation" to different body types. But if big, buff, muscular women are an extremely small demographic, then there isn't much reason to give them representation.

I don't see why I have to answer that question.

A: The problem isn't that there aren't enough, it's that they are, according to gameplay, physically impossible.

B: Because that point, from what I saw, was the argument that you were going against. You, from what I saw, seem to think a lack of gender restricted classes shouldn't be added to the next FE game.

[Arceus]

I think that gender-locked classes make the game more unique.

It wouldn't be fun if I had access to all the classes for both genders.

[thetiger39]

I think that gender-locked classes make the game more unique.

It wouldn't be fun if I had access to all the classes for both genders.

Its not fun and games when the male cast of FE12 gets access to every single class sans pegasus knight. Its not fun and games when I can't put aggressor and galeforce on Miss Robin and her son Morgan.

[Lord of Gabriel Knight]

I think that gender-locked classes make the game more unique.

It wouldn't be fun if I had access to all the classes for both genders.

Gender locked classes are always stupid. They're stupid in Fire Emblem, and they're stupid in other games, like Dragon Nest.

[Rehab]

Well, it doesn't matter how much slower it is, but I think pretty much everyone should know that men's records are faster than women's records in pretty much every Olympic event. That's why, y'know, Olympic events are segregated.

According to you, the reason why we're going on about body types is to preempt the idea that there are some things that women just physically can't do. But there are things that women can't do. I personally don't see the relevance either, but you brought it up!

I thought about it, I still don't give a shit about giving representation to buff, muscular women. I don't think that they deserve anything, any more than anyone else does. Nobody "deserves" representation in video games. What is so special about buff, muscular woman that they deserve representation above that what other underrepresented body-type demographics get?

Oh rehab, you are such a card! with your rants on video game character design! how wacky etc.

When have I ever said that.

That's because I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject. I don't really care what gender my units are, at least not consciously.

In contrast, I care most about specifically whether, in creating a character, gender alone determines their possible class set, which I've been assuming is to be held as the primary context of the topic. I've admittedly gotten off into discussion more body type territory, but even if I've been failing to communicate it well, my intention isn't to argue that sexual dimorphism isn't a real thing in any shape or form. Above all else, I intend to say that sexual dimorphism existing isn't a sufficient reason to require any class yet seen in fire emblem to be gendered, and that overall, gendering the classes that we have serves no good purpose. The motivation I've had to say everything that wasn't exactly that, was just to support those ideas.

With regard to body types and character design, I don't mean to single out heavily-built muscular women as a particular body type that must be represented moreso than any other, to be sure. I don't think every game, in fire emblem or not, should have every possible body type represented simply to check off a list. Like, not every game has a berserker of the Conanesque likes of Hawkeye, which is fine, and fe7 does, which is good. I don't want any body type to be totally discounted as an option when designing a character, though, and on a subjective level I think it would be a good thing to see more of body types that aren't frequently used, so long as they can be characterized well. Not to fill a quota, or because they're objectively better, but because I find them at least as interesting/usable as the more common types, and it doesn't make sense to me to consider than any worse.

[The Void]

Come to think of it, Shining Force does have men who ride pegasi.

Did somebody at IS mix the pegasus with the unicorn, hence the "only women can ride them" retcon (which goes against the Pegasus Knights who are men in Mystery of the Emblem)?

Edited July 3, 2013 by The Void