Mike Morhaime replies to open letter over diversity in Blizzard games.

[Thimagryn]

Yes you can have a damsel without being sexist. Afterall, some women are actually like that. It's sexist when it becomes a pattern and thankfully it isn't much of a pattern in WoW. But mainly because of the zealot archetype which I must insist is sexist. I really feel as though you're missing my point. It doesn't matter if Garrosh is a zealot. Garrosh wasn't written to prove that men can be strong and badass. That's what I'm finding sexist about this archetype: Writers think they can just give a woman some ass-kicking abilities and give her a tough, no nonsense attitude and that is what makes a strong woman. But it isn't. Or at least it's not the only way of making a strong woman. If there were just one or two of these zealots that would be fine, but it is practically every single major female character.

I don't fully understand that viewpoint, so I can't say I share your opinion. When I think of the female characters of WoW, I think broadly. I don't just focus on Jaina and Sylvanas. I think of Aegwynn, of Alexstraza, of Ysera, of Elune. I think of NPCs like Althea Ebonlocke, the appointed commander of the Night Watch who aspires to prove herself as a leader. I think of Boss Mida, who frankly I think should be the Goblin racial leader over Gallywix. I think of Chromie, the quirky bronze dragon with an attitude. Sure a lot of these characters are in the background, sure a lot of these characters are seemingly unimportant. But aren't these also examples of the type of 'just have' NPCs we're referring to when you're talking about homosexual characters?

I think it's unfair that many of these female characters are being exempted in conversation simply because they're not in the forefront of the story. IMO, they do represent strong feminine roles. I do think they represent women out in the world. I do think they are relevant to countering the idea that every strong female is a single-minded zealot.

In the end, the only glaring issues seem to stem from the bad writing of female characters in the main story. With this in mind, just having homosexual characters simply to represent them won't be meaningful at all, considering many strong female NPCs have been ignored in this very discussion as a means to focus on the bad characterization of the leading female roles.

[Deleted]

I don't fully understand that viewpoint, so I can't say I share your opinion. When I think of the female characters of WoW, I think broadly. I don't just focus on Jaina and Sylvanas. I think of Aegwynn, of Alexstraza, of Ysera, of Elune. I think of NPCs like Althea Ebonlocke, the appointed commander of the Night Watch who aspires to prove herself as a leader. I think of Boss Mida, who frankly I think should be the Goblin racial leader over Gallywix. I think of Chromie, the quirky bronze dragon with an attitude. Sure a lot of these characters are in the background, sure a lot of these characters are seemingly unimportant. But aren't these also examples of the type of 'just have' NPCs we're referring to when you're talking about homosexual characters?

I think it's unfair that many of these female characters are being exempted in conversation simply because they're not in the forefront of the story. IMO, they do represent strong feminine roles. I do think they represent women out in the world. I do think they are relevant to countering the idea that every strong female is a single-minded zealot.

In the end, the only glaring issues seem to stem from the bad writing of female characters in the main story. With this in mind, just having homosexual characters simply to represent them won't be meaningful at all, considering many strong female NPCs have been ignored in this very discussion as a means to focus on the bad characterization of the leading female roles.

I do think how important the characters are is important when looking at if they're sexist. When a character is minor they tend to be less fleshed out and I feel that Blizzard is less concerned with making them "awesome." Ironically this usually results in more realistic characters. But as soon as they have a character in the forefront that characters needs to be made "awesome" and with female characters this always seems to result in the same thing. Hopefully Yrel is going to buck the trend but for now I'm just calling it as I see it.

[Mormolyce]

I backed up my statements with sources and fact. I guess because you don't agree with it, the argument is now 'idiotic'. Sure, if you feel that way, but the numbers don't lie. MoP saw a decline, and most of those numbers came from the East.

I didn't dispute that Blizzard said the losses came "mostly" from China. It's the inference that MoP therefore was designed to appeal to Asians that is idiotic.

[Deleted]

In terms of Homosexual characters things are kind of different because as of now there are no confirmed gay characters. So the first step here is just to have one of those.

So it's not really about discounting the minor female characters, it's just about the fact that the major and minor female characters are written differently. More attention is placed on the former and that attention ends up ruining them.

[Tastyfish]

I like this continual stream of argument that it's not important...
Clearly it's important, to people so maybe that dismissive shit should just kind of evaporate.
Well, since it is not something that you relate to you it means nothing? That is some kind of, -ist
That kind of old lady nattering is beyond me, cause I know most of the people saying that exist in the world, and have concerns that are looked down upon, so they should get why it's a thing for some people. LOL idk. It's so silly, and egotistical to just declare importance of something you care nothing about other then to be contrary. ( oh a trap, a trap)

[Jessicka]

Understandable. But what I'm concerned with is the narrow perspective that most who argue this seem to have. I mean sure Varian and Anduin are going to be present in the story, because they are arguably the face of the Alliance; the main characters. Does this mean that every other character that has been encountered who does not follow into the next expansion's story can be ignored? I mean we aren't only ever encountering middle aged white heterosexual men. That's not what Wrathion is, that's not who Lorewalker Cho is, that isn't who Yrel is. We encounter entirely new races like Hozen and Jinyu, with their own cultures and ideals. Do they not count towards the diversity argument simply because they did not become main characters of the overall Warcraft storyline?

This is the peculiar thing. We encounter these new cultures, which all invariably ascribe to a patriarchal autocratic regime. Night Elves originally bucked that trend, but of late have moved back towards that with Malfurion effectively taking over, and Tyrande being made to look like an idiot by Varian's grandstanding; which is then immediately followed up with him belittling of Jaina after her personal 'moment of glory' being presented as a grievous error. Yrel we see "grow", but Maraad is a badass from the outset.

I see the Warcraft storyline as a whole, rather than with tunnel vision on the 'current focus' of the story as shown to us through cinematics or raid content. I don't see where the argument for lack of diversity comes from when again, we're interacting with new races and NPCs with every expansion. In my previous arguments, I've said that the story focuses only on a select few main characters at a time, so I don't think making a diverse cast is going to help because there isn't enough room to make everyone a main character.

Sorry, but I can't even understand your argument. You can only introduce and focus on a few characters at a time, but there's no time within that introduction to those new characters to introduce and learn about those characters while you're focused on them? You spend often an entire zone, or more following them around, so sorry, but there's a ton of time.

TBH I don't think we lack diversity at all. We've had characters like Lorewalker Cho and Wrathion be just as prominent in the story as Anduin. If you're specifically talking about sexual diversity, I really don't know how Blizzard could tackle this. They're in a lose-lose position no matter where they turn. Do you remember Ji Firepaw in MoP Alpha? He says to your character "Wow you are some kind of gorgeous aren't you? I can tell we are going to be good friends!", no matter if you're male or female. There was a lot of controversy around this one bit of arguably placeholder text. There was more controversy when they removed/changed it.

I don't think portraying a character as a sex-pest, regardless of their preference is really an argument about diversity here. Ultimately, you picked 3 males as examples of diversity, so I think the answer is pretty straightforward on sexual diversity. Just have a female character take a lead on something, and not have a male character have to "fix it" after she "gets it wrong"; just get on with the story with her having had her get the job done right. That trial of the High King might have been more persuasive if he'd delegated the job to the Night Elves because he felt they were best equipped for the job and trusted Tyrande to get on with it.

I really don't know how they could tackle homosexual characters in Warcraft. Even if it was just a side character that nobody gives a shit about, the fact that they are homosexual will be used to prop them up as a pillar of representing every homosexual in Warcraft. This means they would have to start out by making a main character openly gay and fit them into the story in a way that makes sense. Sure they could do this, but when you think of the overall plot and how disconnected the main characters in the story are from our own characters, you will begin to question why even bother mentioning this character's sexuality when it has nothing to do with fighting the Burning Legion or stopping the Old Gods from turning us into mindless slaves. And yes, it did bother me that Jaina and Kalec were put into a relationship together, because I just don't see the point of telling that in the middle of an ongoing faction war. And I guess that pushes my point - if Blizzard is already this bad at writing relationship stories, why woudl you want them to write about homosexuals?

Because a huge part of character writing is how they interact with other characters. Do you think Kalec would have been more, or less persuasive to Jaina if she had no feelings for him? If she hadn't been close to Thrall, would she have felt so massively betrayed by him? You cannot write a story and just ignore inter-personal relationships, romantic or otherwise. This is exactly what I meant earlier when I said characters shape the world - their reactions to eachother often have huge knock-on effects across the whole story.

[Thimagryn]

This is the peculiar thing. We encounter these new cultures, which all invariably ascribe to a patriarchal autocratic regime. Night Elves originally bucked that trend, but of late have moved back towards that with Malfurion effectively taking over, and Tyrande being made to look like an idiot by Varian's grandstanding; which is then immediately followed up with him belittling of Jaina after her personal 'moment of glory' being presented as a grievous error. Yrel we see "grow", but Maraad is a badass from the outset.

Yes but they're not all patriarchal, so you can't use that argument as a case that the game is being sexist. Mantid still follow orders under their Queen. Naga are very much matriarchal, and are an active threat in the world. What about the Hyldnir of Storm Peaks; the faction of female Frost Vrykul. Even two of the Dragonflights are lead by female representatives. Ignoring them doesn't make your argument have any more worth. You would only have that argument if races were all patriarchal.

Sorry, but I can't even understand your argument. You can only introduce and focus on a few characters at a time, but there's no time within that introduction to those new characters to introduce and learn about those characters while you're focused on them? You spend often an entire zone, or more following them around, so sorry, but there's a ton of time.

If you level up through Cataclysm, a big chunk of quests and dungeon content are dedicated to learning about and questing with Lilian Voss. In those moments, I would view her as a main focus of the story. So why is she always being ignored in the context of this discussion? Because the conversation always shifts to characters like Jaina and Sylvanas as the only strong females in the game. I think it's unfair, considering we have more quest interaction with Lilian Voss than we ever had with Sylvanas. We only know more about Sylvanas because of Warcraft 3.

Lilian's story is exactly what you want to see. It's about her finding herself and not letting the man (in this case, her father) control her life. She takes her independence and fights for what she believes to be right, as radical it may be.

I don't think portraying a character as a sex-pest, regardless of their preference is really an argument about diversity here. Ultimately, you picked 3 males as examples of diversity, so I think the answer is pretty straightforward on sexual diversity. Just have a female character take a lead on something, and not have a male character have to "fix it" after she "gets it wrong"; just get on with the story with her having had her get the job done right.

You mean characters like Althea Ebonlocke, who successfully leads the Night Watch of Darkshire? Or Greatmother Geyah who lead the Mag'har? What about Therazane in Deepholm? These are all female characters who lead factions important to the story. These are all characters who aren't being dominated or put down by male counterparts.

You're not looking at strong female roles, you're too focused on main character roles.

[adorich]

Yes but they're not all patriarchal, so you can't use that argument as a case that the game is being sexist. Mantid still follow orders under their Queen. Naga are very much matriarchal, and are an active threat in the world. What about the Hyldnir of Storm Peaks; the faction of female Frost Vrykul. Even two of the Dragonflights are lead by female representatives. Ignoring them doesn't make your argument have any more worth. You would only have that argument if races were all patriarchal.

In all of your examples, the female characters are bad guys, crazy, or both. That's the problem. Diversity isn't just about putting more females etc. into Wow, it's about including females (or other minorities) that don't exemplify stereotypes, don't have huge character flaws and don't need to be rescued (or have their problems fixed) by a man.

[Thimagryn]

In all of your examples, the female characters are bad guys, crazy, or both. That's the problem. Diversity isn't just about putting more females etc. into Wow, it's about including females (or other minorities) that don't exemplify stereotypes, don't have huge character flaws and don't need to be rescued (or have their problems fixed) by a man.

Yes but as soon as you have a faction of friendly female pacifists who are seeking to heal the world, they're going to be criticized for not being strong and independent. Does anyone care about Mylune protecting the animals of Hyjal?

And I've given example of many factions lead by females. Ebonlocke and Darkshire's Night Watch, the entirity of Deepholm under Therazane, and the Mag'har under Greatmother Geyah. Do they not count towards this?

[Yumae]

If you level up through Cataclysm, a big chunk of quests and dungeon content are dedicated to learning about and questing with Lilian Voss. In those moments, I would view her as a main focus of the story. So why is she always being ignored in the context of this discussion? Because the conversation always shifts to characters like Jaina and Sylvanas as the only strong females in the game. I think it's unfair, considering we have more quest interaction with Lilian Voss than we ever had with Sylvanas. We only know more about Sylvanas because of Warcraft 3.

Lilian's story is exactly what you want to see. It's about her finding herself and not letting the man (in this case, her father) control her life. She takes her independence and fights for what she believes to be right, as radical it may be.

You mean characters like Althea Ebonlocke, who successfully leads the Night Watch of Darkshire? Or Greatmother Geyah who lead the Mag'har? What about Therazane in Deepholm? These are all female characters who lead factions important to the story. These are all characters who aren't being dominated or put down by male counterparts.

You're not looking at strong female roles, you're too focused on main character roles.

I don't think Lillian is a good example outside of the starting zones though. They build her up as an interesting character, but in the end of the zone she really just has a daddy complex, or in other words she's completely fixated on a man and his expectations of her. Later when we encounter her in Scholo she is violated and presumably destroyed by a man who has almost completely control over her. Sure she breaks out at the last second, and it may be she still lives, but until we see her again (and I kind of doubt we will), she's another potentially great female character overwritten by male characters.

The other examples you mention are definitely worth mentioning, but it's not like we can make the problematic elements of all the major female characters disappear with a wave of our magical wand and a "But Therazane guys!"

[Kantoro]

Must get old playing the victim all the time, I don't know how people can consistently cry about stuff like this. Aren't there more important things to whine about than racial/gender profiling in a fucking video game?

[Yumae]

Hopefully Yrel is going to buck the trend but for now I'm just calling it as I see it.

Also really hoping for this!

[Nosdrone]

Oooh, and now sexism is showing it's face in Hearthstone!

https://twitter.com/Elvinelol/status/491327347048857601
https://twitter.com/MagdalenaDK/stat...29018332217344

[Pull My Finger]

Oooh, and now sexism is showing it's face in Hearthstone!

https://twitter.com/Elvinelol/status/491327347048857601
https://twitter.com/MagdalenaDK/stat...29018332217344

"The flavour text of the Baron Rivendare card is is exceptionally poor taste, and frankly quite insulting." What text are they talking about?

[Nosdrone]

[Pull My Finger]

Haha, that's great. Of course you can't expect those pathetic people to have any humor.

[roahn the warlock]

Yes it is sexist. Because the point of that character is to avoid the Damsel in Distress archetype, by creating a supposedly "strong, independent, badass" female character. Which is an admirable motive however it ends up resulting in a poorly written and unlikeable character - despite their good intentions Blizzard are demonstrating that they struggle with writing a strong female in a likeable manner.

It is true that there are relatively few major meek and quiet major female characters - mainly because Blizzard is getting so into the zealot archetype. Jaina pre-MoP fits the archetype very well however.

I am optimistic for the future however. Yrel seems to be shaping up pretty good and you're right Lyalia is neither a damsel nor a zealot. However in this thread I have only been speaking of major characters. Minor characters tend to have little characterisation and as such ironically end up more realistic in this world of cartoon characters. Hopefully things are changing, but as things stand there is still a long way to go.

- - - Updated - - -



Black people exist in WoW. You can create them in the character creation screen, and Black Dragons often disguise themselves as black people (which presumably they wouldn't do if they didn't exist - they want to blend in after all). And yet there are no major (and barely any minor) black, actually human lore characters.

You need to find better ways to spend your time. Quickly

- - - Updated - - -

pftahahahahahaha

[Tiev]

Pardo's comments. Banning people for forming LGBT guilds. Writing songs with homophobic lyrics. Writing thousands of characters but not once including gay people despite many people pointing out it would be nice.

HOW THE EFF do you know that none of those characters they wrote are gay?

No, really. Tell me how you can tell. Because as far as I know, said characters don't go around proclaiming their sexuality like it's some sort of ID card in a totalitarian government. It's an information that isn't relevant to gameplay, story or the events unfolding around azeroth, hence, they don't go out of their way to include it.

"We named him DRANOSH. It means heart of Draenor in Orcish. Also, he's gay".

[Pull My Finger]

Writing songs with homophobic lyrics

LOL, just WHAT is this confused person talking about?

[Xires]

HOW THE EFF do you know that none of those characters they wrote are gay?

No, really. Tell me how you can tell. Because as far as I know, said characters don't go around proclaiming their sexuality like it's some sort of ID card in a totalitarian government. It's an information that isn't relevant to gameplay, story or the events unfolding around azeroth, hence, they don't go out of their way to include it.

"We named him DRANOSH. It means heart of Draenor in Orcish. Also, he's gay".

WOAH! STOP! You are making way WAAAAY to much sense right now.../thread