Give us girly boys and manly women! Bigger issues than bunny boys?

[ScarboroughFairy]

That's fair enough. I suppose it would suffice to say that the outrage over SE's apparent "blatant shoehorning of gender norms" is unfounded, for one, since the outrage itself is based on a perception wholly ignorant and, to a degree, inconsiderate of and in regards to the culture the game originated from.

People of the opinion I'm replying to seem like they're trying to inject their Western viewpoint somewhere it shouldn't be.

I think the issue might not be just those things, but that they're the only options given, repeatedly.

Au Ra couldn't all be fierce dragon-people; they had to get split into tiny delicate females (not that physically different to the pre-existing Midlander and Miqo'te characters) and big tough males.

Viera are elegant females with no pre-existing male counterpart, but a matching male design would be weird. Here's a hulking beastman instead - you'll like that better, won't you?


I feel like the original five races had a good mix of different body types, but instead of the three additional races filling new niches, they've stayed close to the same pattern each time.

To that last point, I don't see an issue with that given that we already have representation of several different archetypes. Au Ra is the only notable example of extreme sexual dimorphism. Now does that necessarily mean that we need another race to display the inverse? I don't believe so.

(Hrothgar also bug me from a lore standpoint, far more than male Viera - it will certainly be awkward for any future players going through ARR's plot with this very beastlike character, hearing about how the beastmen are our enemies and are feared and hated throughout the city-states...)

I might agree with you on the point with the Hrothgar, but I'm withholding my opinion until ShB provides a justification for how they might not be considered beastmen.