Sidebar: Racism and Sexism in the Conan Board Game

This post is a sidebar on the topic of sexism and racism in the Conan board game.  I'm trying to provide context on both sides of the argument (with my opinions clearly stated) to help potential gamers decide if this is a game they'd want on their table.

No disrespect intended to anyone who disagrees with this and I believe it's okay to have a difference of opinion as long as that opinion doesn't impinge on anyone's civil rights.

Racism in Conan

I am a fan of Robert E. Howard's work and I need to preface the following with an important caveat to some of his writing style.  I find his use of racial stereotypes and especially his seemingly hierarchical ranking of races seems racist and I find it repulsive.  In my opinion, this is not acceptable in modern art, literature, games, etc.

Howard put Conan's world as a pre-history of our own.  This allowed him to use history to more easily flesh out areas.  Every race and location in Conan is fictional although they usually mirror something real.  As Wikipedia states, "the extent of [Howard's] racist beliefs are debated" and "Howard became less racist as he grew older" illustrating that it's not as straightforward as portrayed. Being of Irish descent himself, considered an undesirable minority at the time, Howard was probably more sympathetic than other Texans to those different than him.

The two groups that seem to be discussed are the picts and Khitains. 

Artistically, Khitai has a mixture of multiple Asian cultures stylistic influence, which is how it's generically inferred as part of the mysterious east, although Conan never actually traveled there in any of Howard's tales.  Monolith appears to have also leveraged some of the art from Funcom's Age of Conan game, whose only major expansion was Khitai and has many stunning areas. Strategically,  with almost nothing in canon, both Funcom and Monolith would have more flexibility in designing Khitai as they wanted.  I'd speculate that Monolith using some of Funcom's art direction probably also presented an opportunity for cost savings along with unifying the look of Khitai between these two Conan properties.

Having the Khitains use historical sytling, is no different than the pirates and Belit's guards from using traditional garb.  These looks were inspired by history, which Howard was an avid reader of, along with mythology (see the putting our world in a pre-history - things tie together when you know the context).

Within the context of Howard's writings I disagree with Cynthia Horbeck, formerly of Asmodee, and her assessment that Howard and Monolith approached Khitai and the picts with racist attitudes.  She said Monolith was dehumanizing the Iroquois.  On the flip side, making the picts less human was, as Shut up and Sit Down noted, probably to avoid the appearance of Conan cutting down Native Americans by the dozens.  Now, as far as I remember from history, Native Americans didn't burn prisoners alive or summoned demons.  Howard's "Hyborian Age" picts did.

Monolith's picts are closer to the description in the medieval set Dark Man where they were very small in height, squat, and muscular.  These are definitely not the picts of Kull's time or even Conan's but for the reason stated above, think it's a better choice for art.

One of Howard's other characters was Bran Mak Morn who was a more historically inspired pict from the 3rd century CE and was a descendant of Kull.  This is only important because it's unlikely a racist would spend the time making an object of their disdain into a hero.

Much of Howard's works had an underlying theme of barbarism and society and said "Barbarianism is the natural state of mankind.  Civilization is unnatural.  It is the whim of circumstance.  And barbarianism must ultimately triumph."  This is why the picts and Conan are so important as they represent the portions of humanity that will survive the next cataclysm.

The picts were one of Conan's (and most Cimmerians) natural foes along with the Vanir and Ymish based on geography.  This was actually where SUSD got the character incorrect - Conan distrusted magic, but didn't consider the Khitains to be his mortal enemies.  The people of Khitai, much like Cimmerians, were rare and mysterious foreigners from lands of legends to most of the western civilized world.  For most of Conan's career, he traveled and fought with whoever would employ him.

Within the context of each scenario, the fighting is part of a story and none that I'm aware of read "Conan and friends need to kill all of [ethnic group] because they don't deserve to live."  In the game, you're fighting a skirmish to accomplish a mission, or to escape capture, etc.  It's not about race.

TL;DR - Robert E. Howard may had some questionable views, by modern standards but they don't clearly manifest themselves in this game.  The players are fighting many different human foes but their race isn't why they're being attacked.

Sexism in Conan

 Another thing Monolith, and some reviewers, partially got wrong during the first campaign is Howard's depiction of women.  Monolith got it wrong in the sense that Conan stories often featured very strong women (Devi, Belit, Valeria, Gitara, Zelata, and even Belasa) and they didn't feature them enough in the base game.

(L to R): Princess, Belit (retail box), Zelata,
and Valeria (King's Pledge)

They later correctly wrote in the Book of Set (another collection of scenarios from a 2017 Kickstarter campaign) about the strong pantheon of women in Conan.  Belit was described in Queen of the Black Coast as mostly naked (and it was by her own choice).  Valeria and Zelata were appropriately clad for their professions.  Some add-ons like Parente's Valeria and Salmone, and both the Brom and Collette (links may be NSFW) versions of Belit models that were physically exaggerated and overly-sexualized with large breasts and minimal clothing.  These helped reinforce a perception that Monolith was more interested in playing to the male audience than finding a middle ground.

(L to R): Akivasha, Gitara, and Savage Belit

Howard, probably as a way of trying to boost his marketability to the pulps, did objectify women by spending time describing them physically, often highlighting their breasts, cleavage, hair, and their curves.  Much like Monolith, he was writing to what he or the editors perceived the audience was.

Howard had an infatuation with aging and both Akivasha and Tascela used the blood of women to maintain their youth.  Beauty was often a proxy for youth and vitality.  Many of these characters, probably for the reason listed above as well, appeared in minimal clothing.

Valeria's introduction in Red Nails is an excellent of example of the description Howard would give female characters and Adrian Smith's Valeria looks as she's described and she's awesome (another one of my favorite miniatures).  He also spent plenty of time describing Conan's broad chest and  muscular arms and legs as well as his black hair and his blue eyes.

Part of the issue was there just weren't many females in the game.  The retail game only contained two female characters, the stretch goals three more, and the King's pledge another two.  Up to seven out of over 200 minis shows the game's figures are very heavily slanted towards male enemies and characters.

Rhetorically, what's the male/female split in Memoir '44?

What also ruffled people's loin cloths was the princess ends up being an object (you had to carry her) bringing the term 'objectifying' to a new low.  There's many mechanics in games that don't make sense in reality.  Making her an object probably represents her being bound or in a weakened state.  It balances the game.  Do you discard your armor to maintain your speed?  Do you have enough time for the slow walk to the border of the board?  This is a game mechanic, not an assault on women's rights.

I would love to have read more tales about Valeria and Conan

The art on the original rulebook (featuring a practically naked woman laying unconscious on an alter while a heavily armed man approaches) was, while pulpy, a poor choice in 2016 and beyond (Shut Up and Sit Down astutely referred to it as "wincingly 1930's").

Hornbeck's scathing post about the contents of the game said the cover invoked rape or potential rape by the man approaching.  The woman was his prize and that was the only way to interpret it.

Ms. Hornbeck writes and defends her positions throughout her post articulately, in general.  I respectfully, and sometimes strongly, disagree with some of what she says.  Context is important and understanding the world Howard created starts to make some of his decisions make more sense.  As such, I take the game and the character of Conan very differently than Hornbeck.

As a counter point and as a male, I do not have a female's perspective on life nor art.  Everyone's entitled to their interpretation of art (we just disagree in this case).  I also believe Howard was ahead of his time when it comes to his views on gender equality which is clearly not a view Hornbeck shares.

Conan, an anti-hero most of the time, did have questionable moments with women in a few stories - he chased a taunting Atali planning on having his way with her and he essentially stalked and antagonized Valeria at the beginning of Red Nails.  In the rest of the stories, while he's attracted to women and makes some questionable choices due to this attraction; he's generally protective of them, risking his life without thought of his own safety.  Conan didn't even want to draw his sword on Valeria to disarm her when she had enough of his advances.  And if the argument is "women don't need men to protect us" - that's great.  That's not what Howard wrote 80 plus years ago.

Shirtless enemy males in the King's Pledge

Where we agree, in my opinion, is it was a mistake to not include other females in the core box.  Adding Valeria, for example, would've given players a choice of two female characters (a leader and a warrior).   Adding in Zelata would've given a magic using female as well.  More heroes gives more options, right?  Well, sort of.  Keep reading to see the scenario section of the main review for one more short-coming about hero selection.

Now where Conan's world, as it's depicted, is actually more even handed than many other fantasy worlds; the men are often as poorly armored as the women.  Many of the Conan figures are shirtless, as is Shevatas, Taurus, and all the minion pirates and picts.  It doesn't make sense when you're rushing into battle, but this is also a game that features a 40' long snake and a flying demon so take that reality.


At it's heart Conan, the character and the game, is power fantasy (here Hornbeck and I agree again) and it definitely appeals to young men who'd like to be Conan.  The genre is defined by muscular men and beautiful women (even the witch Zelata has a wolf companion so she's also a powerful character) battling through hordes of monsters to save the damsel in distress or plunder an ancient city.  In the game you can leap between ships at sea, cross swords with pirates, battle monstrous demons, and sneak through a village of savage picts.  Now where we disagree (again), I see this as fun escapsim and she sees it as vile misogyny that plays a role in repressing women.

Shirtless heroes in the King's Pledge

She said Belit's sole role is to "make the men better".  Belit also has the ability to get her guards to sacrifice themselves to protect her.  Who says there's no chivalry in Conan's world?  It's also apparent that Ms. Hornbeck didn't understand the Belit was the captain of the Tigress and Conan was both her lover and follower.  The core box Belit is a powerful character in her own right, but much like Hadrathus, her strength is not in front line fighting.

Right, wrong, or otherwise, if the game is named after you; you're probably the best character in it.

The Real Issue?

Towards the end of her post is where I believe Hornbeck's real argument and concern is.  She compared the misogyny and treatment of women in Conan to Donald Trump's political campaign and saying they are enjoyed by the same people.

*record scratch*

Um, no.

When I originally read that line, I actually disregarded everything else she said because of the logic defying leap required to tie a popular fictional character to one of the most divisive figures of 21st century politics.  Also, former President Obama is a Conan fan.  Just saying.

Only in writing this post, did I read her tumblr post again and then do some light research to defend my counterpoints.

Yes, like any two things there will be some overlap and that makes sense given Conan's fairly broad popularity.  There's also overlap between people that like beer, people that like Star Wars, and people that like to get kicked in the nuts.  But that doesn't mean you can kick everyone you see holding a barley pop while wearing a Star Wars shirt in the hackey-sack.

While nothing is truly apolitical, there's no need to start a fight over everything you disagree with.  Vote with your wallet.  Talk to your friends and build that stronger position; companies will listen when they lose enough money.  I would've still bought Conan even if a friend was offended by it.  But I wouldn't pull it out play it with them unless they asked, out of respect for their viewpoint.

Things are only ever going to get better if we start talking with each other, not at each other.  Bilateral dialog is how the next game or next movie moves closer to the center.

Now back to the review...