Can we have a debate about women without getting it locked?

[Mr. Walfington]

There's not much of a debate. If TW kept gender the way that it was in Warband, then the game would be open to attack on Twitter.

I don't mind having lots of female leaders, it's interesting in a way. But suspension of disbelief is a real thing. There is always a price to pay when you make something distractingly unrealistic. I wish people simply acknowledged this price rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Cornelis]

There's not much of a debate. If TW kept gender the way that it was in Warband, then the game would be open to attack on Twitter.

I don't mind having lots of female leaders, it's interesting in a way. But suspension of disbelief is a real thing. There is always a price to pay when you make something distractingly unrealistic. I wish people simply acknowledged this price rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

Agreed it wouldn't be acceptable under todays society female lords aren't that much of a bother but a mod will be fixing it soon enough just because i preferred it the way it was in warband and Taleworlds has already implemented female lords and I think that removing these lords would probably cause too much backlash so they probably won't be taking any risks by changing it

 

[crimsonfilms]

There's not much of a debate. If TW kept gender the way that it was in Warband, then the game would be open to attack on Twitter.

I don't mind having lots of female leaders, it's interesting in a way. But suspension of disbelief is a real thing. There is always a price to pay when you make something distractingly unrealistic. I wish people simply acknowledged this price rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

The suspension of disbelief has nothing to do with historical accuracy. It is up to the content being presented and personal context. I assume you suspend your disbelief in other games - like sci-fi, FPS, etc. and many of those are no where close to being "realistic".

With that, if you (general "you") can't suspend your disbelief because it is a woman leader, maybe that has something more to do with your personal beliefs than it is about the game. Chances are it is 50/50.

 

[Cornelis]

The suspension of disbelief has nothing to do with historical accuracy. It is up to the content being presented and personal context. I assume you suspend your disbelief in other games - like sci-fi, FPS, etc. and many of those are no where close to being "realistic".

With that, if you (general "you") can't suspend your disbelief because it is a woman leader, maybe that has something more to do with your personal beliefs than it is about the game. Chances are it is 50/50.

Bannerlord is the events before warband and so that means that all of the female lords in warband lost their rights in the future strange world this isn't about personal beliefs it's about common sense I'm not saying that we shouldn't have any females in the game i'm just saying that personally I think the ratio is too high at the moment they shouldn't have a number of females that you have to scroll the Encyclopedia to count from my understanding if there where female combatants where rare and I just would like the game to reflect that as it would be a way to pay respect as some of us may actually be related to these people and I don't want to see their legacy washed over as if it was a common thing for women to be on the field in those times

 

[method man]

As an avid student of phrenology, I can confirm that womens' skulls are far too small for any form of warfare, especially psychological (Oxmall 412). This is not sexism—I repeat—not sexism. No, this is a science fact. Any inclusion of women in a universe as violent as Bannerlord's is simply preposterous. In fact, medieval societies, which were far more enlightened on such matters, kept women in cages for their own protection. They were, after all, not wily enough to survive in that society (Saycure 599).

I must stress that I'm simply stating reasoned, researched facts; I do not dislike women in any way. I do, however, dislike the awful women who refuse to date clever men and instead date dullards. Such women do incense me, but that is besides the point. The point is that any inclusion of women in Bannerlord should distress a red-blooded man. It ought to be put to an end—on grounds both humanitarian and for the sake of historical record.

Works Cited

Oxmall, Michael "Scientific proof of the inferiority of the womanly sex" Journal of Phrenology, vol. 18, no. 2, Oct. 1854

Saycure, Ian "A response to the feminists: women aren't quite human" Journal of Childrearer Studies, vol. 29, no. 3 Jan. 1877

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Give me my sword sisters!

 

[Apocal]

I don't mind having lots of female leaders, it's interesting in a way. But suspension of disbelief is a real thing. There is always a price to pay when you make something distractingly unrealistic. I wish people simply acknowledged this price rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

A lot of other bigger things get in the way of their suspension of disbelief before women leading parties.

 

[Deathmacabre]

I know this is fantasy game but if women can be in late state of pregnancy and still fight in melee then why men can not give birth to baby?

 

[Mad Vader]

I know this is fantasy game but if women can be in late state of pregnancy and still fight in melee then why men can not give birth to baby?

Because they'll get rid of it, they don't want to end up in a holy book.

Spoiler

 

[Gandamula]

This is a fantasy game, where women and man have the same role.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

I've posted this before, but there are several advantages to playing as a female character:

• You're not constantly losing relation with kings because you keep rejecting their offers of vassalship.
• You don't have to suck up to a guy and his daughter/sister in order to get married.
• You don't have to come up with a dowry or wait until you get a castle/town to get married.
• You don't have to memorize any bad poetry.
• You'll never have to duel anyone over a love affair.
• As long as you're married, rebelling and keeping your properties is easy.
• You can garrison troops in any property your husband owns, free of charge. You can also take troops from his properties.
• You can steal high-value prisoners from his properties as well, and you get the ransom!
• You're guaranteed at least 1 vassal for your kingdom right away.

The one in bold writing is the chief advantage of playing as a female character, and what the wiki means when they say you can use a husband as a political tool: Join a faction, get married, and rack up a bunch of fiefs together with your husband. Once you're rich enough and have a lot of properties between the two of you, convince your husband that you really should be Queen of Calradia, and you've instantly rebelled with all the properties you jointly own, and with your husband as a vassal. No need to wait to get rejected for a fief, no need to lose your properties. Or, take up a claimant's cause, convince a lord to join the cause as well and marry him, and have the claimant assign all fiefs to you and/or your husband. Then, tell the claimant you don't think their rebellion will succeed and withdraw. Now you've got most of their territories and you've weakened both the original faction and the claimant's faction, so they're easy to conquer. If you have the Diplomacy mod, you can also marry a claimant directly, but then you don't get to rule personally.

Warband sexism has more depth gameplay features than Bannerlord can offer right now, I dare to say. Personally, I want sexism back in the game just because playing as a woman in that way definitely more fun. I mean in Warband beating that cocky sexist lords in the battlefield is one enough reason to play as a woman. Did woman overpresented in Bannerlord? For me, ofcourse they did. A handful of examples of female lords could be more immersive for me and the interactions with them as a female character, if implemented, could immerse the player even more, I think.

 

[Deathmacabre]

People need to learn how to separate real life and video games. This game is very heavily historically influenced. Realism is something that is very important to get you interested into playing the game and whan your wife fights alongside you in huge battle and gives birth to baby next day basically destroyes it. World where is bannerlord isnamazingly harsh where pain and suffering is huge and surviving is main preocupation for the people and not some gender equality. Men are betternin fighting, women in housekeeping. Accept it and move on

 

[babelfisch]

Make misogynistic comments but camouflage them as non misogynistic comments, got it

Sometimes you can make a point without insulting someone just by finding better words for it. A debate that starts with an insult rarely leads any where.

 

[babelfisch]

The histrionic medieval gender studies crowd can't handle a debate. They want to claim Medieval society was sexist but want to say that women were accepted as warriors. It makes no sense, you can't debate with someone who has come to their conclusions without any logic. They have been instructed by modern academics to be offended by all of things they view as sexist, history is not safe to alteration. 20 years ago there was no gripe in this area of history, this mantra sprouted up in the last 10 years. It is what it is. Anyone who looks at medieval history knows that women were almost never combatants in warfare. Women in this time period also did not believe it was sexist for them not to fight in wars; again this is also a recent drift in egalitarian views of gender. The "gender is a social construct" argument is an anti western philosophical proposition, that is where this stems from. Most of the kids posting in here don't have enough education (self awareness) to understand this is an ideological battleground.

One reason for the change over the last years is science. There are a few examples for graves with weapons where archeologists assumed it must be a man because women can't fight or wouldn't be buried with weapons. Some of these findings were re examined recently and it turned out that they were indeed women. This is just an example, but it shows how much prejudice is or was going on.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Can we have a debate about women without getting it locked?

No, because gender is just one of those things that a lot of people have tied up in their self identity in complicated ways unrelated to the game. It's the same reason why "could we have more non-european factions" threads often devolve into crap. By saying you want more women in a video game you are indirectly attacking some people's self worth in a way, and discussion of that type are personal and will never be resolved over the internet.

 

[sniparsexe]

Calradia isn't the real world so it doesn't matter

that's the debate

 

[Because]

Calradia isn't the real world so it doesn't matter

that's the debate

It does if you have an issue around gender. I am honestly happier with the gender balance as it adds to the variety of the game for me and which to me as you say is just a made up world so who cares about historical accuracy. Heck I'd like them to go further and give me back swords sisters. Other people it obviously really bothers, be it as they see it as more of a historical wargame than a fantasy one or for other reasons.
There's no way that TW can please everyone so I think the middle ground they are treading is about right and there will be mods to tweak it further for outlying tastes.

 

[babelfisch]

With this kind of argument you could also justify wizards and dragons in Bannerlord.. The game aims to realism, as much as it is possible, while keeping Mount&Blade gameplay concept/experience alive. For keeping it alive, you "have to" give up some of the realism. For example, if only one of ten lords go into battle, the whole gameplay concept/experience wouldn't work at all, so you need to give up on some realism there, to keep the game concept gameplay concept/experience alive. Having many ladies in the game doesen't add anything to the gameplay concept/experience so it is dispensable. Every element that doesen't add to the gameplay concept/experience of Mount&Blade and diminishes the realism, should get eliminated. The game series lives of exactly that maximum realism with a very unique gameplay concept/experience (which only works when forgoing on some realism). This is what makes them so great and differs it from any others.

Having a few fighting women isn't really comparable to wizards and dragons.

 

[Mad Vader]

Other people it obviously really bothers, be it as they see it as more of a historical wargame than a fantasy one or for other reasons.

But that's the thing, those other people want a fantasy too - their fantasy is a sausage fest an exclusively male-dominated world that doesn't exist anymore.
What is significant for me is they are very vocal about it across the internet in gaming forums and they can be identified as a loose group. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Apocal]

World where is bannerlord isnamazingly harsh where pain and suffering is huge and surviving is main preocupation for the people and not some gender equality.

BL's world isn't harsh by any stretch: as long as you don't actively **** the place up, things become and stay pretty good. By time the late game rolls around, there is generally only sporadic fighting over the border regions while the interiors stay nice places to live.