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

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, because there cannot be a "debate" about a controversial topic like this: according to the international law of the internet forums, by page 2 or 3, a flame war must begin regardless of the theme.

If Disneyland forums (yes they do exist) literally can't have a discussion about some mundane attraction without delving into mud-slinging, elitism or "good 'ol times" mentality, then why do we expect a relatively mainstream video game forum to have an actual debate about any topic, especially one that is controversial? It's a fool's errand to even try.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, I can't recall any argument led by any semblance of historical merit that claims women never held positions of power in the political doings in court. Noble Women were often very involved in military decisions in certain medieval societies and across history too.

"the amount of lords and kings who fight in Bannerlord is just as overrepresented as the amount of women in the ruling class in Bannerlord."

Kings and generals have been killed in battles all over the world for millennia, this above statement is a terrible analogy. Women were very common in the ruling classes in many societies. There are just not many examples of women leading armies in history, there are only a handful. There's almost no evidence of noble women ( as a cultural practice) leading an army and actually engaging in combat anywhere in history. The outlier argument is arguing a handful versus the sands on a beach, That's not outlier material. Is Bannerlord a representation of Medieval societies /late Byzantine Empire? No, it's not close. There's never been a woman in all of Roman history that was a consul or a centurion. I am not even sure why the debate about the participation of women in war even comes up to begin with.
Funny thing, reigning Queens were pretty successful in beeing aggressive, one explanation is that they could split the work of government and leading the military with their husband very effectively.
 
Do not **** with Olga of Kiev
%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%9E%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B3%D0%B0.jpg
 
Since it's not a historical game and is only based in a world that is vastly similar (but still different) from our real-world medieval society, I don't have a problem with so many warrior women, though I wouldn't have a problem if there were even fewer of them. (my character would feel even more awesome and exclusive because of that), so I don't have any strong opinions about it.
 
I think the answer to this should be pretty simple and shouldn't warrant a debate. TW should introduce an option to include historical sexism in the game the same way Warband had. So have it where there's a much smaller proportion of female clan leaders/warriors, inheritance should always go to a son but go to a daughter if no other choice is given and if you play as a female character it should be much harder to gain support etc.

However this should be an option. You must remember that this game does have female players and I can imagine it would be pretty infuriating if you had to be at a significant disadvantage just cos you wanted to play as your gender. This game is very loosely based on historical factions so does not have to follow a historical narrative.

A sexism feature should come with different advantages for female characters and npc's however, such as powers for in intrigue, holding fiefs during times of war and playing politics. Because believe it or not but women did have a large influence over events in history that they are rarely credited for, just look up Eleanor of Aquitaine for a small example. Different factions should hold different belief's too, Vlandia should be more conservative, Empire should give more none war affiliated roles to women and the Khuzait should perhaps be the most liberal just as a few examples from the top of my head (i'm literally thinking this out as I type). Introduction of new policies could also dictate the role of women in kingdoms too.

But yeah I really wasn't bothered when TW didn't have the same mechanic as WB did, it's completely understandable and again, I'd be annoyed if the game was harder just cos I wanted to play as my gender, it's a video game guys, not an educational piece of history. I don't expect TW to change it but there will certainly be mods that do.
 
I think the answer to this should be pretty simple and shouldn't warrant a debate. TW should introduce an option to include historical sexism in the game the same way Warband had. So have it where there's a much smaller proportion of female clan leaders/warriors, inheritance should always go to a son but go to a daughter if no other choice is given and if you play as a female character it should be much harder to gain support etc.

However this should be an option. You must remember that this game does have female players and I can imagine it would be pretty infuriating if you had to be at a significant disadvantage just cos you wanted to play as your gender. This game is very loosely based on historical factions so does not have to follow a historical narrative.
Female player here and I would LOVE to have this option. I would always play with this option ON, if it existed.
 
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
I hope to god this is satire, if not, we've found the incel
 
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.

Grave findings of women buried with weapons (nobility status items) is not a proof of women fighting in combat. There's no Nordic cultural tradition or historical source anywhere that verifies this claim. That is not science, that is called speculation; or "gender studies" applied to history. This is a recent phenomenon, people did not think this way even 20 years ago in history classes.

Canton= This type of sardonic lunacy tactic is why people can't have a discussion and the threads gets locked. The histrionics club always does this.
 
Last edited:
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.
All I know is that life is full of ****, and after a long day of work or whatnot, people want to escape into their favorite things.

There are "male" movies and always have been, just like there are female manga genres in Japan, Korean dramas for women, boy bands for women, etc. I like Kyle MacLachlan. In Sex in the City he's just an NPC with a penis, not a multidimensional human being. That's cool, because women deserve their stories too where they're the center of everything. This is so common in storytelling and very effective.

In Bannerlord, adding more women and equalizing their skills to men does make it cool in many places. I like bumping into female lords on the battlefield, or rolling a woman just to marry the hunk with the best bow skills. It's not the same as 2016 Ghostbusters, or weird **** like casting a black woman as Gandalf in Lord of the Rings. It often goes too far, but in this game it seems fine.
 
Ignoring thread.

Female player here and I would LOVE to have this option. I would always play with this option ON, if it existed.
Try this? I don't even know if this still works, but it's something. They don't even try to hide the intent of this mod either, yet so many 'historical' gamers thinks its meant for owning the libz or something lol.
 
Since Bannelord is based around the political crises of succession in the Roman Empire, you'd expect that women would have a growing role in these unstable circumstances. I'd imagine that the political infighting between the clans would actually bring them up the social ladder purely due chance or necessity (i.e. your husband died, or you're an important family scrambling to secure influence and status during political transitions).
I agree with the guy who suggested that the number of women involved should remain relatively high, but with sexism mechanics included, like in Warband. That would simulate a world where women from rich families have a chance to fight more actively in the interest of their clan, but still within a patriarchal world.
 
Much like the primates of the animal kingdom, brute strength +athletic prowess dictates the alphas of the group hence those who fight and rule. With civilization, rich/smart/holy men and women realized if they can control the brutes, they control the power. So the Brutes still fight and dominate the battlefield but any of the aforementioned can be controlling them. Its just unusual to see that same aforementioned group ON the battlefield fighting amongside the brutes as they generally just arent physically equipped to compete and have too much to lose. Of course like everything else -there are exceptions to this rule but they are statistically insignificant.

As far as this offending peoples low self esteem -its more about finding fun in realism and not having such a fragile ego that i need me and "my peoples" included in every affair thats happened in history or even historical fiction. Pure fantasy - i dont care if its magical penguins fighting a race of talking/rapping amphibians as its not supposed to have any base of historical fact whatsoever
 
Since Bannelord is based around the political crises of succession in the Roman Empire, you'd expect that women would have a growing role in these unstable circumstances. I'd imagine that the political infighting between the clans would actually bring them up the social ladder purely due chance or necessity (i.e. your husband died, or you're an important family scrambling to secure influence and status during political transitions).
I agree with the guy who suggested that the number of women involved should remain relatively high, but with sexism mechanics included, like in Warband. That would simulate a world where women from rich families have a chance to fight more actively in the interest of their clan, but still within a patriarchal world.
That's probably the most realistic system. That said, I feel that when it comes to NPC Women, Warband effectively was just as unrealistic as Bannerlord, just in the other direction. (NPC women were marriage fodder or companions and THAT'S IT.) It should still be possible (if not easy) for Women to achieve power, with or without your help, even with the odds against them.

On another note, some common attitudes:

"Women warriors were not a thing!" True, women rarely fought in battle. When they achieved power, it was usually in other ways. However, I think it's often overlooked that nobles fighting in general was uncommon. Yes, they were expected to have martial ability. Yes, there are plenty of recorded instances of them fighting or being killed in battle. However, personal combat was generally something a leader in those times only engaged in as a last resort. Generally, they would hang back and direct their troops from the back line, instead of actively fighting on the front. I am pretty accepting of women in combat in this game for two reasons: one, frontline generals are in general more common in this game then they are, and were, in real life. Two, warriors or no, Women in power did exist in the real middle ages. With Mount and Blade's minimalistic system making it unlikely that a realistic system of women becoming powerful will be implemented, I'm inclined to go "oh well, what can you do?" In regards to them leading troops.

On the other end of the spectrum: "I want Sword Sisters!" I'm actually accepting of there being no Sword Sisters in this game. By not having any type of common troops that are female in the game, Bannerlord does create another type of realism; by making the only women show up be nobles (who have the authority to command troops), and companions (who are twice as useful as the average soldier, which a historical woman generally would have to be to get on the battlefield).

Some people have also claimed it makes no sense from a Lore standpoint for Calradia to be less sexist than Warband. But Lady Isolla's story informs you that Swadia had a history of Warrior Queens. This does provide basis for Vlandia (which is Swadia's predecessor) being more open. There's also Battania, which is based on the Celtic tribes. I'm no expert, but since Boudicca was Celtic, I'm willing to accept Battania (it also helps that they aren't around in Warband, so you can suggest they just had a different culture). As for the Khuzaits, I dunno how they get more sexist over time, but giving women more power (in a general sense, if not necessarily in the sense of having women warriors) makes them a MORE realistic representation of the Mongols they're based on. Historically, medieval Mongolia was one of the least sexist civilizations of the time.
 
Since Bannelord is based around the political crises of succession in the Roman Empire, you'd expect that women would have a growing role in these unstable circumstances. I'd imagine that the political infighting between the clans would actually bring them up the social ladder purely due chance or necessity (i.e. your husband died, or you're an important family scrambling to secure influence and status during political transitions).
I agree with the guy who suggested that the number of women involved should remain relatively high, but with sexism mechanics included, like in Warband. That would simulate a world where women from rich families have a chance to fight more actively in the interest of their clan, but still within a patriarchal world.

The patriarchal world has nothing to do with women having roles as non combatants. This is clear across most of human history. There has never been a cultural tradition of female warriors in any North American tribe in history; these are long standing pre Colombian cultural traditions that have no connectivity to Patriarchal/ monotheistic influence. The argument that Patriarchal influence caused sexism and left women out of fighting is not true.

Not sure where you are drawing the correlation between the coming collapse of the Byzantine Empire (1453) and women having a growing role under Ottoman rule. The vanilla "Roman Empire" did not exist in the 11th century. I think you are mixing up Bannerlord with with history somewhere, it has very little to do with actual historical events.

Much like the primates of the animal kingdom, brute strength +athletic prowess dictates the alphas of the group hence those who fight and rule. With civilization, rich/smart/holy men and women realized if they can control the brutes, they control the power. So the Brutes still fight and dominate the battlefield but any of the aforementioned can be controlling them. Its just unusual to see that same aforementioned group ON the battlefield fighting amongside the brutes as they generally just arent physically equipped to compete and have too much to lose. Of course like everything else -there are exceptions to this rule but they are statistically insignificant.

As far as this offending peoples low self esteem -its more about finding fun in realism and not having such a fragile ego that i need me and "my peoples" included in every affair thats happened in history or even historical fiction. Pure fantasy - i dont care if its magical penguins fighting a race of talking/rapping amphibians as its not supposed to have any base of historical fact whatsoever

Of course. The idea of a video game is to have fun. I don't care about women combatants in a video game that is fantasy.
 
Where are the damn mods? Sleeping? All threads like these should be shut down as a pre-caution: after all, this could turn to be much worse than a mud-slinging competition (like death threats). Even worse if the media catches wind of this.

I swear the community wasn't like this before Bannerlord, what happened? A game becoming mainstream causes it to attract a bunch of people looking for trouble? If so, then I am very disappointed at the state of this community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom