Are not there A BIT (a lot) of women in the game? And they are playing a lot of "man" roles.

[method man]

I have been playing Crusader Kings 3, actually. It's a very fun game and I like the way it handled gender issues. They're trying to simulate how the world was in 1066A.D, so it's understandable why sexism is present. However, because they don't think bigotry is inevitable or necessary, you can reform your society to be more inclusive. That's a pretty reasonable approach. What Paradox is doing with CK3 — a simulation of real life — is different to writing hatred into your own fictional world for no other reason than "muh immersion."

You need to get over yourself, man. The people who disagree with you aren't "easily triggered libs," we just don't think TW needs to be sexist. Had the game started with little/no female generals, I wouldn't have cared—it's fine for games to represent those issues if they can do it well. However, since TW chose to have women generals, I'm against compromising their vision just because some incel got triggered.

 

[Bigamo]

So you would call a general a non-combatant?

Yes, most are, some are combatants.

In modern days they are non-combatants. Period. In ancient times most of them would fight when they had too. Specially the persian ones. Western usually fought in the heat of battle, like alexander, Cesar and so on. Even Napoleon could be considered a combatant the Italian Garibaldi was like 200% combatant. LOL

 

[stevehoos]

I have been playing Crusader Kings 3, actually. It's a very fun game and I like the way it handled gender issues. They're trying to simulate how the world was in 1066A.D, so it's understandable why sexism is present. However, because they don't think it's inevitable or necessary, you can reform your society to be more inclusive. That's a pretty reasonable approach. What Paradox is doing with CK3 — a simulation of real life — is different to writing hatred into your own fictional world for no other reason than "muh immersion."

This is laughable logic, in fact it's not logic, it don't know what it is. It's hateful to mod a game that resembles medieval society lol.

 

[Bigamo]

I have been playing Crusader Kings 3, actually. It's a very fun game and I like the way it handled gender issues. They're trying to simulate how the world was in 1066A.D, so it's understandable why sexism is present. However, because they don't think it's inevitable or necessary, you can reform your society to be more inclusive. That's a pretty reasonable approach. What Paradox is doing with CK3 — a simulation of real life — is different to writing hatred into your own fictional world for no other reason than "muh immersion."

The very idea of having women fighting with swords in equal capability with men is a sad joke. That's not to the detriment of women, just that they had another set of skills. That sadly is not used in videogames and even in fiction is forgotten by the bad authors of today.

Even a woman fighter in a RPG game is an ridiculous idea. Mage, priest or some other intelectual class it is ok. But a woman don't have the physical capacity of a man. That's the main reason why men can't beat in women but can beat each other.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

that there are biological differences regarding the peak athletic capabilities is honestly irrelevant, most soldiers in any case do not and did not achieve anything close to the peak.

 

[method man]

It's hateful to mod a game that resembles medieval society lol.

It would be weird for somebody to make a videogame world more sexist than it already is, yes. Once again, sexism isn't a necessary component of feudal societies. Therefore, you aren't modding to make it more immersive, you just have a hang-up about women.

 

[stevehoos]

It would be weird for somebody to make a videogame world more sexist than it already is, yes. Once again, sexism isn't a necessary component of feudal societies. Therefore, you aren't modding to make it more immersive, you just have a hang-up about women.

You are hung up on projections, illogical musings, and applying universal gender equality where it doesn't fit.

 

[method man]

applying universal gender equality where it doesn't fit.

Why do I even bother arguing when you prove my point for me? You genuinely think that gender inequality is needed for immersion and realism. That's also what I have been arguing against; it's plausible that a fictional, medieval society wouldn't be sexist. Calradians also don't seem to be racist — nobles switch factions like clothes — why, then, are other forms of bigotry different?

If you think every society is bound to hate women, then you are a misogynist. If you mod a game to make its world more hateful for "immersion," then you have a hateful worldview. This is very simple stuff.

 

[stevehoos]

Why do I even bother arguing when you prove my point for me? You genuinely think that gender inequality is needed for immersion and realism. That's also what I have been arguing against; it's plausible that a fictional, medieval society wouldn't be sexist. Calradians don't seem to be that racist — nobles switch factions like clothes — why are other forms of bigotry different?

If you think every society is bound to hate women, then you are a misogynist. If you mod a game to make its world more hateful for "immersion," then you have a hateful worldview. This is very simple stuff.

I believe in making a historical mod. You have a profoundly ignorant world view and are incapable of logical reasoning. The truth is you are uncomfortable with differences in people, you know like real diversity. Pretty simple stuff.

I found some Medieval commanders.

隐藏

 

[method man]

I believe in making a historical mod. You have a profoundly ignorant world view and are incapable of logical reasoning. The truth is you are uncomfortable with differences in people, you know like real diversity. Pretty simple stuff.

1) How is my worldview ignorant?
2) Where is my logic lacking?
3) Where did I display any discomfort with "differences in people?"

You, in all three of your latest posts, have resorted to just insulting me. I'd invite you to substantiate any of your claims. I've made my point clear: fictional worlds, including those inspired by our history, don't have to contain the same bigotry that ours does. Those social issues weren't inevitable, so it isn't unrealistic for a story to not include them. Can you offer any argument against this point? For the record, insulting me is not an effective rebuttal to my ideas.

 

[stevehoos]

1) How is my worldview ignorant?
2) Where is my logic lacking?

You, in all three of your latest posts, have resorted to just insulting me. I'd invite you to substantiate any of your claims. I've made my point clear: fictional worlds, including those inspired by our history, don't have to contain the same bigotry that ours does. Those social issues weren't inevitable, so it isn't unrealistic for a story to not include them. Can you offer any argument against this point? For the record, insulting me is not an effective rebuttal to my ideas.

Insulting? You started insulting me pages back, you are a pro at gas lightening. Substantiate what? That medieval history (and most of world history) excludes women from combatant participation because or child bearing duties and physical limitations. How many women fought for Japan during WW2? Answer none. How many native American tribes in North America have traditions of woman warrior cultures? None. Is this sexist? You have no clue about history, none, or you would not be talking like someone who has been watching news media for the last 10 years.

 

[method man]

Insulting? You started insulting me pages back, you are a pro at gas lightening.

Are you referring to this?

If you feel like video-game sexism is integral to your enjoyment, then I have news for you...

Or this?

Your hatred for women is a personal issue, quit projecting it onto this game.

That's the rudest I got before you started insulting me, and it's literally part of my argument. I am arguing that you are sexist. What's more, these are just small parts of my posts—not the whole thing. Each of these quotes is part of a bigger argument.

Your posts, in their totality, look like this:

You two should try the Crusader Kings series. I guess they "hate women too," Meltdown in 3.2.1.....

This has reached logical absurdity where nothing is learned. History hurts feelings once again.
Bye

This is laughable logic, in fact it's not logic, it don't know what it is. It's hateful to mod a game that resembles medieval society lol.

You are hung up on projections, illogical musings, and applying universal gender equality where it doesn't fit.

I believe in making a historical mod. You have a profoundly ignorant world view and are incapable of logical reasoning.

Calling me "illogical" and fragile 4 times in a row, instead of making any argument, is pretty pathetic. I can't deny that I have called you sexist, as that is literally my point. You, on the other hand, have no argument underlying these insults. Now you're telling me that I'm gaslighting you? It seems like you have nothing constructive to say. Maybe you should quit while you're ahead? Either that, or actually argue a point in addition to being rude.

 

[stevehoos]

Having to say someone has a profoundly ignorant world view is part of my argument. You see how that works? You haven't made a single point the whole time other than you think history is sexist and modding to its vision is also sexist.

 

[method man]

Having to say someone has a profoundly ignorant world view is part of my argument. You see how that works?

Calling me ignorant and leaving it at that =/= me explaining why your perspective is sexist then calling you a sexist. Once again, you have to argue against the logic to get to call me illogical.

How many native American tribes in North America have traditions of woman warrior cultures?

I'd suggest you don't pursue a career in picking cherries. One of the examples obviously designed to favour your argument (there being no Native American woman warriors) is false. There have been Native American women who participated in combat. Even if there hadn't, who cares? It's possible for a woman to fight, just as its possible for a short man to fight. Biological differences don't mean women are physically incapable of being soldiers. Maybe some would be at a disadvantage, but that doesn't make it impossible. In a fictional world, it's entirely within reason to include women fighters.

You haven't made a single point the whole time other than you think history is sexist and modding to its vision is also sexist.

I've made my point clear: fictional worlds, including those inspired by our history, don't have to contain the same bigotry that ours does. Those social issues weren't inevitable, so it isn't unrealistic for a story to not include them.

If you think every society is bound to hate women, then you are a misogynist. If you mod a game to make its world more hateful for "immersion," then you have a hateful worldview. This is very simple stuff.

What Paradox is doing with CK3 — a simulation of real life — is different to writing hatred into your own fictional world for no other reason than "muh immersion."

Had the game started with little/no female generals, I wouldn't have cared—it's fine for games to represent those issues if they can do it well. However, since TW chose to have women generals, I'm against compromising their vision just because some incel got triggered.

 

[stevehoos]

Calling me ignorant and leaving it at that =/= me explaining why your perspective is sexist then calling you a sexist. Once again, you have to argue against the logic to get to call me illogical.

What is your logic? You think Occident Medieval society is sexist for not including women as combatants? And anyone making a mod is a woman hater for attempting such? You know how many world cultures excluded women from campaigning? Almost all of them, 99%. Turns out pregnancies don't go well in moving armies. Caesar or William the Conquer didn't have maternity leave. Moreover, you can't call someone a woman hater and then expect them to not question your logic, that is an emotive projection about your feelings, it has nothing to do with history or what you deem as bigotry.

 

[Ling*]

This thread is going nowhere fast.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Insulting? You started insulting me pages back, you are a pro at gas lightening. Substantiate what? That medieval history (and most of world history) excludes women from combatant participation because or child bearing duties and physical limitations. How many women fought for Japan during WW2? Answer none. How many native American tribes in North America have traditions of woman warrior cultures? None. Is this sexist? You have no clue about history, none, or you would be talking like someone who has been watching news media for the last 10 years.

I got bad news for you about the Native Americans, apparently "Two spirit females engaged in activities such as hunting and warfare, and became leaders in war and even chiefs." https://www.ihs.gov/lgbt/health/twospirit/

Your example isn't even true. They should let us change gender mid game

 

[method man]

This thread is going nowhere fast.

yes

What is your logic? You think Occident Medieval society is sexist for not including women as combatants? And anyone making a mod is a woman hater for attempting such? You know how many world cultures excluded women from campaigning? Almost all of them, 99%. Turns out pregnancies don't go well in moving armies. Caesar or William the Conquer didn't have maternity leave.

In the spirit of the above reply, I'll keep this quick. Firstly, the nebulous threat of pregnancy really doesn't mean it's inconceivable (haha, pun) that a woman would join a campaign. They still did. Secondly, yes I do think that Medieval society (and Roman, too) was sexist, and that this was a big reason why they didn't recruit women. Finally, I do think that modding women out of a fictional video game for "historical accuracy" hints at a sexist mindset. Would you write Brienne of Tarth out of GoT for "biological realism?" Your inability to suspend disbelief speaks volumes. That's all, goodbye.

 

[five bucks]

There are definitely people arguing that point, the thread is tagged "remove women from every corner" after all.

Though I don't completely agree with OP's post, I think I should point out not even he is saying that all women should be removed from the game. Right below that tag, his post actually says the number of female gang leaders and commanders should be reduced to "at least a 9:1 ratio", not a 9:0 ratio.

To interpret for you: "every corner" means "you're running into women performing historically male-dominated roles at every corner you turn". Now while I don't literally agree with that statement, I agree with the general point.

Reduce the ratio of female gang leaders/faction military commanders/troop recruiters a little bit to make people happy who like this historically-inspired game to be more historically believable; but on the other hand, also bring back trainable Sword Sisters to make people happy who like modern girl power. This benefits everyone.

 

[five bucks]

Would you write Brienne of Tarth out of GoT for "biological realism?" Your inability to suspend disbelief speaks volumes.

But GoT is much higher fantasy than the M&B universe, which has no magical elements, uses extremely heavy and obvious historical inspiration for all the factions and the architecture and the world map and the place names, and is even said in the devs' blogs to work best when it "cleaves closely to real history". Let's face it, Bannerlord's setting is literally just the real 1000s with the geography and place names rearranged a bit, and that's how most people identify with it. On top of that, companions in game are always complaining about how sexist the Calradian culture is, yet having quite high female participation as leaders of crime rings, troop recruiters, and at least one female military commander in every single faction contradicts this. Is Calradia sexist, or not?

Why should the player have to suspend disbelief when they don't have to? Suspension of disbelief is only done by necessity in fiction, it has a breaking point (which is why plot holes are a bad thing for example), and if you can avoid having to make the audience suspend their disbelief, you should.

Reducing the ratio of male:female criminals, recruiters and commanders a bit (while still having some because some did exist in real life, just not this common) would make the game more accurate to real life with no downside, and it's clearly something plenty of people want to improve their immersion. Then bring back trainable sword sisters and everyone's happy.