Female Character Gameplay

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean its pretty clear that they want you to keep your own clan no matter what, otherwise it's extremely limiting to get married. Realism is great but gameplay first. I'm interested to see what happens with AI marriage, I have a feeling women will join men's clans
Oh for sure. That's certainly the reason but - I don't find it jarring because it's not "true to real life" ... I find it jarring because it's just not consistent. If the Calradian societies are set up such that married couples adopt the the clan/family of the male spouse..... Then why AM I THE ONLY EXCEPTION?

A random upstart and I completely break the norms and flout the continental wide social structure?

I feel like handling this situation requires more finesse and creativity than: "the player needs to retain their clan so no matter the gender, no matter the culture it's their clan... Always... No mater what."

I mean, I understand why they did what they did... It's just... uninspired.
 
Then why AM I THE ONLY EXCEPTION?

I mean, I understand why they did what they did... It's just... uninspired.
Uninspired? But you are the inspiration, you are the exception. Never devalue yourself soon to be queen :wink:
giphy.gif
 
Wait, seriously ?
There were actually different childhoods in the game at some point and they REMOVED them instead of adding, like in Warband, a checkbox "do you want equality or period-like sexism ?" ?

Yeah, seriously. For instance, if you chose the "Impoverished Nobles" background, male characters have the option of being a page at a nobleman's court, and females have the option of being a lady-in-waiting.

There were other ones too, but that's the main one I remember off the top of my head since I usually used it.

Honestly, I kind of wish I had held off on buying it until after Early Access to see how it turns out, it never even occurred to me that SJW nonsense would affect Bannerlord of all things. The multiplayer is good at least.
 
Last edited:
Oh for sure. That's certainly the reason but - I don't find it jarring because it's not "true to real life" ... I find it jarring because it's just not consistent. If the Calradian societies are set up such that married couples adopt the the clan/family of the male spouse..... Then why AM I THE ONLY EXCEPTION?

You're actually not the only exception, it's just that there are few female heads of clans: Rhagaea, Calatild, Mesui, and that's about it. Even Rhagaea is only head of her clan because she took over from her husband, but the other two seem to be heads in their own rights.
 
You're actually not the only exception, it's just that there are few female heads of clans: Rhagaea, Calatild, Mesui, and that's about it. Even Rhagaea is only head of her clan because she took over from her husband, but the other two seem to be heads in their own rights.
I'm not arguing that women shouldn't be heads of clans... Rhagaea is of clan Pethros, Mesui is of Clan Khergit.... I ask you @JosieJ - were they born into these clans OR did they inherit these clans from their husbands???

When the former emperor Arenicos married Rhagaea, was he absorbed into Pehtros or was Rhagaea?
Arenicos was the head of Pethros before he died so... Logic would lead me to believe that Rhagaea was absorbed into Pethros after the nuptials... Same with Mesui.

giphy.gif

It's not about authority or leadership it's about social continuity.
 
There has been an increase in non white, non male, non straight characters in video games recently, but that's because marketers have finally got into their heads that their playerbase isn't just white american teenage boys. Most mainstream games from the mid to late 2000s are frankly embarrassing, as if they were written by 35 year old rapey manchildren (spoiler alert: they were, and many still are, although a lot of them have been fired recently because they're rapey manchildren).

What's happening now is similar (although a lot less insane) to the child abuse hysteria of the 1980s and 90s. Old institutions which were hotbeds of abuse were suddenly uncovered, and all the other institutions rushed to uncover abuse on their own before the government or angry mobs tore them to shreds. Some people complained at the time that it went to far (spoiler: it kind of did), but that didn't mean that the hysteria was wrong, or that the attitudes it held were invalid.

Video games between around 2000-2010 or so were seen by the general public as something only perverted, misogynistic white boys indulged in, because to some extent it was kind of true, they generally marketed themselves aggressively as "boys toys". You didn't go around telling people that you played video games as a 40 year old, or a woman, especially on the internet where people would unironically tell you to get back in the kitchen.
Now that video games are overtaking film and TV, there is a mad rush by publishers and developers to distance themselves from that image. Making a game which is just a regurgitation of the worst of 1980s hollywood is no longer acceptable.

If anything is forced, it was the excessively uninclusive landscape that was mainstream video games in the 2000s. If you saw that as the norm, I can understand why you think games are all SJW propaganda now, but it's still a petty boomer mindset that isn't going to last.

People with ideological and other agendas were pushing them in to the culture since times immemorial. Weaponizing culture isn't exactly new invention. Trying to pretend that identity politics (in all it's forms including gender one) and people who does it are exception would be foolish. Just look at the Olympic Games 2012 GB opening ceremony for one of the more obvious and ridiculous examples.
 
Man, this topic gets all boring and ****ed up every time! Shame! Shame!?

Wait, seriously ?
There were actually different childhoods in the game at some point and they REMOVED them instead of adding, like in Warband, a checkbox "do you want equality or period-like sexism ?" ?
That's a feature of the diplomacy mod (absorbed into many mods). In native WB it just warns you that there is sexism and tells you (somewhat misleadingly) that a male noble will have an easier time.

I would like different background option for female MC too though, just for more choices.
 
Looks to me like all these people screaming for "diversity" are actually terrified of it historically and presently. That's why there are meltdowns every time there is a thread like this. These types are often very weak and timid thinkers, it's not their fault though. But let us get back to Bannerlord.
 
I'm not arguing that women shouldn't be heads of clans... Rhagaea is of clan Pethros, Mesui is of Clan Khergit.... I ask you @JosieJ - were they born into these clans OR did they inherit these clans from their husbands???

When the former emperor Arenicos married Rhagaea, was he absorbed into Pehtros or was Rhagaea?
Arenicos was the head of Pethros before he died so... Logic would lead me to believe that Rhagaea was absorbed into Pethros after the nuptials... Same with Mesui.

Rhagaea is a foreigner from the far east -- further than Khuzait lands. So she's obviously been inducted into Pethros. But Mesui mentions a number of her male relatives being killed during the Battle of Pendraic, along with her husband, and most of the Khuzaits at the battle were Khergits. So she is probably a native Khergit. It could be an intra-clan marriage or her husband was just fighting for the Khergits at Pendraic, don't know which.

Oh for sure. That's certainly the reason but - I don't find it jarring because it's not "true to real life" ... I find it jarring because it's just not consistent. If the Calradian societies are set up such that married couples adopt the the clan/family of the male spouse..... Then why AM I THE ONLY EXCEPTION?

It could be that female clan heads stay with their own clans, even if they marry. Mesui starts the game married for some reason (she is too old to have more children and explicitly says her husband was slain at Pendraic) but remains the head of the Khergits.

edit:
Looks to me like all these people screaming for "diversity" are actually terrified of it historically and presently. That's why there are meltdowns every time there is a thread like this. These types are often very weak and timid thinkers, it's not their fault though. But let us get back to Bannerlord.

I'm pretty sure you're not one to be talking about history considering what happened in the last thread.
 
Last edited:
Wait, seriously ?
There were actually different childhoods in the game at some point and they REMOVED them instead of adding, like in Warband, a checkbox "do you want equality or period-like sexism ?" ?

In Bannerlord? There weren't different childhoods by gender, only by parent's profession and your starting faction. I don't think they've removed any childhood options either, only added them or adjusted a couple to better fit into a specific culture.

(And nerfed the starting gear you got from being the child of a retainer. :xf-mad:)

I am pretty sure what happened in the last thread has zero relevancy to actual history.

Yeah, there was some guy saying that there were never women in medieval armies for any reason. And when he got called on his sources, gave a source that basically said, "Yeah there were totally women in those medieval armies."

It was hilarious.
 
In Bannerlord? There weren't different childhoods by gender, only by parent's profession and your starting faction. I don't think they've removed any childhood options either, only added them or adjusted a couple to better fit into a specific culture.

(And nerfed the starting gear you got from being the child of a retainer. :xf-mad:)



Yeah, there was some guy saying that there were never women in medieval armies for any reason. And when he got called on his sources, gave a source that basically said, "Yeah there were totally women in those medieval armies."

It was hilarious.
Every now and then historians come across a culture in which women were involved in combat, but overwhelmingly they were not. 99.9% of the time women did not engage in active infantry or cavalry combat anywhere in the world regardless of the culture. Women were involved in politics and behind the scenes aspects of warfare, but in terms of actually physically engaging in combat, or even leading armies in the field, no, they really didn't in virtually all cases. What's going on here is you all have a chip on your shoulder, and it bothers you that women didn't fight for some weird personal reason. People like you and others come on here and post these bullet lists to links of supposed women warriors, but if you bothered to look up the names from those lists then you would find that in almost all cases these are women who were political leaders who organized military activity but did not themselves fight. I understand there are a few cases here and there of maybe one woman who happened to fight, or even a few scattered examples of societies where women fought (and usually even those examples are questionable or largely legendary). But they are so rare as to be extreme anomalies.

As far as the Middle Ages, The historical sources have maybe 10 credible mentions of women in all of medieval European history having anything to do with armies; Most of those are regent women who never set foot on the battlefield, if you had actually read any of the source material you would know this. In the rare case that noble woman actually rode with the army, they would never fight in the battles or lead the vanguard. Women and men had very defined roles in this period. Was Occident medieval Europe sexist, or did they include women as combatants in battles? You can't have both arguments. Is it too late for logic? The vast vast majority of female combatants in medieval history were forced to do so during times of certain disaster, 99.9% were never conscripts in armies or expectant combatants. Anyone who claims otherwise is pushing an agenda, not history.

This amazing source you provided linked to this: 1145: "Eleanor of Aquitaine accompanies her husband on the Second Crusade." If you believe that Elanor of Aquitaine was an intended combatant on this crusade you are delusional. This is pseudo history.

I have an idea where this stems from: Feminism comes out of Cultural Marxism, a concept of 'equality' that seeks to deny fundamental differences and to dismiss gender roles as a social construct. They are quite Orwellian in the way they seem to think reality bends to accommodate theory, as well as in their desire to rewrite history. You all who are arguing these silly points are the products of this type of brainwashing.
 
Last edited:
I have some issues with identity politics (possibly almost the opposite of yours), but I think you've both missed and reinforced Kentucky James' point: a blanket rejection of 'identity politics' implies a belief that the status quo is neutral to different identities and/or that society being dominated by 'white male' identity and interests is natural and universal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom