Gender, a serious game changer?

[Oxtocoatl]

What happens if your character gets pregnant? I guess you'll have to retire from the adventure for a few months and take control of one of your companions. Although, crushing skulls in the battlefield like a baddas pregnat woman don't sounds bad to me XD

Women were tougher in the olden days. You should be ok in battle unless you’re carrying sextuplets. Your major risk could be perma-death in childbirth. 

Dying in labor might be a bit harsh for players, I already hate it when it happens in CKII.
Fighting while pregnant would be awesome as heck. Maybe if you fight a lot during your pregnancy the child could get a "Born to battle" perk and some natural advantages? Or a "Someone stabbed this baby with a spear while it was still a fetus, now it only has one arm and can count to 2 on good days" perk?

 

[Wilhelmus Van Laecken]

It could perhaps be an option to enable/disable sexism, with a slider for severity perhaps! More sexism = higher prices and less renown earned after battle. 

 

[lolbash]

More sexism = higher prices and less renown earned after battle.

Thats not how sexism even works

 

[lab637]

More sexism = higher prices and less renown earned after battle.

Thats not how sexism even works

In terms of game mechanics I would say this is actually a decent way to do it. Women may not be taken seriously at a trader and pay a higher price for the same goods (as they currently do for razors and shaving cream, shampoo, etc..), and a woman's achievements may have been viewed through a sterner lens in the time reducing renown for if the same task were performed by a man. I dunno, it makes sense to me but it could just be me.

 

[lolbash]

Women may not be taken seriously at a trader and pay a higher price for the same goods

as they currently do for razors and shaving cream, shampoo, etc

Thats is because in modern society, most women don't bother fighting these ideals and prices because marketing and cultural stigma against SJWs and feminists. However, once you throw these factors out the window there is nothing stopping a woman right now from going to a gsupermarket and buying a "male" shampoo.

Now I want you to think about this from the eyes of a trader. Why exactly would you raise the price by 20% of goods for females? Is it because they are female? Or is it because of another reason such as women are usually easier to convince than men so traders can get away with selling women more expensive goods?

And for Reown, shouldin't we be getting more Reown if we play as a woman? If you are reading your Calradian Monday Newspapers and you go to bandits section which are usually male dominated, and be like "Just another Monday", but once you see the eyes of a female, at least a couple more eyebrows will raise. Why would you get less attention as a female when you slaughter villages or bandits? There is no reason this would not get more attention as you might be the first women in for many people around the area to start fighting bandits.



Honestly, just the thought of adding in a slider to increae prices and reown penalties for females speaks more like some cheap ass way to check the box "we have SExISM IN OUR GAME ITS R E A L I S T I C " 

Without understanding the fundamentals of actual sexism in the first place.

 

[Do not look here]

Yeah, I think that sexism in game should be handled by NPCs and their response - all after all we have more of those now. Some of the questgivers can be biased against you and only give you throwaway tasks or right away refuse to talk, prohibiting you from recruiting troops until you have direct authority over them and 'force' them to cooperate. As others said, the way it was handled in Warband was already pretty well done, you had a choice of responses from lords, but even positive ones were giving away the vibe that a woman in this position is out of place for them. I think it should just be spread to the others as well.

I agree that female PCs should have it harder to gain renown, but not by reducing the amount they fought for and earned rightfully, but by making it harder to find someone treating them seriously and willing to give them tasks worthy of their position and power. Same thing could go for the new army system, leader could refuse to give them tasks or command over troops until they prove themselves. Kind of put obstacles in their way to the goal rather than simply lowering the reward for reaching it.

 

[jamoecw]

great another thread is going to turn to **** because people are throwing out political ideas. maybe the old rule of no politics outside of the offtopic section of the forums would be a good idea?

...
One thing I`m hugely interested in is if the clan system means kings will finally have marriable relatives. Gold digging is for noobs, I`m gonna be digging for a crown.

I pretty this is true as the dev blog implies that clans, if supported, can become the new leaders of a faction. Unless they have removed marriage  this should be possible as all nobles belong to a clan (I think). As for what marrying them would actually do? no idea. You may not be able to dig for your crown.

Also what is your crown made of if not gold?

this would be pretty cool indeed, though it would also be pretty cool if the clans rotating to power would be based on the culture/government style of the faction. in a tribal society a small clan might rise to power, but in a hereditary feudal society there would be assassinations and seductions to bring someone from a different clan to power.

 

[lolbash]

great another thread is going to turn to **** because people are throwing out political ideas.

You can go and blame special groups right now that are trying to currently making "women" a politically charged point of discussion.

 

[Lord Engineer (Castor)]

I agree with Lolbash, in that a woman should be able to gain more renown for her activities. Renown is just how well known you are, and a woman would be more notable for her actions than a man, if simply by the merit of a lack of competition.
Jeanne d'Arc is one of history's most famous figures, and although there are men who have had similar stories to her, none are anywhere near as famous.

I also agree with the idea that women should have a harder time gaining tasks or getting an audience with notables and lords, though female notables and noblewomen may be more open. I put forth the idea that instead of renown being harder to gain for a woman, influence is. I believe this not only makes more sense but could also help balance the game. You could interpret it as men not taking woman as seriously, diminishing their effective influence.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

My thoughts exactly. I would like a system which Lolbash and Dont Look Here ideas are merged.

 

[Orion]

In terms of game mechanics I would say this is actually a decent way to do it. Women may not be taken seriously at a trader and pay a higher price for the same goods (as they currently do for razors and shaving cream, shampoo, etc..)

That's just capitalism and marketing exploiting cultural norms, and isn't done at the point of sale by the person making the sale. The stereotype is that women will spend more time and effort on their appearance than men, so companies will market special "just for women" products which are practically equivalent to generic or "just for men" alternatives, and they are typically marked up because they're "specialized." Nine times out of ten it's the same exact thing you could get elsewhere, and it goes both ways. The stereotype for men is rugged, outdoors-y, practical, and efficient. For a specific example, look up baby powder. There are two kinds, talcum powder and corn starch. It's dirt cheap, unless it's marketed towards adults. A quick google search for talcum powder shows stuff marketed for babies at ~$1-2 USD per ounce (or ~28g), but talcum powder marketed to adults (men specifically) was as high as $5.10 per ounce on the first page of results. Some adult-oriented products are scented, and culturally we have strong gender associations with different scents, which makes it even harder to go against the grain. How many women do you think buy classic Old Spice scented products for their own use? It's a very male-oriented brand, and the perception is that it would be socially awkward for a woman to smell "like a man" by using a product like Old Spice. Even Old Spice's ads which featured buff, partially-nude men talking to the camera as if it were a woman were actually intended to increase sales of their product among men.

Thats is because in modern society, most women don't bother fighting these ideals and prices because marketing and cultural stigma against SJWs and feminists. However, once you throw these factors out the window there is nothing stopping a woman right now from going to a gsupermarket and buying a "male" shampoo.

Now I want you to think about this from the eyes of a trader. Why exactly would you raise the price by 20% of goods for females? Is it because they are female? Or is it because of another reason such as women are usually easier to convince than men so traders can get away with selling women more expensive goods?

You can go and blame special groups right now that are trying to currently making "women" a politically charged point of discussion.

In other words, not quite this. It's not as simple as "them dang ol' SJWs" or radical feminists, either. Women also aren't "easier to convince" than men. I think the closest you could get to supporting that is citing studies which show women are more often non-confrontational in social interactions, but that doesn't mean they're more gullible. Your second post is also needlessly antagonizing, as gender & identity politics have been a thing longer than any of us have been alive. They're nothing new, and at this point they aren't any kind of radical. Don't stoke that fire here, please.

great another thread is going to turn to **** because people are throwing out political ideas. maybe the old rule of no politics outside of the offtopic section of the forums would be a good idea?

Discussion of politics as they relate specifically to the game's features in a thread dedicated to those features is fine. Making a new topic in this board solely about real-world politics is a no-go.

 

[Oxtocoatl]

You can go and blame special groups right now that are trying to currently making "women" a politically charged point of discussion.

In other words, not quite this. It's not as simple as "them dang ol' SJWs" or radical feminists, either. Women also aren't "easier to convince" than men. I think the closest you could get to supporting that is citing studies which show women are more often non-confrontational in social interactions, but that doesn't mean they're more gullible. Your second post is also needlessly antagonizing, as gender & identity politics have been a thing longer than any of us have been alive. They're nothing new, and at this point they aren't any kind of radical. Don't stoke that fire here, please.
[/quote]

Thank you for this!

I agree with whoever said that women should get more renown for things that the dominant culture believes to be manly. However, just getting renown doesn`t mean that it will get you ahead in life. They might know who you are and some of them might tell to your face that they don`t like what you`re doing. Also renown in battle shouldn`t translate to influence as easily as it does for men.

I don`t really see the price argument, there is no evidence that women are more easily persuaded by gendered marketing than men. Maybe, mayyybe some NPCs could offer smaller rewards to female PCs, cause, you know, a woman`s gold piece is actually just a silver piece, but nobody wants the game to become impossibly hard because of sexism. I would be content with the WB system where it`s mostly flavor text and higher early game thresholds and a starting menu warning that gender and class matter in this world.

If they weigh in on the sexism angle then they should also commit to it by introducing cultural differences to how women are treated and potentially a starting menu off switch if the penalties on women get intense.

 

[wormydowg]

More sexism = higher prices and less renown earned after battle.

Thats not how sexism even works

In terms of game mechanics I would say this is actually a decent way to do it. Women may not be taken seriously at a trader and pay a higher price for the same goods (as they currently do for razors and shaving cream, shampoo, etc..), and a woman's achievements may have been viewed through a sterner lens in the time reducing renown for if the same task were performed by a man. I dunno, it makes sense to me but it could just be me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

This would be a historical example, but it doesn't sound like renown, more like notoriety.

Of course after the fact, she became a saint....

Would someone like to summarize this? Any history buffs?  Sorry to lay that responsibility out, i know of the story, i just don't know enough to get all the details correct.

 

[Lord Engineer (Castor)]

More sexism = higher prices and less renown earned after battle.

Thats not how sexism even works

In terms of game mechanics I would say this is actually a decent way to do it. Women may not be taken seriously at a trader and pay a higher price for the same goods (as they currently do for razors and shaving cream, shampoo, etc..), and a woman's achievements may have been viewed through a sterner lens in the time reducing renown for if the same task were performed by a man. I dunno, it makes sense to me but it could just be me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

This would be a historical example, but it doesn't sound like renown, more like notoriety.

Of course after the fact, she became a saint....

Would someone like to summarize this? Any history buffs?  Sorry to lay that responsibility out, i know of the story, i just don't know enough to get all the details correct.

You don't have to be well liked to be renowned, if you are notorious then are renowned for your bad deeds or quality. Renown is fame not prestige nor infamy. I know renown is often used interchangeably with words that imply a positive reputation but strictly speaking renown is just how well known you are.

The previous games didn't really treat it this way and over simplified it, that's why I proposed an overhaul for renown to address this issue.

 

[jamoecw]

More sexism = higher prices and less renown earned after battle.

Thats not how sexism even works

In terms of game mechanics I would say this is actually a decent way to do it. Women may not be taken seriously at a trader and pay a higher price for the same goods (as they currently do for razors and shaving cream, shampoo, etc..), and a woman's achievements may have been viewed through a sterner lens in the time reducing renown for if the same task were performed by a man. I dunno, it makes sense to me but it could just be me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

This would be a historical example, but it doesn't sound like renown, more like notoriety.

Of course after the fact, she became a saint....

Would someone like to summarize this? Any history buffs?  Sorry to lay that responsibility out, i know of the story, i just don't know enough to get all the details correct.

You don't have to be well liked to be renowned, if you are notorious then are renowned for your bad deeds or quality. Renown is fame not prestige nor infamy. I know renown is often used interchangeably with words that imply a positive reputation but strictly speaking renown is just how well known you are.

The previous games didn't really treat it this way and over simplified it, that's why I proposed an overhaul for renown to address this issue.

yep the whole women getting more renown is all dependent on how the system actually works. if it is like the old system and they have a sort of mono-culture in regards to gender (other than superficial stuff like dialog of course) then it wouldn't make sense for women to get more renown, assuming that they are going for the sexism route to penalize women like in M&B/WB.

More sexism = higher prices and less renown earned after battle.

Thats not how sexism even works

In terms of game mechanics I would say this is actually a decent way to do it. Women may not be taken seriously at a trader and pay a higher price for the same goods (as they currently do for razors and shaving cream, shampoo, etc..), and a woman's achievements may have been viewed through a sterner lens in the time reducing renown for if the same task were performed by a man. I dunno, it makes sense to me but it could just be me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

This would be a historical example, but it doesn't sound like renown, more like notoriety.

Of course after the fact, she became a saint....

Would someone like to summarize this? Any history buffs?  Sorry to lay that responsibility out, i know of the story, i just don't know enough to get all the details correct.

the french king was in charge of a failing monarchy, so he accepted a meeting with a peasant girl that was the daughter of a high ranking peasant (leader of a town watch). he was impressed with her, most likely her religious acumen (intelligence regarding religious matters despite being illiterate). she requested to be put at the head of an army, and so she was put in charge of a force, though this was a ceremonial role and others made all the decisions. it is argued if she did any fighting at all, if she did it was rather minimal. when her army managed some victories the king had a religious investigation into her take place to ensure that the pope accepted her status as a religious symbol, which ended up approving of her as such. this turned  the war into a religious war, and thus it was godly to fight for the french king. this unified france and strengthened the crown. after a short time a truce was signed between france and england, and joan began looking for other ways to lead armies for god. when fighting resumed between france and england the french sent her to a city to try and save it, but it fell and she decided to lead the rear guard, which was captured. she was ransomed to the english from their french allies (france was not unified completely) and they put her on trial for a few different things that were blasphemous. she managed to beat some charges, but was convicted of others and burned at the steak. the pope reviewed the trail, partly due to the investigation done prior as she was in some way an agent of the church. she was found innocent by the investigation and was declared a martyr. hundreds of years later when feminism became a movement (1920ish) she was declared a saint.

not exactly the poster child for a female PC, as being a saint means she is considered to not have engaged in the 'manly' activity of fighting. though as far as a female NPC that is good at diplomacy that 'leads' troops she would be an excellent template.

Thank you for this!

I agree with whoever said that women should get more renown for things that the dominant culture believes to be manly. However, just getting renown doesn`t mean that it will get you ahead in life. They might know who you are and some of them might tell to your face that they don`t like what you`re doing. Also renown in battle shouldn`t translate to influence as easily as it does for men.

I don`t really see the price argument, there is no evidence that women are more easily persuaded by gendered marketing than men. Maybe, mayyybe some NPCs could offer smaller rewards to female PCs, cause, you know, a woman`s gold piece is actually just a silver piece, but nobody wants the game to become impossibly hard because of sexism. I would be content with the WB system where it`s mostly flavor text and higher early game thresholds and a starting menu warning that gender and class matter in this world.

If they weigh in on the sexism angle then they should also commit to it by introducing cultural differences to how women are treated and potentially a starting menu off switch if the penalties on women get intense.

yeah the price thing doesn't make sense from a realism perspective. there were certain cultures in which trade was not done between strangers, in which case the relationship between the two people comes into play. in those cases if the culture is sexist then it would be difficult for a woman to do any trade, and if she did do trade it would either have strings attached or she would not be regarded as high as other men and thus with a lower relationship would end up with worse pricing. the cultures that did have strangers purchasing from traders for the purposes of trading the PC being female shouldn't really be an issue, as it really never was in the past.

the 'pink tax' is the only real example of this, and it is highly dubious as there are many counter arguments with data to back it up. on the other hand higher rates of assassination/ambushes in town would be less dubious if we wanted to bring modern sexism into the game, due to the prevalence of honor killings in a lot of the world. of course tying this to culture of the towns one is in would make this more immersive and interesting.

 

[Oxtocoatl]

hundreds of years later when feminism became a movement (1920ish) she was declared a saint.

not exactly the poster child for a female PC, as being a saint means she is considered to not have engaged in the 'manly' activity of fighting. though as far as a female NPC that is good at diplomacy that 'leads' troops she would be an excellent template.

I think her canonization had less to do with feminism and more with WWI. She became a folk saint in France shortly after her death and served as symbol of French nationalism through to WWI, where French troops would carry her image into battle. There is an entire wikipedia page about her canonization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization_of_Joan_of_Arc

Many other notable female leaders in the past were extensively vilified during their lifetime and shortly after, but they also became ridiculously famous. Boudicca and Cleopatra are among the most famous opponents to Rome. So there was definitely fame to be had for a woman by taking up arms, but not necessarily acceptance.
Roman sources describing Boudicca`s revolt reported that half her army was female. Though this is almost certainly hyperbolic exaggeration, it also demonstrates how shocked the deeply conservative Romans were of the idea that any women at all might bear arms or lead troops.

 

[jamoecw]

hundreds of years later when feminism became a movement (1920ish) she was declared a saint.

not exactly the poster child for a female PC, as being a saint means she is considered to not have engaged in the 'manly' activity of fighting. though as far as a female NPC that is good at diplomacy that 'leads' troops she would be an excellent template.

I think her canonization had less to do with feminism and more with WWI. She became a folk saint in France shortly after her death and served as symbol of French nationalism through to WWI, where French troops would carry her image into battle. There is an entire wikipedia page about her canonization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization_of_Joan_of_Arc

Many other notable female leaders in the past were extensively vilified during their lifetime and shortly after, but they also became ridiculously famous. Boudicca and Cleopatra are among the most famous opponents to Rome. So there was definitely fame to be had for a woman by taking up arms, but not necessarily acceptance.
Roman sources describing Boudicca`s revolt reported that half her army was female. Though this is almost certainly hyperbolic exaggeration, it also demonstrates how shocked the deeply conservative Romans were of the idea that any women at all might bear arms or lead troops.

joan was a martyr and not a saint for hundreds of years, so she was a symbol for quite some time. the shift from martyr to saint is a big deal officially, and makes little sense if you take out the different cultural issues happening at the time. add them in and it makes perfect sense, thus the reference to feminism is not to the political movement, but the cultural one that started in the mid 1800's.

the other leaders reference being vilified, though this vilification is by their enemies, similar to how england considered joan a heretic as that was her enemy. neither was vilified by their own side and was in fact a symbol for their side. as for neutral parties, they for the most part didn't care one way or the other, as their view on the matter had to do with their own values (greece disliked cleopatra due to the incestuous practice in her dynasty for instance and had nothing to do with rome's views on her). in other words vilification is naturally done by one's enemies based on how much of a threat to their side you are. a symbol to one's enemies would naturally become disliked and an effort to tarnish their reputation in direct reflection of their theme as a symbol would occur. they would focus on the differences in culture, sort of how romel was viewed positively for his abilities that was shared between the allies and the axis, while the SS was hated due to their differences by the allies, and for those same reasons were loved by the axis.

basically if a culture would find a symbol to be good by their own judgement they would respect it, but if not then the differences become an inverse aspect. the more a side likes that aspect the more the other side hates it. most examples of vilification of women use dominant cultures that disliked women in the roles they took, such as rome with boudica, and thus the impression of global vilification is false as non-roman sources aren't used to view her perception on a global scale. cleopatra is a good example as she had broad reach and thus recordings of her are not limited to just roman and egyptian sources. this shows that most of the world simply thought of her as the ruler of egypt.

this is why the question becomes if the game is going to create a global constant and shift it based on certain variables assigned based on culture or personal views or if there is a mono-culture in which women are universally treated a certain way globally. the only other possibility is if there is no global renown, and everything is tracked individually based on culture or even person to person basis. the first one should be the most realistic, and the last one is the least efficient method resource wise, with the second being the cheapest resource wise.