good plan
No, it means exactly that: magic, dragons, etc. M&B is a realistic game with a "fantasy story". It's very different. With your argumentation also Rome Total War could be a fantasy game, but it's absolutely not that.
One could argue that Rome Total War is a historic fantasy because many of the roman houses and other factions you can play as never existed together at the same time in reality, so the fantasy is being able to pit these historic groups against each other. Fantasy is imagination and the involvement of things that are either not possible or improbable, magic and dragons and other "mystical" elements being only examples but certainly not the requirement. The fantasy genre is not so rigorously defined as you may think it is.
???????????? What the hell has to do with it?There are no dragons or magic when I play Fantasy Football every year. I guess I have been playing it wrong all these years.
You stated that fantasy had to include magic and dragons and the like, so Bannerlord is not a fantasy, and I was giving a sarcastic example of where fantasy is very commonly used (at least in the US) that does not include such mystical things, thus showing that Bannerlord can be called a fantasy even though dragons, magic, etc. are not in it. I realize now that a lot of people might not know what Fantasy Football is, so it was probably more confusing or harder to understand than I intended. I removed it from my reply. The rest of that post is still sound, so feel free to ignore that sarcastic comment and read the rest. No need to get held up on it.
No... again... your reasoning makes absolutely no sense. ?
The issue is that your narrow definition of fantasy and my broad definition of fantasy don't align. Simple as that. As our discussion on the definition of fantasy adds nothing to this thread, I won't continue it.No... again... your reasoning makes absolutely no sense. ?
The fact is that it's a realistic game with a "fantasy" story, that's all, it's not difficult to understand.
I didn't know that. That means there have never been big discussions or outrages about this topic, and that's a good thing. TaleWorlds should consider it, just implement it at some point with no big announcement and everything is fine.
Bannerlord isn't even alternate history, it's too far away from real history to be considered that. It is clearly fictional, and therefore not bound to historical restrictions. The question if it is really fantasy or not is a way more difficult definition than you try to put it. To communicate we need common definitions, otherwise a discussion is pointless. One common definition of fantasy could be this wiki article, for example. But no matter what source you check for a definition for the fantasy genre, none will give you the simple answer "magic, dragons, etc.".
To justify the inclusion of suggestions that do not fit into real-world medeival politics and society, as 90% of the complaints in this thread are because a single suggestion I made does not fully match real-world "historically accuracy". It really is a pointless argument, but for those people who hate the homosexual romance idea, it's the only argument they have, willfully ignoring the thousands of other aspects of every Mount&Blade game that are not historically accurate because it does take place is a fictional world. They seem generally fine with every other idea in the post.
Just add in the option, and those who are homophobic won't even know because in their games they would never even try to initiate such conversations in-game. It would never affect them. At least in my suggestion I give the option for a setting that is deactivated by default, so they would never even have the chance for it to happen in their games.
). But then again, the player can be a son of a thieves and farmers, having his own banner nevertheless. And so, the main point is that if a player is a member of a noble family - how many nobles married peasant girls or some Boudicca the Lioness who is a former thug leader looking for some money in real life? 
