I absolutely loved Prophesy of Pendor. Doomguides were amongst the most lethal units, and there were entire Knighthood orders comprised of just women. I had no problem whatsoever with that for the very simple reason the whole mod's setting was extremely clear in what "reality" was in that setting's context.
There were actual gods who spoke to people directly. Actual elves. There was a snake cult a la Conan the Barbarian. Demons. Undead. It was only natural that, in such a context, women could actually fight on a battlefield without a man dragging them away by pulling their hair and chastising them for being stupid and reckless. Hell, a doomguide could decimate a 50-man strong tier 2 army on her own.
But then there's Bannerlord. Bannerlord's setting is inspired by historical culture and events: the empire is fractured and employs cataphracts, therefore it's clear to assume it's basically the Eastern Roman Empire. Battanians are celts. Sturgians are slavs. Aserai and Khuzaits are basically arabs and mongols.
They're all part of a setting with a rather strong historically plausible foundation.
Where am I going with this? Referring to another comment I saw a moment ago talking about someone wishing Bannerlord could be a patriarchy simulator... I'm not sure you are aware of this, but in every single century aside from the last two every single country, nation and tribe on Earth has been patriarchal in structure - with notable exceptions that are, however, numerically *irrelevant.*
Speaking of practicality: if noble women fought in open field battles in a moderately realistic high medieval setting, the nobility would cease to exist in the timespan of a single generation due to miscarriages, deaths on the battlefield and the subsequent lack of heirs.
Noble women should, as someone ironically said before, be babymaking machines and pawns used to negotiate alliances and other treaties.
That is, if this wanted to be a historically (moderately) accurate game. If it's not trying to be so, then... why take so much from our own history and ignore anything that might be considered unrealistic? Pendor had Qualis gems and elixirs of skill and long life, Bannerlord does not.
It might make sense that, let's say, a Battanian noblewoman with the reckless trait (or something to that effect) would want to fight in a battle. Let her, but then let's say she fights against a Khuzait army and... loses. That's also why logically speaking her family would rather lock her up in a tower than let her fight on the field.
Do you know what the mongols used to do with captive women? That's why you *really* don't want them on the battlefield. If you do, you're probably a sexist because you wish harm upon women (just joking there.)
TL;DR=If Bannerlord embraces fantasy, then go all out with women fighting on the battlefield. If it wants to stay true to its own setting, let there be patriarchy.
There were actual gods who spoke to people directly. Actual elves. There was a snake cult a la Conan the Barbarian. Demons. Undead. It was only natural that, in such a context, women could actually fight on a battlefield without a man dragging them away by pulling their hair and chastising them for being stupid and reckless. Hell, a doomguide could decimate a 50-man strong tier 2 army on her own.
But then there's Bannerlord. Bannerlord's setting is inspired by historical culture and events: the empire is fractured and employs cataphracts, therefore it's clear to assume it's basically the Eastern Roman Empire. Battanians are celts. Sturgians are slavs. Aserai and Khuzaits are basically arabs and mongols.
They're all part of a setting with a rather strong historically plausible foundation.
Where am I going with this? Referring to another comment I saw a moment ago talking about someone wishing Bannerlord could be a patriarchy simulator... I'm not sure you are aware of this, but in every single century aside from the last two every single country, nation and tribe on Earth has been patriarchal in structure - with notable exceptions that are, however, numerically *irrelevant.*
Speaking of practicality: if noble women fought in open field battles in a moderately realistic high medieval setting, the nobility would cease to exist in the timespan of a single generation due to miscarriages, deaths on the battlefield and the subsequent lack of heirs.
Noble women should, as someone ironically said before, be babymaking machines and pawns used to negotiate alliances and other treaties.
That is, if this wanted to be a historically (moderately) accurate game. If it's not trying to be so, then... why take so much from our own history and ignore anything that might be considered unrealistic? Pendor had Qualis gems and elixirs of skill and long life, Bannerlord does not.
It might make sense that, let's say, a Battanian noblewoman with the reckless trait (or something to that effect) would want to fight in a battle. Let her, but then let's say she fights against a Khuzait army and... loses. That's also why logically speaking her family would rather lock her up in a tower than let her fight on the field.
Do you know what the mongols used to do with captive women? That's why you *really* don't want them on the battlefield. If you do, you're probably a sexist because you wish harm upon women (just joking there.)
TL;DR=If Bannerlord embraces fantasy, then go all out with women fighting on the battlefield. If it wants to stay true to its own setting, let there be patriarchy.