SP - Player, NPCs & Troops Yo were the black women at?

Users who are viewing this thread

There is no religion in the Mount&Blade world, there is no sacred writing stating that women should be submissive to men, be it a father, husband or brother. And people using Warband as a reference should not forget that the claimant for Swadia stated that it was common for women to be rulers and that the most famous swadian rulers were female, even Harlaus acknowledges that.

While I think it is acceptable and expected that there should be sexist behavior in Bannerlord, nothing points towards this being widespread belief, it seems more like a personal trait, maybe even something to be added with the other traits, like Generous, or Merciful.

Anyhow, I have already seen a mod in the Nexus meant for people that preach sexism in fictional/fantasy games and hide behind the "this is not realistic according to my standards" argument. Use that mod instead of trying to impose it on us all.
 
Maybe in bannerlord females are just as strong as males biologically, who knows?
But they aren't. And I also don't buy the "role models" argument. Would a consumer not appreciate the developers respecting the players intelligence more than the developers catering to players by undermining the otherwise realistic grounding of the setting? And as I said, instead of sprinkling some female lords here and there, they could add some actual logical reasoning behind it. For example, we have the Southern Empire faction leader, there's a story behind her and why she has the position that she has. The same could be done for a few female Battanian lords, and maybe for a couple of others in one or two more factions?
I think that would be a more intelligent, realistic, tasteful and immersive way of going about it, instead of presenting female war leaders in the exact same way as male war leaders, as if there was no difference.

there is no sacred writing stating that women should be submissive to men, be it a father, husband or brother.

But that is not the reason why women weren't war leaders or part of the fighting forces throughout human history, it was because of biological differences and how reproduction works. Which we can presume works the same way in the M&B universe as it does in real life, if you're not going to go for the low blow argument and claim "we don't know how humans reproduce in Calradia so they could be warriors too!!1"
 
There is no religion in the Mount&Blade world, there is no sacred writing stating that women should be submissive to men, be it a father, husband or brother. And people using Warband as a reference should not forget that the claimant for Swadia stated that it was common for women to be rulers and that the most famous swadian rulers were female, even Harlaus acknowledges that.

While I think it is acceptable and expected that there should be sexist behavior in Bannerlord, nothing points towards this being widespread belief, it seems more like a personal trait, maybe even something to be added with the other traits, like Generous, or Merciful.

Anyhow, I have already seen a mod in the Nexus meant for people that preach sexism in fictional/fantasy games and hide behind the "this is not realistic according to my standards" argument. Use that mod instead of trying to impose it on us all.
Bad argument. Literally no culture in any time on this earth ever had "true" sexual equality, female armies or female warlords, and it sure as hell wasn't the fault of a religion, it's the fault of biology. It doesn't even make sense in the world of Calradia (if you REALLY want to argue that it's fantasy and it can be whatever), as sexism was clear in Warband, not to mention that Harlaus said there were a handful of female GENERALS that RUINED Swadia.
 
But they aren't.
And how do we know that? It's an alternate virtual universe. Anything is possible. Are you aware of a line of code that says " if sex is female -> decrease strength " ? If not, then we can assume the strength in this virtual universe is the same for both sexes.
 
And how do we know that?
Because their bodies are different from mens bodies.

Anything is possible
So why not have flying elephants since "anything is possible"?

Are you aware of a line of code that says " if sex is female -> decrease strength " ? If not, then we can assume the strength in this virtual universe is the same for both sexes.
This is a completely seperate argument that has nothing to do with the setting and story, you're now suddenly talking about actual gameplay mechanics instead.

I don't believe you're arguing in good faith.
 
There is no religion in the Mount&Blade world,...

There are no toilets in the Mount&Blade world, does that mean that people in MB don't do their needs? No, it only means that they are not represented in the game. There is difference between not representing something in the game for the sake of abstraction and misrepresenting it. Absence of religion is former, women in command and combat positions are later.
 
If everyone who complained about too many women in Bannerlord got banned from the forums, these forums would have an infinitely better environment.
 
Because their bodies are different from mens bodies.
Yes... so? Again, virtual universe. You can have a tiny dwarf with the strength of a giant.

So why not have flying elephants since "anything is possible"?
Because it is up to the creative liberty of the developers to decide how the universe looks like. If they want it to look realistic BUT give females equal strength, then that's how the universe is. But technically yes, flying elephants can be a thing if they wanted it.

This is a completely seperate argument that has nothing to do with the setting and story, you're now suddenly talking about actual gameplay mechanics instead.
I don't believe you're arguing in good faith.
Besides actual game mechanics there is also no story line that indicates females can't be soldiers. Or maybe i missed it?
 
Besides actual game mechanics there is also no story line that indicates females can't be soldiers. Or maybe i missed it?
Just as there is no storyline that indicates there doesn't exist flying elephants.
You are not arguing in good faith.
We as the players look at this world and draw parallels to our own real world. We look at how people are shaped, their bodies, and draw expactations of their capabilities from the information our senses gather about them. For example if we see a tiny dwarf, we wouldn't expect said tiny dwarf to have the strength of a giant, because that would be absolutely silly, nonsensical, and have no place in a setting that is very much grounded in reality despite being an original setting.

The same goes for expactations of capabilities of men and women in Calradia. We see that men in Calradia, just like in our real world, have much greater upper body strength than women do. We can also see that they go to great lengths to cover certain parts of their bodies, and so we can presume that reproduction works just the way it does in our real world. We can therefore draw the conclusion that men must be much more capable of fighting. We can also draw another conclusion, and that is that because of how reproduction works that women would even if they were capable of fighting just as well as men, would not be available to fight as often as men.

You can't "argue" for a logical explanation for common occurance of female war leaders in Calradia, it doesn't make sense given the setting. What you can say is: "I don't care about logic, they should just be there because I want female representation despite said female representation taking a form which contradicts the logical expactations from the setting." That would be much more intellectually honest of you to do.
 
You are not arguing in good faith.

I dont care that much personally about this argument. I'm a male, and my character is male. But still, when I saw women rulers and companions, I never had the thought "wow, these women have no place here. It's unrealistic". I just don't care, I'm gonna be harvesting any soul that stands in my way on the battlefield, male or female.

So the only reason I'm arguing with you is because I don't see myself a problem in it, if anything I think it adds some nice flavour to my harvesting.
 
I dont care that much personally about this argument. I'm a male, and my character is male. But still, when I saw women rulers and companions, I never had the thought "wow, these women have no place here. It's unrealistic". I just don't care, I'm gonna be harvesting any soul that stands in my way on the battlefield, male or female.

So the only reason I'm arguing with you is because I don't see myself a problem in it, if anything I think it adds some nice flavour to my harvesting.
So you don't personally care about the content of the argument itself, you don't care about the logical explanation behind certain aspects of a game that is designed to be immersive, and yet you argue? Instead of taking up unecessary forum space, and wasting peoples time, just don't argue next time and continue not caring and playing.

I personally want the setting of this game to be grounded in reality, which it largely is, but I want this to also include gender roles, and therefore I want to see less female war leaders because that is just completely immersion breaking for me, and I would argue for quite alot of players. Don't get me wrong, the game is great and I can absolutely immerse myself in it. But I just don't see this unecessary inclusion in the game when it instead could be more like Warband. Heck, there even is "sexist" dialogue by lords in the game files which are FINISHED but unused.
 
therefore I want to see less female war leaders because that is just completely immersion breaking for me, and I would argue for quite alot of players.

Whatever floats your boat mate.. in the end we can all express our opinions and the devs can consider them (or not).
I have to say I just find it slightly funny that something like that breaks your immersion. Perhaps you're taking things a bit too seriously? I'm not sure it's healthy to have these thoughts. Until I joined the forums I didn't even know this problem existed for some people, and I'm a guy who occasionally makes sexist jokes in real life.
 
Whatever floats your boat mate.. in the end we can all express our opinions and the devs can consider them (or not).
I have to say I just find it slightly funny that something like that breaks your immersion. Perhaps you're taking things a bit too seriously? I'm not sure it's healthy to have these thoughts. Until I joined the forums I didn't even know this problem existed for some people, and I'm a guy who occasionally makes sexist jokes in real life.
I would be complaining if I saw pregnant men aswell, because that would be just as illogical as female war leaders and soldiers. Would I be unhealthy for complaining about that?
 
Actually internet in general would be way better without pc westerners on it.

Do I have to assume that you are an easterner who uses a Mac?

I would be complaining if I saw pregnant men aswell, because that would be just as illogical as female war leaders and soldiers. Would I be unhealthy for complaining about that?

Women fighting in a war, with weapons, in the thick of it, is quite unusual, but women being tacticians, that's not unheard of.
 
It's not unheard of, but probably happened as many times throughout history as modern technology has allowed for a biological men to become pregnant.

If you choose to believe that people like Grace O'Malley, Matilda of Canossa or Ida of Cham never commander troops, despite the sources telling us that much, it boils down to your own biased interpretation of the sources.

You can choose to believe that they only listened to male generals and commanded according to that, or that they looked at the map, listened to the reports, were counseled by her generals (like any male would) and made up a plan.

The perspective on which you look at the sources and the data will determine the narrative you yourself make of it. That's why gender studies exist, because looking at history always from a male-centric perspective will always give make you miss important questions or make you reach the same preconceived answer.
 
If you choose to believe that people like Grace O'Malley, Matilda of Canossa or Ida of Cham never commander troops, despite the sources telling us that much, it boils down to your own biased interpretation of the sources.

You can choose to believe that they only listened to male generals and commanded according to that, or that they looked at the map, listened to the reports, were counseled by her generals (like any male would) and made up a plan.

The perspective on which you look at the sources and the data will determine the narrative you yourself make of it. That's why gender studies exist, because looking at history always from a male-centric perspective will always give make you miss important questions or make you reach the same preconceived answer.
I'll just repeat myself because clearly my previous message didn't get through to you:

"It's not unheard of, but probably happened as many times throughout history as modern technology has allowed for a biological men to become pregnant. "

The gender studies nonsense you just copy & pasted has no connection to the discussion at hand (and has a false premise to begin with). The notion that women were "war leaders as commonly as men were" is complete nonsense. The existence of five, ten, or heck even 100 of them, would not be proof of that, even 100 would be a tiny minority seen from both a historical and contemporary perspective.

And there's nothing wrong or weird about that. The genders differ biologically and so naturally have an affinity towards being good at certain functions and roles within society, and the business of warfare is the business of men, not women. Although there will naturally be exceptions, but it would seem in this case, the exceptions are extremely few indeed.
 
Back
Top Bottom