I find your arguments kinda absurd, but I will try and respond to them without being patronising. They did certainly say the blacksmith will play a major role. From the Kickstarter page: “Avenging the dead, safeguarding the kingdom’s rightful ruler, and restoring order will prove no small feat for our adventurer.” They also insinuate quite heavily that you are going to sway nobles to support one heir or the other.
It does not speak for itself that there were very few who studied women in the middle ages until the 70s, it only speaks about the chauvinism and ethnocentrism of 19th century researchers, which was when history and archaeology in their current form had their origin.
They wrote about history from their world view, which was way more chauvinistic than both the 18th century which was probably as liberal a time as history got, and I dare say more chauvinistic than the Middle Ages. It would be less of a stretch for people of the Middle Ages to take a woman seriously than it would be for a 19th century man, or even many modern men (and women, sadly), as we still cling to many of the ideas that had their apex back with the Victorians, about culture and gender. But even then there were notable exceptions: Archaeologists of the time found daggers in the graves of women, and in their world, women would never fight, so they instead attributed this to all kinds of alternate explanations. It was Johanna Mestorf, an immensely respespected archaeologist at the time (despite being female, her story is very interesting, but I won’t retell it now. Look it up! ), who suggested that maybe they did actually occasionally use it to fight.
And “these rare examples of exceptional women in history” does prove it was more than “almost impossible”, my examples were but a few. The article itself speaks of at least one other by name in that same rebellion. I give you also the earlier example of Gwenllian Ferch Gruffydd, respected general and co-leader in Wales around 1100, who’s name became a battle cry for the welsh for decades if not centuries after her death. Yet another example is from the Eastern Roman Empire, from around 1000 AD after a battle during a war against Rus, if memory serves me right, where they were horrified after they found numerous women among the fallen enemy soldiers. And even if we play with the thought that you were right, and it was almost impossible; a game tells one story. One example from history is enough to make a game realistic. But there isn’t one, there are dozens, but they are not as well known as their (admittedly still more numerous) male counterparts, probably because of the male dominance in writing and distributing. Do not mistake popular history for the full extent of actual history.
And no, they would not be mocked “so hard”, and I find it unsettling that you think they would. I would applaud them, as I’m sure many others would have done. I would welcome a break from seeing history represented in media as told by rich, white men. The academic fields of history and archaeology has moved forward a lot the last hundred years, with new, better, more varied sources and a better understanding of how our own culture influences everything we do, write and read. The public idea of history, on the other hand. has obviously not.
That a woman would have to be ridiculed and “treated like a freak” by everyone for being exceptional is based on nothing more than your imagination. Several of my examples show otherwise, and going back to the article about the Peasant Rebellion; if people would only ridicule a woman for being a skilled leader and exceptional character, would a woman really be able to gather a peasant uprising large enough to storm London and behead the Lord Chancellor? No. And that goes for all the other examples as well. Yes, women were at large seen as lower beings than men, but that is especially true among the clergy and to a large extent among the nobility, according to Catholic doctrine, but not as true for the general peasantry, and even among the upper classes this varied widely from person to person. And a woman who proves exceptionally skilled is able to gain trust in any company, as proven by the rebellion’s at least two female leaders named by name, as well as the numerous women involved in clergy and noble politics through the ages simply due to them being exceptional at what they did.
And that leads us neatly to the next issue, the fact that you think them being called “heretics” and “rebellious evildoers” means that mirrored views of the full extent of the populace. The Cathar movement, who were heretics, yes, were a large enough movement to actually threaten the authority of the Catholic church in whole regions of Europe. That means that there were quite a lot of people who shared their views. May I remind you that Protestantism is a Catholic heresy as well. Thus it is faulty to say that the church view represents everyone’s view.
Same thing with the description “rebellious evildoers”. That account was written by the crown, of course they would describe them as evildoers. That was due to the fact that they were rebels, not that they were lead by a woman. That there was a large rebellion to start with should tell you that the general populace’ views doesn’t necessarily mesh with that of the upper class.
To conclude this tangent, before as today, people were not straw men who shared every whim and thought of the governing classes. You are grossly simplifying how we should interpret how the people of yore saw the world and using it to create a false dilemma. Sure, a female character would probably meet some extra resistance and would maybe have a harder time earning respect in certain societies, but this is in no way detrimental for a good story. As every writer knows, conflict and strife is the core of any good story. Actually, a peasant such as our blacksmith protagonist trying to move amongst the noble classes would also meet quite a lot of resistance, and I bet the game will acknowledge this, and it will probably make the story more interesting for it.
So some extra strife for a female character would not be sexist. The constant ridicule, mocking and total lack or respect you describe, however, probably would be sexist, especially as, as I have shown, it is anachronistic for the era.
I will not comment too much on the feasibility of making separate dialogue for the two character, as your conclusion is based on your previous arguments which I have already commented on. I propose that the story would not at all have to be dramatically altered to the point of creating two entirely separate stories. As I have shown, exceptional people can fit into any company, despite gender. But they are a small team, and I have some personal experience from the games industry and know how much work making a game actually is, which was why I left, so I leave that up to them. That being said, they would be doing the public perception of history a large favour by featuring a female character.
)