He means that a man would have the same chances of being assaulted, mugged and murdered while travelling alone.
True. the difference is he will not bee raped, i assume⊠And�
How is this an argument? You could even have rape minigame! (plz donât flag this)
LOL! No, plz. Itâs enough the lockpicking minigame. âSoooo, where can i place my gold dotâŠâ Hahahahahaha No, no rape minigame, neither here nor in all games in the future.
There is games with said âfeatureâ of course they are illegal in almost every country in existent
Stop joking about rape you animals
Totally agree. Next thing you know they will b asking for the option to imprision lord capon due to his roudy behavior.
Whatâs wrong with joking about rape? If males and females are equally strong than rape doesnât even exist, itâs a myth, and if itâs not a myth than that means we shouldnât have a female protagonist.
Pick 1:
-Female protagonist.
or
-Rape is not a myth.
2 Likes
Rape and sexual misconduct exists and has existed among men too. Ancient Greek city state militias had pederasty to varying degrees.
Is your position Voxdalian that if WH were to create a game in that setting that pederasty would have to be developed into the plot line to maintain historical realism?
The fuck nonsense is this?
3 Likes
I didnât joke with rape: i clearly said that i donât want to see in any game (past or future one) a rape minigameâŠ
I can barely handle a rape in a game just for the sake of the story, if it doesnât happen âright nowâ and it happened in the past, but⊠No, thanxâŠ
No thatâs not how this works, the burden of proof is on you. If you have evidence of women brigands, then share it.
Yes not all mercs were top notch, but they had to be of a certain quality to be hired. And most were likely veterans, and were able to equip and arm themselves, something a women would not really be able to do, since Women were not drafted into wars.
They would much rather take a man, who is physically stronger, can keep up and live rough more easily, and less likely to cause trouble in the camp (fights over the women, maybe someone gets grabby with her, ect).
Except, another âhelping handâ is another mouth to feed, and another person to arm, and share the loot with. There is no reason for them to accept a women over a man, and letâs not pretend like they would have issues finding a man to join them.
A women in a brigand camp would likely face the same issues, as a women in a merc camp. Lawless brigands would be more likely to use her as a sex slave.
Because the vast majority of the people being raped throughout history were women, and the majority of rapists were men. A bunch of men who are isolated from society, and likely havenât touched a women in a while, arenât going to be women respecting gentle men or what other values youâre projecting onto them.
And i repeat myself, there is zero proof of your claims of women being brigands or mercs, or soldiers for that matter during the medieval period. You going off complete speculation.
SirW, whatâs your burden of proof?
Iâm asking him for his proof of women being brigands and mercs. No one in this entire thread has been able to give me any proof to back up their claims of women warriors.
Yes, and to meet your criterion of proof, the threshold of evidence needs to be known. Without, itâs an incessant roundy round
Itâs very simple. Give me evidence that there were women warriors in the Medieval period, weather theyâd be mercs, brigands, or soliders fighting in a war.
By fighting, i mean physically engaging in combat during a battle/fight. Not Joan of arc, who was present at battles, but did not physically engage people herself.
Ive seen several people in here claim there were women who fought as soldiers, but when i asked them for proof, they gave none.
Not trying to be obtuse. But you have a very particular notion of proof. Photograph, treatise, etc. what is enough?
Candidly, we talking about medieval Europe wherein literacy was exceptional. And as illustrated by sentiment of Rattay scribe vis a vis Elishka, they didnât bother with the serfs and other narratives not deemed to be important. Point being, not sure much of anything can actually be proven in an objective sense
Written accounts, a Treatise would do fine. Paintings are generally bad for using as proof, unless we know the very precise details of what the paining is depicting.
If you cannot prove the existence of female warriors, then you cannot complain when theyâre not put in a game that is supposed to be historically accurate.
Given how rare a women even being present on the battlefield in armor was (Joan of arc) iâd imagine any female warrior would have been written about extensively. But we donât have any such records of this, which means you can logically assume it likely did not happen.
But if proof comes out that Iâm wrong, iâll happily revise my position.
Historically accurate is in the eye of the beholder. Not sure how much of any medieval account is objectively accurate. Scribes and their patrons were motivated. They ignored the serfs etc
Yeah, Iâm not even going to bother responding to you, after such a ridiculous statement.
3 Likes