Of female characters in RPG's

[rusty_shackleford]

Adult women are certainly more effective soldiers than children.

If you told me I had to pick between joining a squad with 15 year old boyscouts or a squad with 24 year old trained female soldiers, I'll take the boyscouts every day of the week.

Does this boy look 15 to you?

Looks like someone capable of carrying supplies to me.

If I understand correctly, the one he's shaking hands with wasn't a soldier at all, merely a 12 year old named Alfred Czech who rescued an injured soldier.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

In old times losing a war often implied extermination or slavery, in which case losing ability to reproduce was meaningless.

Women cannot produce soldiers like barracks in RTS games. If you are fighting a war and your tribe's very existence is at stake there is no point in planning demographics for next 15 years.

So the argument for women soldiers existing historically is "when you've run out of every other option, women can kinda sorta put up a fight I guess?"

 

[Arbiter]

In old times losing a war often implied extermination or slavery, in which case losing ability to reproduce was meaningless.

Women cannot produce soldiers like barracks in RTS games. If you are fighting a war and your tribe's very existence is at stake there is no point in planning demographics for next 15 years.

So the argument for women soldiers existing historically is "when you've run out of every other option, women can kinda sorta put up a fight I guess?"

Yes, I never said that women are statistically as strong or aggressive as men, or that the army is the right place for women, but in times of desperation women certainly had to fight, just like child soldiers.

 

[Arbiter]

Adult women are certainly more effective soldiers than children.

If you told me I had to pick between joining a squad with 15 year old boyscouts or a squad with 24 year old trained female soldiers, I'll take the boyscouts every day of the week.

Does this boy look 15 to you?

Looks like someone capable of carrying supplies to me.

If I understand correctly, the one he's shaking hands with wasn't a soldier at all, merely a 12 year old named Alfred Czech who rescued an injured soldier.

Not according to Wikipedia (I know you don't like it, so please provide your source)


Alfred Zech
Born 12 October 1932 - therefore 12,5 year old during final months of war in Europe.

Following an accelerated training program, Zech joined a German unit fighting in Freudenthal in what is currently Czech Silesia. He was shot and wounded in combat and made a prisoner of war, but was released in 1947 at the age of 14 years.

 

[Arbiter]

What did you think of "Scouting for boys"?

You messed up the quote tags. That was Rusty's statement.

 

[HereticGuy]

Also, Muslims are relevant to the topic. Maybe you can illuminate this wikipedia entry about a famous female muslim warrior

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawla_bint_al-Azwar

"Khawla" name reminded me "BWILA"

 

[Saark]

that's great if you ignore the fact that women are not merely units of war but vital tools to create the people who actually fight and therefore putting them in danger reduces your overall fighting force in the longterm

Yeah, I'm sure desperate leaders considered the value of child-bearing women willing to go to war, and the effect it has on their ability to go to fight a war again in 20 years, while the germans are knocking on Stalingrads door. This isn't some garbage strategy game where you play over 300 years of history and these things might something to be considered. If you're at war and there's even a remote chance of losing, you throw everything you got at your adversary, including the kitchen sink and the women who used to wash dishes in it.

I find it hard to believe that any war council with their backs against the wall, who had the ability to add a few women to the batallions, would decline that opportunity on account of "we need them to bear children".

 

[Reina]

Yes, I never said that women are statistically as strong or aggressive as men,

Generally speaking it's not strength or aggressiveness that prevented women from being used as soldiers, but their status. Unlike men who are sexually expendable, each woman capable of birth had a tremendous value in pre-industrial society. Woman was a prize men fought over, and one of the main spoils of war. So sending women to fight when the whole point of this fight is to protect them is not a very smart idea*.

In terms of an actual capability, the thing that makes women less capable in soldiering is not strength (that's of little consequence in actual warfare) nor aggressiveness (that determines career choice, but has little impact on performance) but endurance. Army is not for fighting, but for marching - and unfortunately, we are not built to withstand murderous forced marches the same way men can.

However, when speaking of RPG characters, we usually discuss not soldiers, but warriors. Warriors are outliers in every society, career bloodletters dedicated to their craft, not ordinary folk. If cultural factors don't play a role limiting their participation, a fantasy society resembling earth could easily produce female warriors - probably not as numerous as males, but a substantial number. And the less earth-like the setting is, the more this discussion becomes irrelevant. Sure, the average woman is less suited to be a fighter role than man - but warriors are not ordinary.

*That's also why we have very little historical accounts of female soldiers, but remarkably more of female warriors. It makes sense for a female to take a fighting role in a specific set of circumstances, but no sense to participate in organized warfare.

 

[Desiderius]

It is telling that leftard cunts take a nation at its most desperate and try to pass it off as normal. That is what they want to do to you.

Lol it's not the (just) the leftards who are all-in on the gender-bending and forcing stronk (or otherwise) wimmen into traditionally male roles.

Chamber of Commerce loves that shit and they're only fake left. Plenty of rank-and-file Cons love supporting Liz Truss-style zeroes way out of their league and sending their daughters to collitch/war.

I find it hard to believe that any war council who had the ability to add a few women to the batallions would decline that opportunity on account of "we need them to bear children".

You find it hard to believe because contemporary war councils are more concerned with suppressing population (especially populations not so loyal to their preferred global vision, which are the ones that have been feeding the warrior castes lately) than winning wars none of them have ever fought in on behalf of states they treat as functionally obsolete. That hasn't always been the case, although in a world with the Bomb it may be going forward.

Sending women to war (and relentlessly promoting the vision that makes that seem not only viable by laudatory) is one way to make sure it is.

 

[Nazrim Eldrak]

Here is something interesting regarding history:

I wondered if the Amazons really existed, due to the questions if women were used in military in history.

The following came up:
Historians found some female skeletons with combat injuries and were burried in warrior graves.
The graves contained weapons wich matched those in ancient greek artwork regarding amazons.

Of course they were not amazons(exclusively women) it was a nomadic tribe known as Scytians(masters of horseback riding and archery).
They lived on the Eurasian steppe(Black sea to China).
The female warrior were 10 to 45 in age.
A hardcore tribe.

Here is citation:
"Scythian societies weren't exclusively women, like in the Greek myth; they simply included female members who lived like the men did. In essence, some (but not all) of the Scythian women joined men in hunting and battle. "

Here's the link if anyone is interested in reading the whole thing.
https://www.livescience.com/who-were-amazon-warriors.html

 

[Saark]

In terms of an actual capability, the thing that makes women less capable in soldiering is not strength (that's of little consequence in actual warfare) nor aggressiveness (that determines career choice, but has little impact on performance) but endurance. Army is not for fighting, but for marching - and unfortunately, we are not built to withstand murderous forced marches the same way men can.

Which also explains why women have been considered for regular warfare activities more often since the introduction of gunpowder to the battlefields. When you no longer have to wear a full set of armor and multiple layers of protection, because it ain't gonna stop you from getting shot anyway, it lowers the entry-level of physical requirements needed to be able to do your job.

 

[Saark]

"Scythian societies weren't exclusively women, like in the Greek myth; they simply included female members who lived like the men did. In essence, some (but not all) of the Scythian women joined men in hunting and battle. "

I wonder why a society which had the church oppressing women, and which did not value women for more than their ability to bear children and therefore not allow them to participate in certain occupations or train for them, had no female representation. It is truly a mystery. Correlation and causation matter.
Doesn't change the fact that obviously the average man is more suited to meet the needs of any task requiring strenuous physical activity, than the average women. But RPG heroes/adventurers aren't average.

 

[Reina]

Which also explains why women have been considered for regular warfare activities more often since the introduction of gunpowder to the battlefields. When you no longer have to wear a full set of armor and multiple layers of protection, because it ain't gonna stop you from getting shot anyway, it lowers the entry-level of physical requirements needed to be able to do your job.

It's not even about armor - historical armors were rarely so heavy they'd put significant strain on soldier (and then, they'd not be worn during marches). The reason why women soldiers started popping here and there since 18th century is their changing role in a society - from dependent/prize to active participant. Which in turn is a result of economic transformations that go even deeper than the industrial revolution (but largely coincide with it). If a woman's role is no longer popping a child every year (improved medicine, yay!) or producing textiles/other goods (industrial manufacturing take over, yay!) for the household, she not only is freed to perform other roles (hence, we have feminism, which is nothing more than a reaction to this process and attempt by women to find new roles in a changing society) - but also no longer counts as a spoil.

 

[Arbiter]

Yes, I never said that women are statistically as strong or aggressive as men,

Generally speaking it's not strength or aggressiveness that prevented women from being used as soldiers, but their status. Unlike men who are sexually expendable, each woman capable of birth had a tremendous value in pre-industrial society. Woman was a prize men fought over, and one of the main spoils of war.

I strongly disagree with that notion, while a single man can impregnate multiple women, a tribe consisting of 1 man and 100 women would not last long.

So sending women to fight when the whole point of this fight is to protect them is not a very smart idea*.

Wars weren't always started for logical reasons and the defending side was often fighting for survival, not someone else's reasons.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

The gender wars never end it seems. Are fantasy women a threat to irl society? I used to just laugh at that but the way the libtards and agenda fucks weaponize everything to take down men, it sure seems plausible. Of course now it is all demasculation and feminization of every dude as their goal. Fags & bitches & retarded nigga-chimps fucking destroy everything civilized MEN stand for. Even barbaric men are far better than this retard shit agenda. Better a barbarian than a bitch.

​

 

[Alex]

The gender wars never end it seems. Are fantasy women a threat to irl society? (...)

Always has been, Keighn, always has been.

 

[Desiderius]

I wonder why a society which had the church oppressing women, and which did not value women for more than their ability to bear children and therefore not allow them to participate in certain occupations or train for them, had no female representation. It is truly a mystery. Correlation and causation matter.

Lol. What a maroon.

"the church" hurr, durr

How can you not get how bathetically parochial this nonsense is? Are you blind to the rest of the human race? the Animal Kingdom?

 

[Arbiter]

It's not even about armor - historical armors were rarely so heavy they'd put significant strain on soldier (and then, they'd not be worn during marches).

Contrary to common belief soldiers could move freely in full armor, even make cartwheels and rolls. The problem was endurance - fighting in a heavy armor wears down a warrior much faster than fighting without armor.

 

[NecroLord]

Yes, I never said that women are statistically as strong or aggressive as men,

Generally speaking it's not strength or aggressiveness that prevented women from being used as soldiers, but their status. Unlike men who are sexually expendable, each woman capable of birth had a tremendous value in pre-industrial society. Woman was a prize men fought over, and one of the main spoils of war. So sending women to fight when the whole point of this fight is to protect them is not a very smart idea*.

In terms of an actual capability, the thing that makes women less capable in soldiering is not strength (that's of little consequence in actual warfare) nor aggressiveness (that determines career choice, but has little impact on performance) but endurance. Army is not for fighting, but for marching - and unfortunately, we are not built to withstand murderous forced marches the same way men can.

However, when speaking of RPG characters, we usually discuss not soldiers, but warriors. Warriors are outliers in every society, career bloodletters dedicated to their craft, not ordinary folk. If cultural factors don't play a role limiting their participation, a fantasy society resembling earth could easily produce female warriors - probably not as numerous as males, but a substantial number. And the less earth-like the setting is, the more this discussion becomes irrelevant. Sure, the average woman is less suited to be a fighter role than man - but warriors are not ordinary.

*That's also why we have very little historical accounts of female soldiers, but remarkably more of female warriors. It makes sense for a female to take a fighting role in a specific set of circumstances, but no sense to participate in organized warfare.

Very eloquent of you,Jaheira.

 

[Reina]

strongly disagree with that notion, while a single man can impregnate multiple women, a tribe consisting of 1 man and 100 women would not last long.

But such a tribe never existed. Sure, 1:100 might be too much, but with 1:20 ratio, if there are 200-300 men available, such tribe certainly had a shot at succeeding - and by laws of nature, over time (in fact, fairly quickly) that gender ratio will balance out. It's all matter of circumstances; there's a reason matriarchal communities thrived in areas where there was a little competition and friction (Tibet, Central Africa).

Wars weren't always started for logical reasons and the defending side was often fighting for survival, not someone else's reasons.

Sure, but societies organize themselves based on their experiences, which generally follow a certain logic. Participation of women might be beneficial in a single war, but not 99 others - and so it's wiser to organize armed forces/society around those 99 wars

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Bringing up church, esp jewish church. You have to wonder if the genesis story portrayed Adam as a stout faggot or beast-fucker. Maybe GOD was a fag too. Then Eve is ripped from adam's rib (a very cocky way for GOD to tell Adam to go fuck himself) and she basically brings further damnation upon all the Jews (some say mankind but I don't believe in that fairy fag tale to begin with). So, even if Adam wasn't a fag, this cunt manipulated him as he was simping for cooch. Adam gets all of mankind condemned because he didn't punch the stupid bitch and toss her back into god's face. What a dumbass. He is kind of potrayed as a bitch too for not standing up to god as well. He should have snagged both fruits tree of life and knowledge if good/evil and ate a fuckton and hurled eve to the serpent and killed them both. Then set fire to eden, burning the trees and butcher all the beasts and challenge GOD and the angels to a death match of obliteration.

That's a good story.... not the shit version that was published.

 

[KainenMorden]

Haha, thanks for this. I didn't know about this. I was out of the gaming/rpg scene for so long, I'm just now catching up on some of the memes/funny videos/grognard videos where grogs discuss real military strategy/tactics to show how realistic/unrealistic rpg combat is.

 

[Arbiter]

strongly disagree with that notion, while a single man can impregnate multiple women, a tribe consisting of 1 man and 100 women would not last long.

But such a tribe never existed. Sure, 1:100 might be too much, but with 1:20 ratio, if there are 200-300 men available, such tribe certainly had a shot at succeeding - and by laws of nature, over time (in fact, fairly quickly) that gender ratio will balance out. It's all matter of circumstances; there's a reason matriarchal communities thrived in areas where there was a little competition and friction (Tibet, Central Africa).

Wars weren't always started for logical reasons and the defending side was often fighting for survival, not someone else's reasons.

Sure, but societies organize themselves based on their experiences, which generally follow a certain logic. Participation of women might be beneficial in a single war, but not 99 others - and so it's wiser to organize armed forces/society around those 99 wars

Moreover, the easiest way to increase power and wealth of a nation is to enslave/vassalize other nations and use them for further conquests. Much faster than waiting 15 years until next generation grows up. Roman empire was built that way, it's not like Roman women were giving birth to an exceptional number of children.

 

[NecroLord]

strongly disagree with that notion, while a single man can impregnate multiple women, a tribe consisting of 1 man and 100 women would not last long.

But such a tribe never existed. Sure, 1:100 might be too much, but with 1:20 ratio, if there are 200-300 men available, such tribe certainly had a shot at succeeding - and by laws of nature, over time (in fact, fairly quickly) that gender ratio will balance out. It's all matter of circumstances; there's a reason matriarchal communities thrived in areas where there was a little competition and friction (Tibet, Central Africa).

Wars weren't always started for logical reasons and the defending side was often fighting for survival, not someone else's reasons.

Sure, but societies organize themselves based on their experiences, which generally follow a certain logic. Participation of women might be beneficial in a single war, but not 99 others - and so it's wiser to organize armed forces/society around those 99 wars

Moreover, the easiest way to increase power and wealth of a nation is to enslave/vassalize other nations and use them for further conquests. Much faster than waiting 15 years until next generation grows up. Roman empire was built that way, it's not like Roman women were giving birth to an exceptional number of children.

"Great empires are not maintained by timidity."
-Tacitus

 

[Sarathiour]

"Here are three opponents who all want to kill this Master. The first aims to kill him with a thrust. The second intends a cut. The third will throw his sword at the master like a spear. If the Master can perform a mighty deed and avoid being killed, then God will have indeed blessed him with great skill."

Yeah, I was referring to this passage.

Noy semo tre zugadori che volemo alcider questo
magistro. Uno gli dè trare di punta, l’altro di taglio
l’altro vole fatt lanzare la sua spada contra lo ditto
magistro. Sì che ben sarà grande fatto ch’ello non sia
morto che dio lo faza ben tristo

This particular play has often been misinterpreted as the master, possessing the skills of the art is able to face three fighters at the same time. The illustration and text actually reveal that the particular "posta " or guard which the master has assumed is able to defend and offend an attack from any one of the originating offensive stances.

Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt.

We don't have any evidence that a noble was killed by an arrow in any of those battle. English yeoman indeed played an important role, but it's because they won decisively against their crossbowmen counterpart , and were able to maim the horse who were already having difficulty dealing with an unfavorable landscape.