So what are the answers then for an all male army?
Could you not refer to an army with both men and women as a deviant one, that’s offensive. Since you consider linguistics important, you must be aware that that word has a negative meaning and is used as a slur.
No, it’s not offensive. It is a deviation from reality; it deviates; it is henceforth a deviant. It should be clear that I’m using the word accurately, rather than with whatever negative connotations people have decided to impose.
@Drazen Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of language knows that common parlance is the deciding factor in appropriateness of speech. Nigger was originally the a neutral term too, but I doubt that you’re so crass as to use that as the go to word.
@Reaperoa I do not think common parlance has been so corrupted as to make the word wholly slanderous, as occurred with words such as nigger, as well as moron, cretin, retard, et cetera. If it is still possible for me to use the word, with others having the basic intellect necessary to understand my meaning clearly, then I shall do so. And if, in doing so, I help to dissociate the word from whatever pointless changes its meaning is facing, then I shall consider my usage to be good.
If the argument can be made that so long as people have the capacity to understand the word is not being used in a slanderous manner, would not that argument apply equally to the other words, nigger, retard et al., and wouldn’t it therefor be just as, as you put it, ‘good’ to use those words sans their newer connotations?
Or is it more crass to use the term to imply that the idea of women in the army is unnatural, knowing for well that it will upset a number of the forum goers, particularly on the forums of a company who’s stated goals include gender inclusiveness?
@Reaperoa You’ve phrased that more eloquently than I ever could.
@Drazen You haven’t answered my question about how it would be for a male army.
@FairyGodfeather I didn’t answer it because I thought you were asking facetiously. If you actually want answers: 1) Women, the young, the elderly; 2) Primarily women; 3) Not relevant; 4) Not relevant; 5) Not relevant; 6) Specifically, shaving kits; 7) Prostitutes, mostly.
@Reaperoa If I thought I could use nigger, retard, and all other such words, in a manner whereby their original meaning could reasonably be expected to be understood, then yes, it would be good to do so, that we may reclaim words which would otherwise be pointless pejoratives littering our language. That the original meaning of those words has been lost by people declaring them to be “offensive” is unfortunate, and I oppose such crusades wherever they arise.
And, look, it was obvious that by a deviant world, I meant one that differed from ours in some way - i.e. one which deviated. That the world in question happened to contain features which someone might find pleasant is entirely irrelevant. If anyone finds a world they like referred to as having deviated from reality, and they find themselves offended by that wording, my suggestion would be to grow up. This entire tangent is, at best, pointless hysteria, and at worse a snide attempt to undermine an argument by criticising a single word, which is inoffensive to anybody who gives it a second thought. So, can we please set this aside, and return to discussing the game, or tangents which are relevant to it?
No, I wasn’t asking facetiously. I was genuinely curious.
What about farming? Mining? Crafting? Hard-labour? Who would protect their homesteads?
Let’s change this one up to “How will they be able to compete against adversaries?” Not all men have the same physical abiltiies. Some men are weaker than others. How would a man who is less physically adept compete against adversaries?
Do you know anything about the history of women in war and their role in both combat and non-combat functions? What would you suppose it would be?
What hygiene precautions will be taken on campaign?
Surely women could visit prostitutes too?
And what about camp followers? According to wikipedia “From the beginning of organized warfare until the end of the 19th century European armies heavily depended on the services of camp-followers composed primarily of women and their off-spring.” “Camp-followers usually accompanied the baggage train and they often outnumbered the army itself, adding to its logistic problems.”
Is that accurate? If there’s as many women following an army then doesn’t that already raise the same issues you’ve asked? Does history have an answer for what happened due to their absence?
And no, it wasn’t obvious and no it’s not pointless hysteria. I would think it’s far more unfortunate the harm that those words have caused to people than anything done to the words themselves.
@FairyGodfeather All of which are issues I’d like to see the author tackle in their world; since instead of a generic account of warfare as it happened in our world, they have decided, it seems, to give women a larger role (or perhaps you would prefer me to phrase it as being a “different role”?) in warfare than they have faced on this planet.
I’d simply handwave it; that’s a lot of narrative effort to expend on something not particularly relevant to the story at hand.
**set alistair + 10 “Terrible idea or not. You did the right thing coming to us with this information. Thank you, Captain Florie,” says Lady Helena, as Sir Alistair nods in agreement. “Prepare your crew. We’re going to need you to get us there in one piece.”
It’s literally like that in the text.
@TDilz One person’s handwaving is another person’s sloppy storytelling.
@Turtler Rhetorically slap my ears? When? Where? /
I haven’t played the game yet so I’m going to refrain from commenting on the story itself until I have the chance to do so.
@TDilz
War in a medieval setting is a central theme of the story. That, right there, has altered the audience parameters. Instead of catering to people who don’t really care about the difference between an Self-Bow and a Zhuge-Nu, you pull in grognards (read: pedantic war nerds) like me and @Drazen.
Handwaving is no longer an option.
I think hand-waving is always an option. It’s important to remember that the forum is just a tiny amount of the player-base for Choice games.
@FairyGodFeather
I’d still say the community is a good extrapolation of the wider audience of people who are going to be playing these games when they release.
Handwaving would have been an option at the planning stages, where the focus of the story was still in doubt, but at this point, it seems pretty clear that military action is going to be a major portion of the story. Writing a realistic war means taking into account all of the factors of real wars: logistics, uniforms, camp followers, personal hygiene (and other things which I seem to recall you referring to as “ridiculous” in another thread). It’s not hard to write up a throwaway line about sentry posts or supply caravans, or woolen pads stained with blood and it will add a great deal of depth to the setting.
Exposition shouldn’t overrule storytelling, but details like that help flesh out the world, and tell people who would be interested in the story by the genre label or the appstore blurb alone that the writer knows what they are doing.
I think that it’s perfectly okay to write a game with that level of detail, yourself.
I don’t think it’s wrong for another person not to choose to do the same level of research that you have.
I don’t think every war story needs to be one that contains that level of detail on daily lives, and I think that in some ways it can detract from the excitement and impact. Some people like gritty details, some people like escapist fantasy. Of course it’s possible to have any mix of the two but I don’t think it should be neccessary.
It’s possible to write a story, set during a war, that explores the human impact of that war without having every detail researched.
Of course, it’s also a story that will have a completely different target audience from those who are military history buffs. There’s no right or wrong way.
I just want to see a new writer, who’s created an interesting setting, and a story which I’d love to see more of, finish their game. I do love that he has included a female knight, I do love that he has decided to have women fight, those are principles of inclusivity which Choice of Games strives to have in their games. I don’t want to see them beaten out as too complicated, not realistic, to include.
At the moment, with the level of historically accurate detail, and the degree of research that has been done, I’d guess that those who’re interested in detailed, historically accurate games aren’t the target audience. They could be of course, you can point out everything that needs to be included which will make you love the game. I love the game as it is, and as each piece of detail is added, it will become less like the sort of game which I enjoy.
@FairyGodfeather
I actually have to disagree with you there. Judging by the way that @poisonmushroom is dealing with the discussion on this thread and by the test of the story itself, he/she does seem more well-versed in medieval warfare than most authors (including a few which make me shrivel up and die inside) and is willing to make minor changes that don’t compromise the story to maintain that level of verisimilitude.
I’m not expecting a 60 page dissertation on why Byzantine heavy cavalry charged without battle cries. I’m expecting the same level of thought which the author has already put into the first few pages to be applied to the whole book.
The problem I’m noticing with this debate, while it was certainly unique occurrence for women to be seen in combat during those eras, it was not exactly unheard of, either (hell, look up women pirates some time). Especially pending the culture involved, it’s the culture aspect that really needs to be focused upon and precisely what the author decides have it resemble and/or reflect; for having a setting utterly reflect a time or culture, does not mean it to be 100% like it, especially within a work of fiction (that part right there is what needs to be kept in mind above all else when writing). Attempting to argue anything else is often just silly.
Also, it’s dependent upon the MCs, if they’re to be just some nameless schmucks amongst the rest of the grunts. Then maybe an argument can be made for a more pedantic view or telling of the tale. But, if the MC is to take on a more unique and heroic role, then that pedantic ideal is superfluous; because the hero of a tale is meant to be unique and standout within their setting one way or another. They wouldn’t be the lead character within a tale if everything about them was ordinary.
Okay. I’ll bow out of the discussion.
Nah, unless the author feels it’s necessary, it’s certainly not required. Spending time coming up with uniform details, unique ranks, unit compositions and the like can certainly flesh out the world but the vast majority of the audience does not care about that sort of thing (unless you’ve specifically positioned your work as that sort of thing), and even most of those that do don’t need to be explicitly told what’s happening and can fill in the blanks with their imaginations. Plenty of people enjoy the whole war thing without necessarily wanting to delve into the logistics of it, as an example look at the popularity of pretty much any movie/game/book vs their more hardcore counterparts in the same genre.
I mean, sure it’d be neat to read about how, ehhhh, due to the geography of the nation there’s no real harvest season so levies can be called up and rotated longer, or that while found in all units the women proportionally make up a higher percentage of the auxiliaries and light infantry, or even that in this world the bell curve of strength for either sex is almost entirely overlapping or whatever. But it’s not required for it to be an interesting story, and depending on the focus and style of the story it doesn’t detract much or even at all.
I guess to reference what Tigras said, one persons world-building is another persons cruft.
Grognards gonna find something to grog about no matter what situation, there’s really no way to head that off and shield yourself from them. God knows how many “Healing… surges? Harrumph! What an egregious breach of verisimilitude, I’ll have no part of it” *rolls d20 to strike dracolich with holy avenger* type polemics I’ve read
edit: oh dear that was much longer than I thought and I am coming off as so very angry