Heroic Liberator
Arcane
Meh, it's a common pop history trope.
I agree that the game could do without it though.
I agree that the game could do without it though.
They are obviously going for the "warrior-woman" vibe. I wouldn't classify it as wokeness though:Like I said this game is too woke.
Jomsvikings and Shieldmaidens: Norse holy warriors and stalwart shieldmaidens take up arms on your behalf, while poet characters can compose stinging rebukes or romantic overtures.
Shieldmaidens? Seriously? What a joke.
'Too often have I heard of duty,' she cried. 'But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?'
Some people become so sensitive that they are seeing pretty much ANYTHING as woke at this point. It's like extreme left and extreme right: both sides are retarded.There are so many things wrong with the game and how it portrays history that I can't understand complaining about shieldmaidens, specifically.
There are so many things wrong with the game and how it portrays history that I can't understand complaining about shieldmaidens, specifically.
You had actuall Aztecs invading europe in crusader kings. What the fuck are you going on about this being an historical series?It's pop history based on apocryphal stories but PDX treats it as fact because WOMYN STRONK. This is the same company that released a "Women of History" DLC after all.
The Jomsvikings didn't even allow women inside their fortress, how likely do you think it is that a woman would become their leader? And THAT isn't even due to PDX's globohomo agenda, that's simply because they never bothered to implement a proper gender segregation for various political roles.
The overwhelming majority of people turn off the Aztec invasion in CK2.You had actuall Aztecs invading europe in crusader kings. What the fuck are you going on about this being an historical series?It's pop history based on apocryphal stories but PDX treats it as fact because WOMYN STRONK. This is the same company that released a "Women of History" DLC after all.
The Jomsvikings didn't even allow women inside their fortress, how likely do you think it is that a woman would become their leader? And THAT isn't even due to PDX's globohomo agenda, that's simply because they never bothered to implement a proper gender segregation for various political roles.
By the way, is it known how modular the DLC is going to be? You can really tweak game's conditions in the base game, which is very nice, because you can decide - for example - how historical you want your run to be.The overwhelming majority of people turn off the Aztec invasion in CK2.
Hard to say until we get the first proper expansion.By the way, is it known how modular the DLC is going to be? You can really tweak game's conditions in the base game, which is really nice.The overwhelming majority of people turn off the Aztec invasion in CK2.
Hard to say until we get the first proper expansion.
- Replaced Tengriism's 'Sky Burials' tenet with 'Warmonger' which is more accurate for the time-period
- Added a decision for independent Norse rulers to have their realm embrace local traditions
- Norse name lists now use standardised Old Norse spellings & contains significantly fewer late period Christian names, Norwegian name lists updated to the same plus various older Christian names
They are obviously going for the "warrior-woman" vibe. I wouldn't classify it as wokeness though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield-maiden
The dialogue between Aragorn and Eowyn (from The Lord of the Rings) has the following:
'Too often have I heard of duty,' she cried. 'But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?'
It's most definitely wokeness.
I will watch the video later, but if you consider this to be wokeness (whatever that term means to you. I personally don't care much about the whole debate between wokeists and anti-wokeists), then I have to point out that this wokeness goes as far back as the sagas and legends from other cultures (and there are some anegdotical historical accounts dating more than a thousand of years ago). Uncommon? Sure. But there is enough material to warrant padding the DLC with.
Then again, you could say the same about swords - they are the most popular medieval weapon in the eyes of the mainstream, while it's axes, maces and spears (the latter in particular) that ought to be the most common weapons instead. But video gaming and movies aren't about historical accuracy as much as they are about entertainment and the rule of cool. I mean, we had some really crazy stuff going on in Crusader Kings series already. To name but a few examples: Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.
I believe I answered this question already:Is this an historical game or a fantasy game?
[...] But video gaming and movies aren't about historical accuracy as much as they are about entertainment and the rule of cool. I mean, we had some really crazy stuff going on in Crusader Kings series already. To name but a few examples: Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.
Riddle me this then: if shieldmaidens in games are wokeness, then wouldn't it follow that the very people who put them into the sagas, which the game obviously draws inspiration from, are also woke and - worse - the original decline enablers?Obviously t's wokeness, pure and simple. The gender nonsense is enough to clue people in. If you don't care about it then fine, but don't try to frame it as acceptable in a supposedly historical game.
It was a title you could give out in CK2 though. I never used it much because there were event flags where they'd get unavoidably maimed but it was definitely there.They could simply have a Shieldmaiden event akin to the Joan of Arc event in CK2, not make it a fucking title.
I mean, we had some really crazy stuff going on in Crusader Kings series already. To name but a few examples: Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.
I believe I answered this question already:
[...] But video gaming and movies aren't about historical accuracy as much as they are about entertainment and the rule of cool. I mean, we had some really crazy stuff going on in Crusader Kings series already. To name but a few examples: Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.
Riddle me this then: if shieldmaidens in games are wokeness, then wouldn't it follow that the very people who put them into the sagas, which the game obviously draws inspiration from, are also woke and - worse - the original decline enablers?
Turned off or not - unambiguous fictional supernatural elements were undeniably part of the game, so this alone should answer your question about "supposedly historical" side of things. I will also add that in Crusader Kings 3 you can invert sexual preferences of people for fun and giggles at the start of the game (and do other weird shit). If there ever was the sign of wokeness that should've been the one. So complaining about wokeness because shieldmaidens are apparently too mythological is a bit too tryharding to be taken seriously at this point.Aren't those supernatural events? I always have that turned off. And this isn't a matter of historical accuracy, not portraying things accurately, but of outright adding unambiguous mythological elements to the game.
Context matters. Why did those writers write about shieldmaidens? Why did the developers add shieldmaidens to a supposedly historical game?
Isn't that exactly what an agenda is? An underlying motive, the reason why you are saying or doing something?There is no agenda. I don't like modern faggotry in my games, therefore I will never buy CK3, it's as simple as that.
Geee... There is no reason to be butthurt.I don't really care about your sophistry.
The Gates to Hell event is an older event that predates the more fantastic elements, and is actually a completely mundane event where some kind of sulfuric sinkhole opens up and your characters, being medieval people not acquainted with the finer points of geology, interpret this fire-and-brimstone-spewing fissure as some kind of portal to hell.Gates to Hell and Spawn of Satan. All of this was pure fiction (or a take on the legends, such as Robert the Devil), but fitted well with the religious theme of the game.
Turned off or not - unambiguous fictional supernatural elements were undeniably part of the game, so this alone should answer your question about "supposedly historical" side of things. I will also add that in Crusader Kings 3 you can invert sexual preferences of people for fun and giggles at the start of the game (and do other weird shit). If there ever was the sign of wokeness that should've been the one. So complaining about wokeness because shieldmaidens are apparently too mythological is a bit too tryharding to be taken seriously at this point.
What do you mean "context matters"? Woke is woke. This is the Codex's way.
Isn't that exactly what an agenda is? An underlying motive, the reason why you are saying or doing something?
I wonder, did the shieldmaidens in CK2 bother you as much as they appear to do in CK3?