He can accept that dragons fly

>He can accept that dragons fly
>But not that women can be legendary warriors

Other urls found in this thread:

missedinhistory.com/blogs/raining-on-your-parade-about-those-women-viking-warriors.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

He sounds like a douche, so just don't play with him.

Well, duh. Dragons are magic. Warriors are bound by the laws of physics.

>I'm a cunt who doesn't know the difference between "realistic in reality" and "realistic in an established universe"

>Implying you couldn't apply those to both or either and it's purely a matter of preference

People inconsistently apply things like 'realism' to justify what they want to believe and to act like their prejudices and preferences are somehow implicitly correct or 'logical', whatever that fucking means in context.

>Joan of Arc
I literally just thought of that example off the top of my head.

Your DM must have severe autism.

>Here's something that's not real doing something realistic given the source material
>Here's something real doing something that is not realistic given what we know

I'm assuming this happened because you bitched about a skimpy outfit, but either way the comparison holds no water. Cry fucking harder.

>no legendary warrior gf
Why live?

>Because saints are totally real in all cases
Joan of Arc was 12 if she was real at all, and isn't really described as fighting.

I swear to god these examples get more pathetic as time goes on.

Boudica.

There's a list of women living and breathing right now who could kick your ass. No, not the ass of the strongest man alive. But your ass. And it's a long list. Some are genetic freaks, some are just really well trained, some are a bit of both or a lot of both. There is still a smaller, but considerable list of women, who could kick the ass of the average male. And a smaller but still there list of women who could kick ass of strong men. Sure, man are significantly stronger on average. Denying that is dumb.

Pretending women can't be warriors is equally dumb. A woman doesn't have to be the strongest, most skilled sword wielder in a setting. She just needs to be able to beat the average bandit/goblin to be a warrior of prowess. It's completely possible. Plausible even, that some will fit that bill.

>Joan of Arc was 12 if she was real at all

Uh...she was? She's a matter of absolute historical fact. There is no doubt whatsoever that she existed and that she really did the things she did (whether or not she was divinely inspired is up to you to decide, I just mean to say that it's not like a Jesus or Moses or something situation; we know for a fact that Joan was a real person who did real things. We have transcripts from her (mis)trial and everything.)

Dam, what else happened in medieval France that history books got wrong, since you were there and have personal experience

Are you one of those people that campaigned for more black people in Witcher(s), arguing that "it's fantasy so you can do literally everything?

The thing that separates high fantasy and let's say a fairy tale is the fact that high fantasy should follow its own worlds rules consistently. Also, even though he is being a jack-ass about it, is kinda correct.

Dragons are entirely mythological, magical beings. If there is no in-world reason for why women are warriors, just that they are(I.E magic, fictional culture and so on)it is perfectly valid to question the world building.
>People inconsistently apply things like 'realism' to justify what they want to believe and to act like their prejudices and preferences are somehow implicitly correct or 'logical', whatever that fucking means in context
OP's "arguments" are not inconsistent though. It depends on the setting.

People will invoke realism to dismiss things they don't like and ignore it for things they do like. More news at eleven,

Both "sides" of this silly debate do it. People who argue that women warriors should be ha disappear because of real-life strength differences will readily explain that bikini armor is just fantasy, and people who insist bikini armor would prove impractical in combat will just as quickly invoke the story being fantasy to justify why women and men can physically perform on the same level.

>expecting a troll to care for historical (or any in fact) evidence

Is like you don't know Veeky Forums.

I bet you think Longbows pierce armor too

Joan of Arc was not a warrior. She did not fight herself, she was a commander. A good one at that, but not a fighter. A part of her mythos is that she only bore a banner to battle to inspire troops ffs

Human beings in most fantasy settings are capable of superhuman feats anyway. Realistic human limits no longer have any value, the difference in limits between genders means even less.

Funnily enough, female warriors are actually pretty much a given in "estabilished universes" since... I dunno, since Atalanta's myth at the very least, some 25 centuries ago.

>I lost two whole tribes because of my own stupidity and I died by suicide rather than in battle
Yeah that's a warrior all right.

>it's not like a Jesus
Isn't there pretty solid evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus as well?

If you don't qualify armor and don't use any adverb to qualify 'pierce', this isn't neither true nor false.

Longbows don't RELIABLY pierce plate armor. That's a true statement. Neither did the MOST TYPES of crossbows.

Boudica wasn't a warrior. IIRC she wasn't a commander even, just the leader of tribe(s)

I can't accept the idea that a woman can be a legendary warrior and not submit to dick once in her Life OP. I call that a monumental waste, she has to suck dick sometime.

This is some good cuck pasta right here

The average man is stronger than the average woman but what is a PC if not exceptional?

After, y'know, routing Rome and destroying several cities, making Nero consider completely withdrawing from Britain just to not have to deal with her.

She lost, but that doesn't mean she wasn't terrifying in her day.

>lost to Romans while outnumbering them at least 8:1
That's some legendary warriorship right here.

False equivalence. Though this is a shit thread and you should feel shit.

Do they have 18 Strength?

>They can't accept that SOME cultures in the settings are defined by traditional, ritualized customs that dictate how men and women should live, so some characters might react in strange ways to people who contradict the ways of life they were raised with in extreme ways until they spend more time around this person
I'm with you though. He sounds like a jerk.

I know, rite? Most people eventually lost to Rome. Doesn't make their exploits any less impressive. Specially with the difference in number and equipment that was often the case when 'barbarians' fought the empire.

Except the logistics don't actually make that much of a feat you retard.

The cities her armies destroyed were abandoned by the army. She literally just killed civillians.

And the ONE victory features a number differences of 20 to 1, so it's not like she had anything in particular to do with that.

It makes it less impressive when you consider just how retarded her plans and behavior were.

Some of them maybe? In a world where potions can change your body and so can magic...Or god's blessings...Well, why not?

>After, y'know, routing Rome
Quintus Petillius Cerialis had 2,5k troops..

>she took on rome during the height of its power
>lost because Romans gonna rome
Impressive to say the least

>Took on Rome
>On the island where they had the least strength
>Lost because she had no clue what tactics are

You're retarded.

Taking dick is natural to women, that's not something they would find offensive. And it also doesn't mean they can't kill people before and after taking said dick

>He can't appreciate Gold Star Lesbians or Chaster warrior women

Meek.

Boudica was defeated almost entirely with British troops. Saying that Gaius Suetonius Paulinus had the force of the entire Roman Empire behind him is historically dishonest. He levied 10 000 troops (not very much) and beat Boudica.

They actually did at the time of Crecy, if that's your "point".

Check out The Great Warbow (Strickland and Hardy), in which shit is -gasp!- tested before coming to conclusions.

Let's see you fight rome faggot

Sabre should really swallow.

I said during the height of its power, not the entire strength of the Roman army. Anyone who defied rome during those times was a badass

Let's see you not be a cuckold, that's way harder.

Talk to me after you successfully overthrow the greatest empire in human history cucklord

That word is so degenerated by pussification that anyone who uses the term 'badass' is trying to convince themselves more than anyone else.

ok starting up a rome total war campaign right now faggot

Showering a formation with projectiles and getting a lot of kills doesn't equal reliable armor piercing capabilities. Crecy mounted french knights died by arrow as much as by having their horses killed. The sheer amount of arrows used by the british on a force charging uphill in the mud shows you that a single arrow and a single shot versus plate doesn't bode well for the archer. It's the sheer volume of fire that allows you to hit weakspots and breaches in armor, luck out and puncture through, hit a slit or gap, kill a horse etc.

Nice argument. Just because Boudica had a pair of tits doesn't mean that deconstructing the long tradition of her being romanticized. She defeated a small Roman Army and terrorized civilians (I know everyone did this, but most people like to forget this when talking about Boudica). Then got destroyed with a relatively small Roman Army.

Joan of Arc was actually a good leader.

Talk to me after you successfully overthrow your wife's lover, you pussy

>of her being romanticized is wrong*

Do it, play as iceni and get btfo by the might of rome

They can.
It's just a bit harder when you have
>-4 Str

This. If some men can can cut through mountains or whatever, then it's not that big of a change in comparison to have women who are as physically capable as men.

Not really, no. Not outside of uncited biblical apologist media.

Didn't Joan just give advice? If I remember correctly, she maintained that she didn't lead any armies and just gave advice to the actual generals when asked.

Which, in turn, makes her only better in my opinion. Instead of thinking "Yeah, me as an illiterate peasant girl definitely knows best", she just gave out advice to the best of her abilities when asked and other than that did her best as the figurehead God wanted her to be.

Read the book, user.

It demonstrates that these bows DID penetrate these armours, considering actual penetrations tests.

(to be fair, your points are sound, but they weren't the issue here)

...

I'm not trying to argue that she was amazing, just that she existed and tried to do what she did. A man could just as easily have done it but it was a woman instead. And it took an army of the greatest soldiers alive during those times to stop her, while cucks like you were watching your wife get fucked by nubian slaves

Someone took Imperium III, Great Battles of Rome at face value. Get out /v/

>implying a comfy island start to build your power base and economy before kicking rome out of gaul isn't the best start

Actually giggled.

At least he didn't go with "outnumber your foe 20 to 1 and still lose" Boudica.

In order to fly, birds have had to make massive evolutionary changes. Dragons have made none of them.

Birds, for example, have hollow bones, and they've lost quite a few bones compared to their dinosaur ancestors, including most of the bones in their wings and tails. Dragons still have their front legs, separate from their wings, and all the heavy bones that go along with them, and long, reptilian tails.

Birds got rid of their bulky jaw bones and teeth and replaced them with lightweight keratin beaks. This has rendered them incapable of chewing, but they tend to only eat lightly from energy-dense food sources anyway, so the weight in their stomach doesn't slow them down. That's why birds eat seeds, but not leaves (except some flightless birds). Dragons not only have a massive skull filled with teeth, but they gorge themselves like snakes. If a dragon eats a cow, it's gonna be carrying around the weight of a cow.

Birds depend heavily on streamlining. Have you ever seen an eagle carrying a fish? It always aligns the fish to face the direction it's traveling, because otherwise it creates too much drag and the eagle can barely stay aloft. Birds--especially large birds--depend heavily on being able to glide, because the act of flapping is extremely energy-intensive, so if they're not aerodynamic, they're not getting far. Dragons are bulky, bumpy, awkwardly-shaped things.

There is nothing realistic about a dragon flying. Women actually have been great warriors. Y'know, until recently, archaeologists assumed any Viking they found in armor was a man, and they kept wondering why there seemed to be so few women. Can you guess the solution to this riddle?

Josephus and Tacitus sure had an interest in vindicating Christianity two thousand years down the line.

Play on legendary then, you won't even be able to unify the Britannic tribes (a feat that boudicca accomplished with ease)

>Can you guess the solution to this riddle?
You misinterpreted grave findings because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand archaeology and gets your fucking news from Jezebel.

Gonna need a source on that viking thing you said, fag

actually according to historian she was more around 21, as in her land it was the legal age to get wed, and there is some stuffs mentionning her to have to go to some town to cancel her wedding
just saying

For the broad strokes of the story, yeah. He probably wasn't actually special in any way, and he definitely wasn't white, but Jesus was most likely a guy who lived and developed a religious following and got killed for it in a way that many other people were killed at the time.

The answer that all you faggots seem to miss is that It depends on the setting

>All posts against the thought of warrior women are super aggressive and use ad hominem all the fucking time. Retard this, idiot that.
>Nigga who created the thread came here just to troll those who replied to it.

Samefag being a fag.

this

The Josephus account is a forgery though.

It's a misinterpreted archeological article about norse settlers bringing their families over to england after the Danelaw was established. Feminists gonna feminist and of course understand nothing.

She died at 19 you fucking idiot. Get better sources.

Insult =/= ad hominem you mental child.

It's pretty much a given that some guy started preaching those things at that time. Granted, he probably didn't change water into wine, but whatever - the historical truth of Jesus isn't really an argument to cast dobuts about.

>I THINK Buddha's historicity is somehow a little more sketchy, but not that much.

>The Josephus account is a forgery though.
Only the longer passage, the other mentions is generally accepted as genuine.

missedinhistory.com/blogs/raining-on-your-parade-about-those-women-viking-warriors.htm

googling things say help. Found this with googling viking women. Gives source to original document and a rebuttal saying "there were some women migrants along with male viking warriors"

But muh stronk british warrior queen.

I don't get why autists can't handle female warriors being real, literally hundreds of examples across the world that some women are just better than you. I mean do you even have to look past the fact that 50% of every god in a pagan mythology is female? Don't you notice the amount of bow/spear wielding female deities? Its almost like women during ancient times knew how to use dextrous weapons to level the playing field. It's almost like speed alone can win you a fight with weapons. No one said women were the greatest warriors, or even that they can be competent most of the time, but that's why the ones we read about are called legends

>Invented new things should be subject to the same standards as things that already exist

Women already exist, dragons do not. I will accept dragons doing whatever as long as they're more or less related to their traditional depictions.

They can be legendary warriors but they're not going toe-to-toe with Arnold Schwarzenegger and winning in a fair fight.

Kind of.

There were actually a whole bunch of people at the time claiming to be the Messiah. Each of them had their own tales of miracles and wonders that they had performed. Jesus of Nazareth was likely one of them.

He attacked the money-changers at the temple, which constituted blasphemy, and a common punishment for blasphemy was crucifixion.

If Scáthach is good enough to teach Cú Chulainn how to be a raving lunatic monster of death and horror on the battlefield, that's good enough for me.

Only correct answer.

>bow
>a weapon that does not require significant amount of strength to use

Choose 1, m8.

>if she was real at all

We literally have her trial act and letters wrote by her.

>And there is plenty of evidence that, yes, there were female Norse warriors (and neither I nor the source am saying there were not)