Is the whole "warrior women" trope in fantasy games entirely realistic?

>realistic
>posts an image of a Demigoddess

-4 STR

I mean, they're more realistic than people learning to make things explode by shouting angrily at them while gesticulating wildly.

>I'm gonna be less autistic
>proceeds to be more autistic

>Is the whole "warrior women" trope in fantasy games entirely realistic?
No

>low quality bait.jpg

no. pic related

...

>fantasy games
>realistic

stupid and irrelevant question

...

...

.

It's got some historical precedents, but overall isn't very realistic.

Which makes it perfect fantasy, right? Not historical, but plausible enough that you can easily include it in a setting. I'm fine with the archetype. Especially when played by Gal Godot.

..

No. They already have high mortality with childbirth and such.

Also you undermine your own question when you post a pic of a fantasy warrior woman played by an actual real-life warrior woman.

Journalists failing at military stuff doesn't prove anything.

Cool. That is modern soldiery and has fuck all to do with what I posted. I happen to agree, standards shouldn't be lowered for women to play soldier, and quite frankly there probably shouldn't be mix gender units because they cannot be expected to perform to equal standards.

>expecting me to believe thats an actual female soldier with that haircut

Nah.

if a woman passes the same tests as a man there is no reason to exclude her.

The fact that women are less likely to be able to pass the test is irrelevant.

Yeah, but that'll be because sooner or later fetish stuff'll happen.

the problem of course is that in order to GET women to pass the tests and meet quotas, they are lowering the standards

This thread's going to be awful either way, so we might as well cut to the chase.

>the need of a superior military, which is the priority of the nation, must outweigh any civil rights claim
Land of the Free

>Land of the Free
Home of the Brave

O BABY THIS IS A BLUE BOARD

>>the need of a superior military, which is the priority of the nation, must outweigh any civil rights claim

What about black soldiers

de-segregating the army was a civil rights issue. Mind you the army actually tended to be at the forefront of this in one way or another. Sometimes horribly, sometimes honorably. Because of military pragmatism. But never underestimate the armies ability to stick with old shit because that's how it's always been done.

...

I hope OP bursts into flames the next time he takes a shit for making this bait thread.

PCs tend to be exception-to-the-rule characters, so on that basis alone, yes.

But we also have plenty of evidence for women soldiers in antiquity. The Scythians did it, of course. So did Scandinavians, we've found a number of graves now where women were buried as warriors with a warrior's grave goods. Lots of cultures also trained women to fight as a last resort, like the Japanese.

>auto-sage
fuck off newfag

>just writers injecting their power fantasy into their characters
this is a problem why?

amazon.com/Amazons-Black-Sparta-Warriors-Dahomey/dp/0814707726

rejectedprincesses.com/women-in-combat
>On a regular basis, readers will write in saying their family, friends, or colleagues are convinced women aren’t fit for combat.

>Which drives me fucking insane, because women have been doing this for literally all of recorded history. So here’s a (totally non-comprehensive) list of women in combat roles going back to 1500 BCE. If someone starts on a “women can’t be in the military” rant, print this list out and start hitting them with it until they stop moving.

...

Or you could just look at scientific data
And realize that women have a significantly lower amount of muscle mass, higher risk of injury, lower general fitness, and are worse soldiers than men in all cirumstances.

>bbbubut some women were warriors in history
And they would have been demolished if they encountered men with a fraction of the training they had.

Do we have to keep having this thread?

pfff forgot the most bad ass chick
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ching_Shih

the few female pirates are rather neat reads

No one said they couldn't be in the military. No one said they weren't in combat roles throughout history. They did say that men were more fitted for it than women are, however. This is true because Men are Men, and they are the protectors, and have been since inception and are designed with this purpose in mind.

>print this list out and start hitting them with it until they stop moving.
The fact anyone wants this is worrisome.

This also goes beyond military, into all realms of physical activity.

>thread about women
>white knights come out of the woodwork in droves
Why is Veeky Forums so beta?

>Fantasy doesn't necessarily have to be realistic.
>If a piece of fantastical media breaks your verisimilitude by having women in combat roles, you are welcome to not consume that media.
>Characters in fantasy are often exceptional individuals and exceptional individuals are often capable of feats outside of the statistical norm.

That's all I have to say regarding people who are against the presence of female combatants in whatever fantasy-based media they consume.

>Fantasy doesn't necessarily have to be realistic.
That's where you're wrong.

Except men and women are socially different. Makes life a whole lot more complex when you have lonely men being shot at and only one vagina around. Got to check your squad mates for ticks? Hello sexual harassment case.

It's just a bad idea all round. It's not about being able to pass the test on a single day. It's about logistics, social situations and long term sustainability. Wars tough, it's not a one day assault course and women just aren't equipped for it mentally or physically.

>>Fantasy doesn't necessarily have to be realistic.
Fantasy is realistic within its own world. If you have magic, magic is introduced as part of that world.

Adding a single element and incurring suspension of disbelief doesn't mean that a world is just lolrandom100%crazy and anything goes.

>>If a piece of fantastical media breaks your verisimilitude by having women in combat roles, you are welcome to not consume that media.
You're welcome to stop making it.

>>Characters in fantasy are often exceptional individuals and exceptional individuals are often capable of feats outside of the statistical norm.
The main characters can do whatever they want. If you have fantasy worlds where tiny women are running around being as strong as men in their prime, then it becomes absurd.

It's simple.

You're an idiot. Most people are not as shitty as you. When you say something retarded, people disagree with you. It's really not about "alpha" or "beta" or "sjw" or "cuck." You're a fucking dumbass, and you are not among friends.

-t. Butthurt lesbian

Does the inclusion of women in combat roles count as "lolradom100%crazy and anything goes?"

If so, consider the possibility that your verisimilitude might be quite fragile.

>they are the protectors, and have been since inception and are designed with this purpose in mind
>not knowing shit about early humans and their place on the food chain

Fantasy needs to be realistic in how the creative work adheres to its own established rules. If for example it follows an Earth-like physics system wherein humans can't simply lift up a giant boulder, then if a human did so without any other kind of intervention (perhaps the human was imbued with a magical elixir that gave him temporary super strength), then yes it would be "unrealistic".

No.

That's exactly how what think, yes.

The word you're looking for is "internally consistent."

Realism is not necessarily equivalent to internal consistency.

There are always extraordinary people. Is it realistic that a woman could outperform some men? Sure. Women being completely equal or better then men as commonplace? No.
>a few examples out of the ENTIRE HUMAN HISTORY, literally the best of the best
>compared to countless millions of nameless men, most of whom would destroy them
>''WOMEN ARE TOTALLY EQUAL SHITLORD BLAAARGH''
How silly..

Because table top games lack women. The only ones they interact with are dating other men and have no interest in them. They white knight because they don't know how shit women are and bought into propaganda.

>Does the inclusion of women in combat roles count as "lolradom100%crazy and anything goes?"
Yes, women historically almost never took part in any sort of military activity.

You have exceptions, typically noble women who are leading an army of men. These are notable because they are exceptions, not the norm. Also, you don't typically see them charging into battle, but commanding from the rear.

You also had primitive societies where women were involved, but this was because they were small warrior clans with primitive norms that would generally welcome any fighting hand they could get. But these women would still be weaker than the men. That's just a fact of nature.

>If so, consider the possibility that your verisimilitude might be quite fragile.
The existence of men and women is something intrinsic to our entire existence. It's like having two feet. If you had a setting where people hopped around on one foot, it would just seem weird. But now you have people in modern society who have bought into the cult of equality and don't want to admit there are differences between men and women, and you have women in fiction and videogames running around basically being men but with boobs.

looks like her head is photoshopped in

>Is the whole "elf" trope in fantasy games entirely realistic?

>Is the whole "warrior women" trope in fantasy games entirely realistic?

Is the whole "whiny permavirgins keeping their butt-tears confined to /r9k/" thing an impossible goal?

>post no doubt made by a Eurofag or Cucknadian whose freedom from being a Soviet colony was guaranteed by the shadow of the US military.

baka desu senpai

>Is... fantasy games entirely realistic?
No.

Sure, why not?

It isn't, and I have no issue with it at the table.

OP asked if it's realistic, and the answer, like most fantasy elements, is no, it is not. That doen't mean I don't enjoy it however.

Consider these two things:
>Altering the basic rules of biology so that creatures such as dragons and far more fantastical things are biologically feasible within the setting without the use of magic.
>Altering the basic rules of biology so that women are as physically capable as men while remaining identifiable as women within the setting without the use of magic.

On one hand, you've got physically impossible creatures existing within the setting without the aid of any force that defies physics.
On the other hand, you've got a group of beings of one species that are able to physically exist being capable of the same feats as another group of beings of the same species without the aid of any force that defies physics.

Which is more damaging when it comes to your suspension of disbelief?

And do you understand that your suspension of belief is subjective or do you believe that it is somehow grounded in objectivity?

Hey, I'm a permavirgin and I disagree with the OP too.

>Which is more damaging when it comes to your suspension of disbelief?
Dragons depending on how you do them. Amphibious, Komodo-like Dinosaurs with a Monster Hunter-style and some Elephant-like Water Spewing will never not be my favourite attempt at a realistic dragon. Although I think that is more like a Wyvern.

I always wondered why women's leagues don't ban trans candidates because of their natural testosterone. Wasn't there a trans MMA fighter who completely wiped out the competition because of male grip strength?

>entire society changed, biology and evolution make zero sense since both sexes can perform completely equally
>a new species added

Don't believe the trans-meme. It was a man who was mutilated to look somewhat like the other sex, and yes, I vaguely remember this.

They can't do it and claim to be for equality. Either sex doesn't matter or it does so they let women get injured for their ideological purposes. It's a cult like religion

shut up cuck

Let's go with the mainstream Western perception of a fantasy dragon then.

Extremely large four or six limbed reptile, with at least two of those limbs being flight-capable wings, coupled with the ability to project fire from its mouth due to some strange anatomy it possesses.

Its a fantasy game. The trope of warrior MEN isnt even 'entirely realistic'.

>But these women would still be weaker than the men. That's just a fact of nature.

Ummm, you're forgetting that there exist women born with XY chromosomes, who can easily grow to be as strong as any other member of humanity. Not all women are XX and thus on the small side of sexual dimorphism.

That's a genetic mistake. A lot of them can't even have kids.

>whose freedom from being a Soviet colony was guaranteed by the shadow US neo-colonialism

It's not just adding a new species though. It's mutilating biology to the point that a dragon like say, Smaug is biologically feasible within the setting.

Why is that degree of fucking with the rules of biology more acceptable than altering biology to allow for both sexes to perform physical tasks equally?

PC's don't need to (and probably shouldn't) reflect the general populace. You may be taking a more exclusive sample of women (maybe the top 1% in fighting ability compared to 5% or even 10% for men). You may even be taking a slice within those samples that favors upper body strength in women. And that's ignoring different societal and evolutionary (or creationist) pressures in our fantasy world (in a world without the same distinct gender roles we're used to, where as many women as men have been warriors since time immemorial, we could expect physical prowess and fighting ability would be selected for in women as strongly as for men). And even basic biology may work different in Magic Land where humanity was created from the tears of the earth goddess after blah, blah, blah. So there should be absolutely no problem with treating women identically to men as far as capabilities within a fantasy setting go.

Uh, yes they can. A trans woman can easily fertilize an egg with her sperm.

Cease.

>Why is that degree of fucking with the rules of biology more acceptable than altering biology to allow for both sexes to perform physical tasks equally?
Because girls are mean to user.

>Ummm

>Um
3/10. You're trying too hard.

What huge cataclysmic changes to society, biology and evolution would there be exactly?

Pretty much justt because that guys angry about the concept of strong women for some reason.

Quality post. I'm not ironic.

Even if the average woman was as physically strong as the average man, logically you're not going to see many societies embrace "warrior women" on a large scale because of how reproduction work. The simple fact is, when it comes to reproduction, when it comes to creating new generations and ensuring your civilization lives on, women are more valuable, and men are more disposable, and there are four main reasons for this.

1) A man can knock a woman off and then run off to war and not put that child at any danger. Even if the man dies, the child will live on. A pregnant woman running off to fight is physically bringing a child onto a battlefield. If the woman dies or gets injured, the baby dies.

2) Pregnancy is very physically demanding. It weakens a woman, which is a liability on the battlefield.

3) The solution to one and two is to just not get pregnant as a woman soldier, but that means the woman is wasting her best child-bearing years fighting wars, with the potential of dying without ever producing the next generation. Meanwhile, a guy can knock up multiple women and still fight wars without having to put the baby on the battlefield or deal with being pregnant.

4) And because a man can knock up multiple women and have them all produce multiple babies around the same nine month time frame, a society can really afford to lose men. A woman can have as many partners as she can imagine and she'd still only have about one baby, same as if she only had one partner, in a nine month time frame, meaning women are more valuable and societies can't do with a lack of women. To put it another way, if one man knocked up a hundred women in one day, he'd produce about a hundred babies in a nine month time period. Meanwhile, if one woman fucked a hundred men in one day, only one would knock her up, and she'd have about one baby in a nine month time period.

It's not just biology. Can you imagine how society and civilization would develop if the sexes were truly equal? Let's not even get into hormones and anatomy and how those affect personality and by extension relationships and by extension society. Lets just say women are just magically as physically and mentally capable as men and completely the same as normal women in every other way. Can you even imagine how that society would look like and function? I can't, but i'm sure it would be radically different then real world and a lot of fiction.
Yes, i can imagine a fucking dragon existing much easier then the sexes being completely equal in performance and yet somehow society being identical as the norm.

That's worth pondering, actually.

Let's rewind back to the point where homo sapiens evolved and say that for the most part, females of the species were as physically capable as male of the species. The primary difference between the two sexes is their different roles in procreation.

How would this have changed society, along every step of the way? How would society have developed differently? More importantly, what would remain the same?

You really lack imagination, huh.

>someone said something i disagree with!
>address their argument like an adult?
>nope, screech passive-agressive slander at them
>that'll show them!

So your post directly contradicts the statements of , because there would be very few societal changes even if men and women were on a level of physical capability?

I'm not accusing you of being the same user, I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.