Ladyknight Worldbuilding

Most nobles, merchants and administrators are women (but most women are still commoners) and this has led to knights being women since only they can afford the training and equipment, sometimes even magical equipment. They're also the ones to pay the men to fight. When ladies go into battle it's expected that in defeat they'll be captured and ransomed. So ladies have a skewed vision of combat where they're better in a fight than most soldiers but will survive even when they lose. This means the lady warrior class is able to treat it all with some foppery instead of pragmatism.

Why would I do that? I have lady knights along with the traditional Y chromosome variety.

By the way, where's the ladyknights vs amazons thread?

I get that she's a girl knight but why is she a lesbian? Knighthood and chivalry are basically rooted in breeding and power structure, which is the official regimentation of breeding and that which allows least-strife breeding to occur. Doesn't really make much sense to have a lesbian knight.

Anyway just keep that fact in mind and then have women dominate society by some means of breeding. It can either be that they're larger and stronger than men, or it could be something a lot more subtle. Say for instance in this world women have control over when they get pregnant or something internally, so they have the dominant position as pickers and choosers where it pertains to breeding, and men are more passive in the process or elective - making the females responsible for maintaining proper order and chivalry.

You don't know how homosexuality works, do you? You don't become homosexual because it makes sense or anything. Being gay doesn't make sense from procreation point of view anyway, it just happens.

>I get that she's a girl knight but why is she a lesbian?
Because FETISH.

>so they have the dominant position as pickers and choosers where it pertains to breeding
Actually that is pretty much already how thing are and very much were in the past too.
The only way what you describe would make any fucking sense is if women were not the ones carrying the burden of pregnancy. That is LITERALLY the only way to make this make sense. But then - essentially, you would just switch the labeles, call men women and vice versa.
There is literally and absolutely no other way this can ever make any semblance of sense.

>Because FETISH.
Yuri is for sub-humans.

basically women have +4 INT

Who says it's a romantic gesture.
Maybe she's just honouring the lady of the land. Maybe she's asking for the hand of her son.

>why is she a lesbian?
Cause she just happens to be? Honestly, what a retarded question. Just like there were gay knights, there could be lesbian ladyknights.

>Actually that is pretty much already how thing are and very much were in the past too.
It's generally true in nature, but in human history it wasn't always the case.

>LITURRRRLLLY!! ANY SEMBLLNCE OF SENSE!!1
And what makes you say that? Really, what exactly are you talking about? I'm pretty sure I could come up with some other explanations.

Could make a good premise for a foreign invasion forcing ladyknights to face reality.

>Exclusively feminine concept.

No, the cool thing about lady knights is when they stand side by side with the men.

This, any other answer is either bait or stupid

t. retard

Men of taste and high esteem.

Women don't really pick men with regularity in human history. Men pick women, and women consent to being picked. They also certainly had very little control historically over what happened to their children after they were born, or in the rare cases of divorce.

But I guess OP is ultimately asking something crazy like "what it would be like/how would you justify the sun being made out of ice cream?" just so many things would have to change that they wouldn't even be the same anymore. They'd only nominally be the same.

That's the wonderful thing about making shit up. Real history doesn't matter.

>It's generally true in nature, but in human history it wasn't always the case.
It's actually not really all that common among most other species, even the ones very close to us. It's VERY true in human history, even if it does not seem immediately obvious.

>And what makes you say that?
Not being an idiot having basic understanding of how human gender structures work makes me say that. Either you deny what we know about humanity, or your explanation is going to be ALWAYS laughably fucking moronic. There is no reasonable explanation for why gender roles would by systematically switched like this without completely altering human biology and nature - or without completely ignoring it.

The only way to make this concept not feel painfully idiotic and cringeworthy is by simply admiting what it really is: a FETISH. And I'm fine with fetish based settings if everyone else is on board with it. But DON'T try to make it look like it makes sense. Every single feeble, pathetic attempt to make it AKSHUALY work is just going to hammer down how desperate you are to validate something that should not really need validation or justification what so ever.

>There is no reasonable explanation for why gender roles would by systematically switched like this without completely altering human biology and nature
I didn't say it wouldn't involve altering human biology. I just said that it wouldn't involve switching pregnancy to be a male thing.

>Men pick women, and women consent to being picked.
So why don't you have a girlfriend, and Chad does?

And you were wrong.

nah, I can't talk for everyone but I want lady knights and equal max-strength and bulk between genders because of autism, not for a fetish.

nope, just having the species be 99% female is enough.

sorry.

Because the "women consenting" is actually the really fucking important part of it. Men try to impress women. It's really mostly the women who does the real actual selection - either she consents, or not. Of course, in the past the process was generally slightly more complicated, as it was not necessarily on the women herself, but usually up to collective judgement of her family, but it does not change the fact that women is the one holding the treasure, and men trying to gain access to it.

>How would you justify the codes of chivalry and honor being an exclusively feminine concept in your setting, Veeky Forums

I wouldn't because homosexuality is a mental illness.

I just think knights are cool and want everyone who wants to play one to be able to. I may be autistic but there’s something about the archetype of a chivalrous knight who defends the weak and comforts the grieving which cannot adequately be filled by other sources. Everything about them: their aesthetics, their ideal heroes, their oftentimes rotten surroundings speaks to the best mankind has to offer. Who could be greater than a virtuous protector in a world of scheming dogs?

This is why everyone should be allowed to play a knight. They are symbols of duty, courage, and benevolence for all humanity, not just men.

Alright, if we’re still “world building” I vote for this to be the basis, have them be an order of knights that have a Russian WW2 mentality. Men, women, old and young fight in this order, emphasizing on group tactics to overwhelm enemies and cut them down.

That not a nice thing to say about yourself.

The weak means old people and women and children. There's no real advantage to having a bunch of feminized neckbeards crying on the streets while ladyknight goes to face getting butchered to defend them. That's because knights are basically chads in armor.

You can't take the man out of a knight. Honor, Duty, Courage, Benevolence, Chivalry, etc are all just breeding strategies. There are animals who pursue dueling and there are animals that stick you with their butts and plant larva in you. Those lofty concepts are just the preferred way of getting to nut into a girl and securing that your offspring will nut into a girl.

>You can't take the man out of a knight
No, several women have held the title and
>Honor, Duty, Courage, Benevolence, Chivalry, etc are all just breeding strategies.
False, these were used as a leash to put warriors in their place, as fodder for king and nation

It's not really "breeding" and it's a little more complicated than that. Individual bloodlines do not matter that much in a species as profoundly social as ours is. That said, it is still true that it makes no sense for a culture to ignore gender role and sex differences and cultivate all female or even equal male-to-female knighhood institution without it being rooted in either some really major biological alteration to our species (which are going to be pretty hard to explain and likely will result in all that we find compelling about the female iconography to be discarded) unless the society is already REALLY rich and decadent, and even then it's going to be a self-destructive and short lived trend.

God dammit both of you, you really should stop talking about shit you clearly don't fucking understand.

>thinks the title knight actually stands for something other than to stroke the ego of what was essentially a murder machine on a horse.
Warriors can get pretty rowdy, so a few ways to make them calm down was to
A. Hold tournaments in which they would fight each other
B. Give them a title and some land
C. Send them on a crusade and hope they don’t come back
E. Make them swear oaths so they won’t kill each other, rape peasants ect.
I think you’re just naive

>without it being rooted in either some really major biological alteration to our species
Or some cultural thing/tradition/whatever.

You know what's a really dumb idea? Basing your military around heavy cavalry formed of the low nobility who you have to give land to so they can afford their equipment, and ill-trained levies, instead of a professional standing army.

Obviously though that happened and so did a lot of other decidedly suboptimal stuff. You can justify a lot of things by manipulating the circumstances surrounding it, and that's kinda where the fun in worldbuilding is.

Shit, D. got lost, but having them marry into the noble bloodline was another way to give them swear allegiance to king and country

What he means is that this is fantasy, and the actual politicking is less important than the symbolism of knighthood as an ideal to look up to. Who cares about real life gender disparities or rowdiness? That’s just autism.

The knight is the old western cowboy, but without the grit. Superman to the gunslinger’s Batman.

>to give them swear allegiance
Man skipping letters in my list, making simple grammar errors, I need sleep

God dammit, you have just been told that you clearly have NO FUCKING CLUE what you are talking about: and your first reaction is to vomit more of the same clearly poorly educated bullshit?! What the fuck is wrong with you?

No you cretin, I'm not the one holding incredibly idiotic and naive ideas about what chivalry is. For fuck sake you don't seem to even be aware that chivalry and knighthood are completely different fucking things you idiot. God damn, shut the fuck up and don't yap about shit you clearly don't understand!

Culture is an extension of biology, a different side of the same coin. No cultural tradition can exist if biology does not condone it: the environment will eliminate inefficient behavioral patterns. Ecology of course plays a role - you can observe some fairly bizarre and impractical practices among highly isolated societies, but they are exceptional and unstable. Efficiency is what allows societies to be large and stable enough, and existence of social or cultural organization that fails to respect biological limitations and substrates of a species would result in a society not reaching the kind of civilized level you are looking for in the first place.

>Who cares about real life gender disparities or rowdiness?
Except that is where the fucking ideals and symbolism is based in. It's precisely that denying the core disparities that GAVE RISE TO THESE IDEALS AND SYMBOLS completely defeats the purpose and meaning of those symbols and moral ideals.
It's like talking about the iconic image of a "wise old man" but then demanding a society where THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AGING. It completely renders the icon meaningless.

And yet another kid who really needs to stop talking about shit he is clearly uneducated about.

>No you cretin, I'm not the one holding incredibly idiotic and naive ideas about what chivalry is. For fuck sake you don't seem to even be aware that chivalry and knighthood are completely different fucking things you idiot. God damn, shut the fuck up and don't yap about shit you clearly don't understand!
>”shut up! You dummy! Only I can be right!”
Your opinion belongs in the trash

It's pretty straightforward. As the human population rose, the various communities formed larger more centralized communities. The king was the guy in charge who could fuck whoever he wanted and owned the most stuff. He had various lesser associates who could fuck their king's leftovers and owned a bunch of stuff. At the bottom were all the serfs who could fuck whatever was left over and basically didn't own anything. Knights were basically vassals, and it was expected they would obey and maintain the status quo.

Now you want that order of knights to be exclusively, or predominately, female. That means either making females stronger than males, or otherwise manipulating the breeding between males and females. No persistent state of affairs where females are the enforcers of authority and proper breeding will occur without this modification unless you just hamfist it in and make a stupid KAWAIIIII LADU KNIGHTSU REALM HEEEEEEE ^_____^ which is probably not what you want.

If you think knight just means some faggot in armor who pokes other faggots with sticks, that's not what a knight is. There's a reason the guys are running around collecting handkerchiefs from maidens and why something like 60% of the acts of King Arthur and his noble knights is all about people fucking each other.

So...non human lady knights...Easy fix

>No cultural tradition can exist if biology does not condone it: the environment will eliminate inefficient behavioral patterns.
This is simply not true. While culture is rooted in biology, human behaviour is so complex that it creates an immence variety and diversity in cultural norms and practices, including those you'd never expect to exist if you try to rationalize everything with biological patterns.

>you can observe some fairly bizarre and impractical practices among highly isolated societies, but they are exceptional and unstable
It's not as exceptional as you might think, and they can exist for centuries and millenia, even when the environment changes. And we aren't even talking about such large scales. I could justify existence of female knightly orders in my setting by some event that happened a couple of centuries ago and some minor cultural stuff, and it wouldn't be far fetched.

Right. You could easily have like, Black Widow knights or something. Praying Mantis knights. Hell, you could even have a knightly order of the pies where its all just human women in heat-resistant armor baking all day and dress them like fucking knights if you're not going to give a shit about what a knight is or what being a knight means.

>If you think knight just means some faggot in armor who pokes other faggots with sticks, that's not what a knight is.
True, they also must be noble and bound to serve their lords. That's what a knight is.

>if you're not going to give a shit about what a knight is or what being a knight means
Not him, but what does a knight mean to you? Because we’re not going to get anywhere if I don’t know your stance on this is

>opulent empire decides have female knights because muh equality, muh formality or whatever
>barbarians who don't give a shit are easily able to start defeating their armies and sacking cities
You did it to your self

>How would you justify the codes of chivalry and honor being an exclusively feminine concept in your setting
It only works if women are the sexually disposable sex, and for the female to be the disposable one that would have to mean a very large ratio imbalance, there'd have to be many women for every man.

Um, no, you did it, congratulations on beating your strawman justification with your strawman barbarians. That's not what I would write in my setting.

Experience can exist without biological aging. An elder will always be respected, so long as their wisdom is still valuable to the younger generations.

Furthermore, the archetype is meaningful precisely in contrast with the potential darkness of the world the knight lives within. It’s okay to gave a genuinely good character, user. It’s okay to have an ideal embodied within the world. Nobody will make fun of you for making a world better than our own. Only those who wallow in their failure make worlds as broken as they are.

A knight is a feudal rank for an individual oftentimes awarded for military service/military family background who is expected to obey and enforce the laws of their king. Specifically, it refers to Europeans as other cultures had other titles.

okay sweetie, you enjoy your lazy worldbuilding, just remember not to pretend this is anything but a fetish when you forgo legitimate consequences for the actions of your nations.

Knights are trained from a young age to fight and also usually only as heavy cavalry. So cutting down barbarians is a cinch. Plus, barbarians based on western culture used women in war all the time

Or if females lay eggs. Or if they are stronger than men and are naturally more dominant. I mean, it doesn't make them disposable really, but hyenas somehow live like that. But that would change so much about the culture and the image of knights, that it's not worth it.

>implying
>implying
>implying
Thanks at least for allowing me to have fun. Shithead.

>lmao we've got tough armour and better training, how could these barbarians possibly defeat us
t. about to get his city sacked

>Plus, barbarians based on western culture used women in war all the time
pic related

>lmao we've got tough armour and better training, how could these barbarians possibly defeat us
>t. about to get his city sacked
>Doesn’t realize barbarians were massacred by cavalry
>Plus, barbarians based on western culture used women in war all the time
>pic related
>Ignorant of history
I think we’re done here

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dame
>there were female knights
>they just went around cooking for their husbands and shit
wow its just like when the owner of the company's wife shows up as a "VIP" or "Business Partner".

if women were stronger and males were submissive like spotted hyenas first of all they wouldn't have the capacity to organize for war, they'd be sending raiding parties at most, and probably would still comprise mostly of men, since you can see in hyena society women like to stick in their territory while men wander around to others.

>wow its just like when the owner of the company's wife shows up as a "VIP" or "Business Partner".
Except not, because in the Medieval times people literally though that nobles are inherently better than commoners.

i don't know how to possibly respond to your staggering amounts of evidence, i guess i lost

The world realizes all women are whores and forces the to adhere to a code on pain of death. Other women call them out to preserve their own status.

Or you could just fap to your fetish shit without trying to gussy it up.

>Your opinion belongs in the trash
Convincing argument, mister "chivalry and knighthood mean the same thing".

>uman behaviour is so complex that it creates an immence variety and diversity in cultural norms and practices
Which all exclusively happens within the "operational space" that our biology enables us to hold. The VARIETY ITSELF is an obvious expression of basic biological principles you idiot. The variety isn't also nearly as rich as you would wish it was, and there is plenty of patterns of human behavior that are universal. Coincidentally, VAST majority of them are gender and sex related.

>It's not as exceptional as you might think, and they can exist for centuries and millenia
God damn you fucking cretin, I can assure you that I know a whole fuckton more about how frequent and how stable these things are. I literally study that shit for a living. You can pull any shit out of your ass you want, but it's not going to be a reasonable justifiaction: no society will accept female knights in the same sense we view them today, on any scale larger than symbolic subversion or a pure oddity (with it's relevance being given EXCLUSIVELY by the fact that it's clearly illogical, thus holding some kind of purely impractical, symbolic relevance, and no baring on pratical reality) for any longer than one or two generations before laughing that idea out of the window. Which is: coincidentally, why we never HAD anything like that in the past.

>Experience can exist without biological aging.
But not the image of an wise old man you cretin. Can you idiots even read?!

Hyenas can organize for large scale hunts, like when migrating wilderbeest are going through their territory, or to hunt zebra, and they can organize to defend their lands pretty well, they can rally the entire clan if needed.

>probably would still comprise mostly of men, since you can see in hyena society women like to stick in their territory while men wander around to others.
That's what happens during normal times, but when a large scale confrontation happens females always lead and higher ranking females run into fights first, and die first.

So in other words males in normal times would be raiding other societies for resources while both sexes hunted in their territory, and when threatened by outside forces the clan would defend itself together. We'll accidentally be turning this into an amazon thread if we keep going on about this though.

Checked
>Convincing argument, mister "chivalry and knighthood mean the same thing".
We’re not arguing, I gave you some reasons as to why knights were just the kings’ bitches, and you called me names and acted like you know everything.

Actually, that is not true. While spotted hyenas have a somewhat strange dominance hiearachy thing going on, female hyenas are STILL the lower risk takers, and have lower mortality than male ones. Their male-to-female birth ratio is roughly equal: if the males weren't higher risk takers, the species would simply die out. Female hyenas act as if they were part of the male dominance hierarchy, and even as if they occupied the top of the dominance hierarchy, but they still display mammal-typic survival patterns, including taking same, or lower risks than males of the pact. Hunts are lead by the males, not the females. Even in wilderbeest seasons. The females merely do appropriate the greatest part of the catch for themselves.

I’m perfectly adept at reading comprehension. You just don’t understand that it’s fantasy. Narrative structure and moral lessons matter more than historical pressures. Moral lessons such as, “Be a hero,” and “Protect the weak,” are vastly more important than any amount of faffing about with biological or cultural justifications. These are lessons which women need to be taught too.

Also, this strategy of female dominance is only pursued in low-resource environments. Another example are deep-sea fish where males are tiny or even become vestigial organs attached to the female. The resource cost of keeping the males alive is too high, so they've adopted a species strategy that lets them get by with the absolute minimum amount of resources needed for sexual reproduction.

Why do you keep making this thread every single day, you autistic fucking cunt? Are there no mods on this bord?

You literally did not understand the difference between code of ideal behavior which incorporates values all across the scale (and which has actually been really associated with knighthood mostly in romantic fiction in era where knighhood did not efficiently exist anymore) with the ACTUAL TITLE OF A KNIGHT.
That is how fucking dumb you are. You do not understand that "knight" as a pragmatic institution, a title that existed in many different forms and was associated with all kinds of complex rules and standards, and the romantic idea of "chivalrious behavior" are two very distinct things.

Further more, ANYONE who thinks any fucking social institution was just "somebody's bitches" and can be described exclusively by patronizing attitudes and painting them as incompetent victims is a FUCKING HUMAN GARBAGE. You are an idiot, you have NO clue about even basic complexities of any social organization, much less one as distant and complicated as medieval one.

Because their secondary fetish is getting btfo by -4 str posters regularly

>Are there no mods on this bord?

The mod is a lazy SJW with a femdom fetish, of course these threads are going to get posted every day.

>You just don’t understand that it’s fantasy. Narrative structure and moral lessons matter more than historical pressures.
What you don't understand is that the moral lessons STEM FROM THE HISTORICAL PRESSURES you idiot. How is this hard to comprehend. "Be a hero" in a society where there is no power inequality makes NO FUCKING SENSE. You are a hero by having more power than others, and using that power to benefit those who don't have that option.
So removing that asymetry of power DENIES THE VERY CONCEPT OF HEROISM.
Protect the weak is a lesson that comes from the fact that there are weak, who need protection. Children, women, elderly people.
If you don't fucking have weak, then you fucking don't need to teach anyone about protecting them: the lesson makes no fucking sense.

So how about you fucks started to actually understand the fucking world you live in, and based on that, start to understand what is and what isn't a valuable moral lesson and why they are valuable.

Morality comes from practical needs. If you deny existence of those practical needs, your morality is not morality anymore. It's an IDLE FETISH.

See, I already explained this.
>You literally did not understand the difference between code of ideal behavior which incorporates values all across the scale (and which has actually been really associated with knighthood mostly in romantic fiction in era where knighhood did not efficiently exist anymore) with the ACTUAL TITLE OF A KNIGHT.
The chivalric code was used during the medieval era to make knights obey the king. You kinda just make a straw man and call me names while stroking your ego.
Well, if anything, you would have made a great knight user

I think you mean the -4 str morons get btfo.

no

Yes

Nah, us men tend to mean what we say you know. We're wise and honest, it's why not only do we get +4 str but +2 wis

Maybe

...

I think you mean that’s why we have the penis

>The chivalric code was used during the medieval era to make knights obey the king.
No, it really wasn't. The "Chivalric code" is really a later day romantic idealization of the reality of medieval knighthood, which was very different from what you seem to think it to be.
But that is not the only thing you got COMPLETELY WRONG. The idea that all of that code was exclusively to dupe the morons into listening to their evil superiors is the REALLY FUCKING INSULTING part of it. Are you by any chance a fucking Marxist?
The aspects of the code have multiple functional roles. For an instance: honor is a part of TRUST strategy, which is one of the the most important resources of human evolutionary toolset, and it's importance and implications stretch far, far into all levels of society, with it also being a tool for state (and it's representatives) to maintain stability being some of the least important. The (mostly romantic) idea of "gentleman behavior" is the same: it's a set of behaviors serving to ease and mediate inter-gender cooperation.

Instead of understanding how complex and deep-running all of these ideals are, you chose to say "it's just to keep the morons from rebelling against their evil burgeouis overlords because they haven't seen the light of Marxist revolution", essentially. That is why I call you an utter cretin, and somebody who SURE AS FUCK has no fucking right to call others naive.

He got a penis in his butt

>if we point and laugh it'll leave
No, once again, such sensitivity to the opinions of your peers is more of a female trait. A man's stability is why we get more charisma too.

I'm all for fantasy lady knights, but you don't appear to know what you're talking about.

Now you are just being retarded.

>no power disparity if women are strong
>mentions elderly and children as things which exist
I think you need some sleep, friend. The goal of virtuous people is a world in which they aren’t needed anymore.

>morality comes from practical needs

I understand you’re autistic user but please stop imposing it on the rest of us.

Morality rarely results from practicality. Egoism is the only path forward for the true pragmatic, yet no culture condones this behavior. They do, however, explicitly condone rather impractical behaviors such as not bearing false witness against your neighbor. And when asked, “Who is my neighbor?” the sages agree: all men are your neighbor.

Understanding the world has nothing to do with this. I understand perfectly what you’re saying. You’re just pathetically wrong about the subject at hand. Morality comes from our best selves, not our current ones. I’m offering an escape from nihilism. There are so many bright and wonderful ways to see the world. Why pick the most dour among them? If you care about practicality so much, then answer me this; Is your life actually better when lived miserably?

You're right, in for certain charisma checks it would make sense to give women a bonus, such as when they are being tried in court for committing a crime, their female charisma will usually get them a better deal.

>egoism doesn't apply to the rest of the genetic line
baby brain