Ladyknight Worldbuilding

t. retarded faggot with nothing useful to say.

>ladleknights
Honestly, that's a way cooler concept than ladyknights. I'd love an Order of Steel Chefs dedicated to slaying the most horrible beasts and fashioning them into the most wonderful feasts. In fact, I think I'll use that the next time I play any sort of fantasy RPG.

I wouldn't entrust a woman with the task though, everyone knows men make better gourmands.

>everyone knows men make better gourmands.
Not if someone eats what you cooked up sir handinbutt

Sorry brah, but it's true. They can still be Sous-Squires though

Or that what you will be before your food kills everyone.

>No one cares about this shitty concept without cheesecake and lesbians
LOL

>all kinds of non-human female knight concepts are all over the place
>no my bitchknights must be 110lbs waifus in boobplate

It sounds like you are the one here in love with orc cock faggot

I think introducing an external threat that challenges this society while the man-only crusade is going on could work as a motivation for a ladyknight society. Whilst all the men knights go off to fight against the Not-Muslims! for Not-Jerusalem! or whatever is the equivalent is in this setting, another unrelated faction appears to attack the undefended nations.

They could make them a horde of monsters, or make them an actual society of invading soldiers. For the former option you could go all out with what you want them to be, like an army of asexual orcs that reproduce non-sexually, meaning that they just pillage and burn, or perhaps a group of newly awakened dragons that begin their once-in-a-century rampage across the region. This way, with no other form of defence, and no logical reason to not introduce them, Ladyknights are brought in. For the latter option, there are plenty of options, like having them be mongul/ hun-like horde with horseback riders and archery or some other type of foreign invade could be a good motivation for female recruitment. And as you said, over a few generations the culture sets into the mindset of men setting off to foreign lands to take the fight to the enemy whilst the female warriors garrison the homefront.

That's just take anyhow.

how far are you autists willing to go to justify your fetish?

Considering that Knight is as much a profession as it is a title having ladyknights isn't a difficult concept. There's nothing expressly stating that they even need fight. Should they, the difference between a few mounted sirs and a few mounted dames is virtually nil anyway. This isn't a society where all of the warriors are women, but only a few elite and privileged members.Given what's been laid out, it seems that these ladyknights command the home-guard and if they ride out at all they do so at the head of a host of men-at-arms. Perhaps becoming a lady-at-arms is a high ideal for young girls, but Knighthood is restricted to the worthy and that means the high born. Most girls, even with that ideal, won't bother going through the rigors to become a soldier. Consider that most men, even when encouraged, didn't bother to do so.

So now we have ladyknights who manage estates and handle the defense of the estate when the lord is away. You essentially have less memey onna-bugeisha. The only way this really maintains importance or impetus to continue as a practice is if the threat to the homeland is perpetual and pervasive. An occasional raid isn't likely to provide the pressure to continue the tradition in a serious manner. You'd need legitimate threats like serious monster incursions that keep popping up. This also helps delineate the roles further. Men fight men, women fight monsters. Men take, women protect. Now there's real impetus for the practice to continue and for ladyknights to take their duties seriously and not just farm it out to local mercenaries like Knights eventually did with their own feudal obligations to take the field.

While its possible that these traditions would filter down to the commoners, it's also unlikely to penetrate any deeper than the higher merchant classes that ape noble mannerisms.

That's fucking retarded, unless you're somehow sending over 90% of your male population to a foreign land (which is absolutely braindead, why would they be going without their women? The historical Crusaders or New World Colonialists all went with large numbers of women, obviously non-combatants), there's absolutely no reason why a nation would be forced to conscript females or use female warriors. There would be more than enough men left at home to recruit into any defense force.

Ladyknights belong in the kitchen making sandwiches for real knights, just like it was historically.

Maybe it's time you learned about what happened historically stupid. Sparta and the Scythian's had women learn how to defend themselves.

And there's a reason why those Pagan savages disappeared and Christianity prevailed. Women belong in the kitchen.

You sound butthurt that someone pointed one that your dumb shitpost was bs.

In neither of those cultures women fought anyway, except maybe Scythian horse-archers. Wow, so brave, the only time a woman fought was literally far away, with a bow, on the back of a horse so she could speed away if the fighting got too close.

It's nowhere close to muh stronk empowered feminist knights.

Cry more retard. Moving the goalposts is not going to help you. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_of_Tuscany en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoe_Gozen en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Hatchet

Hurfdurf anime scum stay out my board games

But the OP is western fanart of a western game

...

I think the idea is that this is a custom among the nobility and upper classes.

Common soldiers in the defensive militia are still almost entirely male farmers and such, but they are lead or supported in battle by the ladyknights of their leige lord.

...

Now that's what I call a quality post.

>I like my fetish so much I feel the need to build a whole convoluted setting around it

Jesus christ why won't you people just choke on something? Why does lady knights require a special justification? There are lady knights because there are. Why wouldn't there be? Focus on the important part of the campaign, Greg.

That was generally the idea, yes

i think the idea wasn't just that some knights are Ladys. But that pretty much all knights are Ladys.

and whats wrong with it, wordlbuilding settings distinctly different in a certain way can be interesting, its not necessarily just a fetish.

Try
>major religion centers around personal choice
>women are free to join the military
>a large proportion of the miltiary are women

Men leave for long war that revolutionizes how it is waged. Knights are found to be ineffective.

Back home, the lack of law and order given by roaming fuckers on horses, as well as the lack of ones for ceremonial purposes means that women have to fill the role.

By the time men come back, several orders have sprung up with decidedly female predominance in their membership.

With the knight now being an invalid tool on the battlefield, and the look being stolen by women (like heels and tights), it becomes outrageously unfashionable for men to take up such armaments.

Thus time marches on. Knights still exist, largely for ceremonial purposes and the occasional quest, and they are predominantly women. Nothing bars men from becoming knights other than social pressures.

Knights are no longer considered a warrior class, however they are still nobility and thus respected. There's decidedly less roaming fuckers on horses who will bully you for your shit, so knights now live up to the romantic expectation associated with them.

It's considered very prestigious for a young lady to have a knight as her chaperone, to protect her purity (from orc dicks).

Different orders have different purposes. Some are more ceremonial, with impractical but very attractive armor. Some are more about getting stuff done.

Why would you send women to fight bandits and raiding parties? Sounds stupidly dangerous especially considering that these women must be reasonably wealthy in order to be able to afford the sort of equipment expected of knights.

If you want female knights, then it would make more sense to have an oddball knighthood order made up of exclusively female members whose primary job is to act as bodyguards, making sure that the side doesn't cheat, sort of similar to eunuch guards whom act as servants as well when needed.

Of course, their loyalty to their liege would need to be without question or there is no point in having them.

Considering that Knights were elites with really expensive equipment, the explanation that women would suddenly have to take up that role seems really hamfisted.

Decrease in manpower affects the number of grunts you have, not how many elites you have. You'd more likely have men of common birth take up those positions if your knights suddenly dropped dead but their arms and armor was still around.

>Sounds stupidly dangerous especially considering that these women must be reasonably wealthy in order to be able to afford the sort of equipment expected of knights.
that actually makes it more reasonable. Sure women are generally not as strong, but a lifetime of eating well, training from a young age and access to the best gear is going to more than make upnfor the difference. A well trained ladyknight in her plate harness on a warhorse is going to make mincemeat of a failed farmer turner bandit with his spear and gambason. That he can lift a heavier rock than her isn't really going to matter.

Of course she won't stand up to male knights, thats why she's at home fighting bandits and such while the male knights are off crusading and fighting other male professional warriors.

But do they have big fat futa dicks?

No, it doesn't.
What fucking point is there to even be a castle if the women and children don't stay there when your lands are being ravaged by men of ill intent?

It makes no goddamn sense to risk the noble women in such a pursuit which can just as easily be left to the goddamn garrison.
If the Lady of the Castle is instead wasting her time and money riding out into the field to impale bandits and raiders rather than taking care of the domestic affairs such as the finances and making sure the taxes are in order, what's the point in even having her?

If the men are out there crusading and the women are out there killing uppity peasants, then how do they even maintain their positions when nobody is running their goddamn fiefdom?

You can't just disregard female roles in society and expect it'll work out.
Those are some goddamn important roles as well and it's work that needs to be done.

Sure, it may not be as prestigious as the self-sacrifice that the men are expected to do, but without the traditional feminine roles being handled by SOMEONE, you'll end up in a shit show.

Of course, it would make perfect sense that there's some oddball female knights running around who are being rebellious to their parents, but normalizing the idea that ladies would perform the work of a knight is the norm just seems like a good way to end up having to pay massive ransoms whenever your wife gets captured on her escapades by enemies that managed to trick her coming out of her castle.

Bandits will attack without honor by shooting her or ensnaring her, then rape her to death, then rape her corpse, then sell her raped corpse back to her family. It's dumb as fuck to send mommy to go fight bandits while daddy is off fighting in a war. It's dumb as fuck to send sister, auntie, grandma, etc to go fight bandits.

Bump

So to do actual worldbuilding-

I’m imagining dealing with Saracens and Vikings imply a large territory, since one is arctic, the other is desert.

So perhaps this nation spreads over much of what would be this version of Christian Europe? Perhaps dealing with NOT!Mongols too. So something of a an empire with feudal administration? Would you want a HRE situation with an elected Emperor? A High King? A republic of Kings? A Confederation?

Also what would be some good names? I think something like Legion of Steel would be really awesome.

In a game I'm in, we're a fledgling air force that uses zeppelins and blimps primarily, along with gliders and some harpies. Weight is a huge factor, and physical strength a little less so, so we've mostly recruited women into our ranks.
And this is before getting into our magitech, or thaumecha, armor. It yields better results on lower strength individuals (it replaces their arms and legs), making it mostly useless for men and incredibly good on women.
Though we're unlikely to use heavier armors until we complete morphball technology, something similar could happen for Lady Knights. Some part of combat, terrain, or technology is simply more suited for them.

Depends on what Sparta you're looking at. The theme park version or the one closer to reality. Recent scholarship has attacked the idea of Sparta being a exotic militarized society and instead it paints it as similar to the other Greek States. Indeed the Spartans were most admired for their political system more than their military might. It might be said that the Spartans were a professional leisure class rather than warrior class for they achieved what other Greeks envied, a life free from labor, away from the trouble of the poor, they were free to train their bodies, drink, dance, enjoy life, administer their estates and community. In this light the Spartans are more akin leisured gentlemen than warriors.

The notion of Sparta being a military society has been challenged. For all we know their training involved fitness exercises and practicing basic formations while on campaign. They never trained with their weapons.
Plato writes

"if this skill in arms is an accomplishment, as they say who teach it, and as Nicias terms it, it ought to be learnt; while if it is not an accomplishment, and those who promise to give it are deceiving us, or if it is an accomplishment, but not a very important one, what can be the good of learning it? I speak of it in this way from the following point of view: I conceive that if there were anything in it, it would not have been overlooked by the Lacedaemonians, whose only concern in life is to seek out and practice."
Plato, Laches

As much as I hate this retarded concept, I will give you the respect of a serious answer, since you put so much effort into your justification of existence.

I have only two questions.

What is your difference between a knight and a crusader, when historically they were the same thing. A knight is merely a western samurai, aka the warrior class of society.

How do you explain female knights defending their land from male invaders? The not Saracens and not vikings are going to bring armies of men aren't they?

In this passage Plato tells us the merits of hoplomachia, or hoplite training. Here he completely dismisses it, claiming it's not worth learning and something the Spartans did not practice. The above, has it was called later, was not at all dissimilar from what was taught to other leisure class Greeks. The teaching of Greek values, fitness and obedience. Nowhere were they taught martial skills or even how to fight.

It's true they were admired as the "craftsmen of war" but you have to look at it through the lens of their culture.

The Ancient Greeks were amateurs in war. Nowhere is it actually stated that they even trained thrir citizens for war. And we have sources that blunty tell us this.

Xenophon writes
>“I tell you, just because the state does not publicly train for war, you must not cultivate it any less yourself". Xenophon, Mem . 3.12.5

We also have sources where the Ancient Greeks mock people who train with their weapons.

I'll post some next post

>I have come across more than a few of these [hoplomachia instructors] in actual operations, and I can see their quality. Indeed, we can estimate it offhand: for, as though it were of set purpose, not one of these experts in arms has ever yet distinguished himself in war. And yet in all the other arts, the men who have made a name are to be found among those who have specially pursued one or other of them; while these persons, apparently, stand out from the rest in this particularly hapless fate of their profession. (...)
Hence, as I said at the beginning, whether [hoplomachia] be an accomplishment, and one of but little use, or not an accomplishment, but only supposed and pretended to be such, it is not worth the trouble of learning it. For indeed I hold that if a man who was a coward believed that he possessed it, his only gain would be in rashness, which would make his true nature the more conspicuous; while if he were brave, people would be on the look-out for even the slightest mistake on his part, and he would incur much grievous slander; for the pretension to such skill arouses jealousy, so that unless a man be prodigiously superior to the rest in valor he cannot by any means escape being made a laughing-stock through professing to be so skilled.
-- Plato, Laches 182e-184c

Here Plato tells us that people who trained with their weapons were the laughing stock.

"And so is their lawgiver, through fear lest these training-bouts may appear ridiculous to some, to refrain from laying down laws whereby he will ordain field-operations, of which the minor kind, without heavy arms, will take place daily, if possible,—and to this end both the choristry and all the gymnastic shall be directed,—while the others, as a major kind of gymnastics in full armor, he shall order to be held at least once a month? "
Plato Laws 830d

Plato suggest that they should do some field exercises without weapons and in armor. He notes that it would appear ridicoulous.

"Where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger."
Thucydides 2.39.1

Here the Greeks take pride in not having training.

As you can see the Greeks were amateurs in warfare. While what the Spartans did may seem barebones it was better than what the other Greek city states had, no training. When you consider the mythos they built around the 300 its little to no wonder they were also admired for their military has they had something rather than beikng completely amateurs. But no sources ever tell us the Spartans were superior individual warriors. We hear of the Spartans banning wrestling when challegend by young Thebans.

Towards the end of the 4th century BC the other Greek city states do start training their hoplites and the Spartans seem to have lost their edge.
Aristotle sums it very nicely
>And we know of the Lakonians(Spartans) that while they persisted by themselves in their hard exercises they surpassed all others, but now they are left behind by the rest both in gymnastic and in military contests; for they used to stand out, not because they exercised their young men like this, but only because they trained, and others did not. Aristotle, Politics 1338b

So the Spartans seem to have lost their edge in combat around this time.

While sources focus mostly on the collective training of Spartan boys, we also hear that these boys were taught the finer things in life by private tutors. While sources stress Spartan austerity and aversion to luxury, there is a lot of evidence that wealthy Spartans liked to hunt, raise horses and fund chariot teams just as much as the rich in the rest of Greece. While we hear much about how Spartan society was shaped by their fear and surpression of the helots, we also know that slave classes similar to helots existed in states all over the Greek world. Like other Greeks, Spartans spent much of their spare time drinking, dancing and singing songs; like other Greeks, they vied with each other for status and influence. The notion of Sparta as the perpetual "other" is clearly the result of unbalanced reporting.

All of the famous Spartan social institutions are also attested elsewhere, with the sole exception of the dual kingship; indeed, Sparta seems to follow along with changing trends regarding these institutions throughout the Greek world. Helot-like classes existed elsewhere. The ideal of an all-leisure-class citizenry existed elsewhere. State-organised leisure-class education existed elsewhere. Generally, Sparta was not different but simply better at implementing things that other states tried to achieve for themselves as well. In this sense the Spartans would not have been considered odd to outsiders, but envied; they had achieved what many others (especially among the leisure class of Greek states) regarded as ideal..

Not op, but tactics, fortification, and plate mail? It’s not rocket science. Even if you buy into every -4 STR meme out there, surely you don’t think victory in battle boils down to that entirely? Why would any race that isn’t the strongest out there be independent when there are stronger species out there to immedietely conquer them?

Well considering there hasn't been a single empire in the entire history of man that used female soldiers, and the enemy has the same gear your lady knights do...yea it comes down to -4 str. Is there magic in your lady knights setting?

Soviet Union.

And additionally, let’s look at the plethora of wars lost because everything on paper said they should win.

The British and Americans.
The Germans and Soviets.
The French and Vietnamese.
The Americans and Vietnamese.
Anyone in Afghanistan.

Or that it took several centuries of colonization before westerners completely colonized the Native Americans, who were decimated by disease, had fewer guns and no navy.

Or how the Byzantine Empire was in a state of perpetual collapse for seven hundred years before it was finally conquered.

-4 STR don’t mean shit.

You understood what I meant and are reaching incredibly far. The Soviet Union and every other modern army has guns and tanks too. I will yield that women can pull a trigger. And in times of desperation women have been accepted via conscription or volunteering. But you aren't trying to make a desperate situation, and your setting doesn't have guns. You are trying to say that female knights is the norm, so I'm asking that to be justified.

You can always Handwave it and give no explanation, but thats pretty weak. I would even be more partial to agree that female musketeers could be a thing. Rapiers are more about dexterity than strength, plus guns exist. Knights is just a very ambitious claim.

Even the best historical example you have is the onna bushi, and even they RARELY fought along the samurai.

All of those wars were fought with men and guns, try again.

In that case, I’m not sure it was in this thread, but I’ve posited that the Gods I’d this setting (at least for this society) are all female and favor women with blessings and miracles.

Mostly so that we can move on from those kinds of place, and get to the actual discussion.

So you want to Handwave it with magic, that's fine, just make sure that is a staple of the setting.

Another thing you could do is this, which I've just come up with.

Let's say that a queen got wind of a group of "sorcerers" (alchemists) and hired them to serve her empire. The queen decided she wants an all female order of royal guard (knights). No one gets to argue with royalty so thusfar the setting makes sense. So the order if knights are trained, and equipped with the finest steel money can buy, they're also given an arsenal of alchemical weapons. Now you have an all female order of warriors who use science to level the playing field, like a bunch of medieval batman's essentially. They exist because the queen wants them to, they have the best of everything because the queen bought it for them. They are respected and feared by bandits because they have "sorcery" on their side that no one else has access to.

Personally i prefer to make a distinction between ‘divine’ and magic.

I just find it all an enormously silly thing to get caught up on. I get being a realism fag. But of any fantasy elements to ree over, warrior women seems like the dumbest.

I much more prefer starting shit over which version of beastfolk are the worse fetishbait.

Makes sense, if gods liked women more than men and blessed they would be assholes, but it would make sense. On that note how would said religion affect everyday life in said setting? wouldn't women, since they are favored by the gods, become a quazy ruling class over men?

Like I said, it’d be a maternalistic society, the reverse of much of real-life gender roles. Women are the warrior class, the priests, and the rulers.

However I imagine since Women aren’t bigger assholes then men, men are still allowed in those roles and can still wield significant power. It’s just out of the norm, and men are still seen as the fairer and weaker sex.

Human wave just needs bodies, the quality of said bodies dosen't matter too much.

That’s moving the goal posts user.

Imagine a situation: men are out at war, homeland is invaded by opportunistic barbarians. You field whatever you got, in times of desperation women will do. They wear plate armour and ride horses, their strength doesn't matter all that much in this case, a heavy cavalry charge is a heavy cavalry charge.

Just to add, the bulk of the army still consists of militia and garrison men, mercenaries and conscripted peasant men, of course.

You can always stick to your head cannon and run whatever setting you want, but you put your case before we, the people, amd it has been judged accordingly

With guns yes. Knights fight hand to hand so the quality matters

>which I've just come up with
So it's just a coincidence that it copies the amazon threads?

I said desperation works fine but he wants it to be the norm.

>hurrrrrrr ids dumb to send trained person to fight dey jus get shot or tripped!

>Makes sense, if gods liked women more than men and blessed they would be assholes, but it would make sense.
Could be a reversal of the Greek pantheon.

>There was the time when people (female) lived in harmony and prospered
>But goddess Promethea stole fire and gave it to womankind
>As a punishment the Queen of Olympus creates the first man, Pandorus
>Being a typical man, he can't help but fuck up, opening the one thing he was specifically said to not open, and releasing all the evils to the world

Or at least that's how the myth goes.

There’s judging, and then there’s reeing.

Oh god, that plays out so hilariously in my head.

I don't read every thread on Veeky Forums, but those similarities should tell you everything about the limitations of these threads believability. I genuinely tried to come up with something that would make sense, and it seems as tho some other guy came to the same final conclusion I did. That being you are very limited in the ways you can make female warriors viable.

Reeing is pretty obvious. My judgement was fair and I gave plenty of chances to justify or question it.

After they repel the first attack successfully they are praised for their bravery and strength. They are given honourary titles or some shit, and young girls of noble birth are trained to fight following their example. In the meantime some of the original ladies do some minor bandit and/or rebel supression around the lands, maybe also some questing since it's fantasy, dig out artifacts, find cool legendary swords, consult oracles and wizards, a few gain some fame doing that, and a young princess accompanies one of them as an apprentice.

When she grows up she turns out to be quite a talented manager and tactician, and even goes to the foreign wars and commands troops there alongside her brother. She also reorganizes the whole honorary title thing into an actual knightly order for women devoted to charity, hospitality to those who travel through the lands and protection of the weak. The barbarians attack again and are easily repelled, the ladies don't get to fight, it's all done by local garrisons, though a few of the ladies take part in commanding and organizing logistics.

Since the original members found some artifacts while questing you can sprinkle this with a bit of >it's magic, if you like. Maybe they have a lock of hair of the goddess of mercy or whatever, and it's, like, a blessing or some shit. But it's not requred. One of them totally gets a cool sword though, cause it would be boring otherwise. Okay, so, the next time all men go to war, the barbarians attack again. This time it's all more serious, cause they are better prepared. In the border provinces ladies have to take up arms too, they are better trained as well, but still they lose, have to retreat and several ladies get killed or captured. The princess rallies the whole order, including those original members who can still fight, takes the best of them plus some of the best guards and mercenaries, and makes a quick sortie in their rear, disrupting their supply chains.

(cont.)

Finally someone who knows how to tell a story. Continue.

How make the "bride of gods" trope without it sounding too much magical realmy?

Define bride of Gods.

>How large part of men population can be absent for a relatively long period of time in a way that economy doesn't collapse.
The male warriors are off crusading, the farmers are still around and since women are effective knights this is a universe were the difference between men and women strength wise is smaller or non existent so female peasants would be effective laborers just as the male peasants.

I have a hard time seeing how your society can remain stable without at least one of three intervening factors:

A: The ladyknights are of a species where the average female has an inherent combat advantage over males (e.g. gnolls), in which home guarding becomes the most efficient use of strong units with a high societal cost to lose (namely loss of potential young)

B: High quantities of “disposable” members of society, whether of females akin to beehive social structures, or more relevant to your specific setup, males that need to be kept busy away from home.

C: Intervention by a diety or some culturally formative historical event that formally enshrines your ladyknight order in society and makes challenging it taboo.

Something you will also need to consider for your ladyknight order is how to balance the competing pressures of childrearing versus knighting. If your ladyknights are specifically human, their most combat effective years will heavily overlap with their prime childrearing years. A ladyknight society cannot perpetuate itself if it can’t find time to birth new ladyknights.

All-in-all, it’s not a half bad take on the premise of an “Amazonian society”.

Meanwhile, on the other side people flee their homes employing scorched earth tactics. Barbarians don't give a damn for a while, but then a lot of them turn home, dividing their forces. By this time however, reinforcements, recalled from the foreign war, arrive and engage the barbarians, already somewhat worn out by harassment from the princess's squad and other small armies and guerilla. Still, the masssive battle is pretty rough, and the main force of the ladyknight order has to join in to help divide the barbarian army. Many get killed, mostly among the older generation, as they were usually at the front lines. In the end, the barbarians are routed. The most heroic ladies among those who fell in that battle become venerated and admired throughout the land. A lot of noble ladies are inspired by their deeds, and being a member of the order becomes a very respectable thing, a true sign of virtue. During peaceful times, the order provides charity and hospitality, but being an armed lady knight is seen as a rightful duty, though usually performed by those ladies who aren't bound to their homes by family ties, like widows or nuns. Still, it's not that uncommon for young maidens to protect the peace in their homeland with a sword in hand, or seek glory in knightly quests. It's seen as something they sometimes ought to do, if their heart tells them so.

Thanks. I didn't intend it to be so long initially, just thought I'd write a quick scenario in a few lines.

Well, if goddesses are granting some benefit, then granting women the equivalent (or greater) strength of men in the defense of their families and could be one. This would explain why they stay in their homeland instead of crusading.
Another granted boon could be their fertile years are stretched longer, so long as they're martially trained and have seen combat.

Well, if we are sticking to Noble Knights, I think it isn’t too hard to say they typocally get married early, conceive a child, take a break for a year while pregnant, and then go back to adventuring.

One of the Gods grants quick and easy pregnancies? That would win a lot of converts.

It's a well thought out concept and it covers all the bases.

>tells us why lady knights exist
>their existence is feasible, since acts of heroism are almost always venerated
>tells us why the order expanded
>tells us exactly how the order goes about defending the land during a time of crisis
>doesn't Handwave men out of the equation
>keeps the women actual women instead of dudes with tits

I could believe this story. Nothing in it is far fetched or unheard of. And most importantly it does not Handwave any facts nor try to redefine the two sexes.

This is how you make female warriors work. Plus I think you ladies will find that most men love the thought of brave, competent women. We just don't like women who try to be men.

It's retarded to send female nobility out to fight when their presence doesn't give any tangible difference to the outcome of the battle, save that it increases the stakes for losing.

Just like it wouldn't make any sense to send the heir out every time there is bandits or Raiders, it makes less sense to send out the tools for creating both alliances and heirs out on patrol duty.

The situation is either such that the singke femknight will either get captured due to unforeseen circumstances or everything is as expected and the local garrison can handle it.
If things are uncertain, prepare for siege and wait for reinforcements to return.

No, I’m pretty sure that’s someones fetish.

It also doesn’t make sense to have the military caste be hereditary land holding nobility either.

There is a god, and there is a group of women who are the elite warriors of this nation cause they are the chosen ones of the god.

Everything is someones fetish.That doesn't really mean anything regarding overall quality.

So a holy order of women? Yeah, sure why not.

>hurf
answer the question

I did. -4 str is irrelevant when guns exist. Knights don't use guns, so strength matters.

it does actually since the landed nobility stand to gain something from fighting and are invested the most in the countries safety where as the peasantry cannot be rewarded with lands nor can their loyalty be ensured with a proper feedback loop at the time

This is the only real arguement given, it really comes down to the fact that women are property. Women create lineage and there is enormous incentive for men to control and subjugate women as it means their line prospers at the womans expense. As a consolation prize, she is protected just like all other assets the man owns, heirs, land, wealth.

Female Knights can only make sense where a single woman trained can outweigh this importance and advantage of a single woman gentled. For that, psychologically, women have to provide an enormous benefit on the battlefield.
otherwise the solution will always be "shut up and have more kids" Even if we had equal strength to men it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

WOMEN
B
T
F
O

HOW MANY FUCKING THREADS DO YOU NEED