Sexist Game or Sandbox?

[Zardnaar]

I have started playing Crusader Kings II.

The game is set around the 8th century through to 1453. The idea is to manage your dynasty through the timeframe. It's sandbox though. Tall, wide, peaceful aggressive etc.

It's a grand strategy game where you can go forth and crusade against the heathens (whoever they are) but there's a lot of RPG elements as well.

The inheritence laws favor men, and female and gay rulers have penalties on opinions with vassals and rulers.

Succession laws vary by culture but generally it's male preference or male only. Islamic rulers can have 4 wives, Vikings can enslave consorts and have children with them. A male ruler can take multiple lovers and have children with them. A female can also do the his but she is limited in the amount of kids she can have.

If your dynasty gets decimated a male seducer can have 10 or more kids and ship them off to marry Duchesses which their kids will inherit.

Women can marry matrilineal but you're generally marrying down or you have to invite males to your court to marry.

But looking at the time frame things were rough back then for women.

However.
1. You can switch the laws off before ganestart.

2. You can play as is but pick the right culture or religion to have female rulers.

3. You can focus being tolerant and change your succession laws where women inherit on equal terms (1981 IRL). This will take a while though.

4. You can become a heretic. For example you can be a Cathar and have female rulers, bishops etc.

The most common way to have a female rulers is to have no eligible makes in realms that allow female rulers or an elective monarchy where you tend to pick the best ruler based on meritocracy and convincing the other nobles to go along with it.

You can also go on crusade and pick a member of your dynasty to get the realm assuming you win it. I had a Crusader Queen with the right traits and decent combat skills. She was my Joan of Arc of Jerusalem. She could duel the men and due to her crusader Queen traits and slaughter the infidel trait she spent most of her reign fighting off jyhads and holy warring the Muslims.

So wrapping it up you can play ahistorical and a lesbian Basque or Cathar Queen can totally smack the men around and reign in her own right along with her daughter's. A Cathar ruler could holy war her way through Europe. A Basque Catholic one could fight in crusades et.

You can also smash the patriarchy by destroying the church and shattering the popes moral authority. This will make Europe a free for all heretics, holy wars, anti popes or even turning the Catholic Church into heretics if you have the Byzantines come out on top.

So sexist, sandbox or something else?

 

[cardgame]

Por que no los dos?

Nah, it's only sexist in that it depicts a time period that was sexist. Then it gives you plenty of tools to change that reality. Conclusion: not sexist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

History is misogyny. Historical accuracy isn't offensive.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

So sexist, sandbox or something else?

Yes.

Serious note: I wouldn't call it sexist.

 

[AmazonQueen]

It would be worse to pretend the realities weren't there.
It would belittle women who have and are campaigning for women's rights to look at history for rose-tinted classes.

 

[Zardnaar]

It would be worse to pretend the realities weren't there.
It would belittle women who have and are campaigning for women's rights to look at history for rose-tinted classes.

Are you referencing the option to turn the succession laws requirements off?

Mechanically in game female succession is really powerful.

Elective monarchy is really good. At least Some smallrealms. Genetic traits are really good so it tends to reward you if you get a genius daughter and she can inherit.

Genius, strong crusader Queen with good traits and abilities would be amazing.

Game can reward you for playing ahistorically

 

[AmazonQueen]

Are you referencing the option to turn the succession laws requirements off?

Mechanically in game female succession is really powerful.

Elective monarchy is really good. At least Some smallrealms. Genetic traits are really good so it tends to reward you if you get a genius daughter and she can inherit.

Genius, strong crusader Queen with good traits and abilities would be amazing.

Game can reward you for playing ahistorically

But those are optional rules, just like the option to have a dog or an elephant as monarch is optional.
The standard settings are historically accurate, mostly sexist, with a few exceptions like the Basque.
I've no problem with a game in a historical setting trying to be accurate or with it giving you the option to play in an ahistorical manner.

 

[Zardnaar]

But those are optional rules, just like the option to have a dog or an elephant as monarch is optional.
The standard settings are historically accurate, mostly sexist, with a few exceptions like the Basque.
I've no problem with a game in a historical setting trying to be accurate or with it giving you the option to play in an ahistorical manner.

Im miles behind in my CK2 due to EUIV and Stellaris.

I always try to be somewhat nice but understand you can tyrant it up.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Im miles behind in my CK2 due to EUIV and Stellaris.

I always try to be somewhat nice but understand you can tyrant it up.

Sometimes known as North Korea mode

https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Reign_of_tyranny

I've only played about 40 hours of EUIV compared to over 3000 of CK2 and over 600 of Stellaris. I have too much spare time

 

[Zardnaar]

Sometimes known as North Korea mode

https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Reign_of_tyranny

I've only played about 40 hours of EUIV compared to over 3000 of CK2 and over 600 of Stellaris. I have too much spare time

Mines reversed 3000+ EUIV, 800 CK2 mostly 2012/13.

CKs probably the better game,DLC has been a lot better.

 

[MaryKB]

It would be worse to pretend the realities weren't there.
It would belittle women who have and are campaigning for women's rights to look at history for rose-tinted classes.

I feel differently, I feel it's demeaning to those women who've suffered throughout history to turn their experiences into some modern day boy's entertainment. I feel it's empowering to create a world of equality, and correct errors of our past.

Anyway, I've only played about 15 minutes of that game, because it totally wasn't for me. I did however spend countless hours playing The Guild 2, which is a historical sandbox type game taking place in the medieval times, where you build your dynasty. In that game, you can freely choose your gender, and which you play as has absolutely no effect on your game play experience in any way. You still get married and have children and everything, who grow up and go to school and (hopefully!) work for your family businesses ... but your women can fully take over everything and do any of the jobs. Usually when playing, I left all the men in the family to be "unemployed scholars" lol!

I feel any protestations of "realism" are total BS. Poland didn't conquer the world, but in those games you can do so. None of things you end up doing really happened, it's all make believe, but I still find it so odd that men are more than willing to suspend their disbelief in countless ways to give way to their game play experience, but lose their minds when it comes to any kind of equal opportunity for women in the game.

I don't understand why Zardnaar keeps making these threads, it feels like baiting to me, similar to what Metatron used to do. I don't know what he's hoping to accomplish, but to me it doesn't feel like he's sincerely interested in expanding his horizons.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I feel differently, I feel it's demeaning to those women who've suffered throughout history to turn their experiences into some modern day boy's entertainment. I feel it's empowering to create a world of equality, and correct errors of our past.

Anyway, I've only played about 15 minutes of that game, because it totally wasn't for me. I did however spend countless hours playing The Guild 2, which is a historical sandbox type game taking place in the medieval times, where you build your dynasty. In that game, you can freely choose your gender, and which you play as has absolutely no effect on your game play experience in any way. You still get married and have children and everything, who grow up and go to school and (hopefully!) work for your family businesses ... but your women can fully take over everything and do any of the jobs. Usually when playing, I left all the men in the family to be "unemployed scholars" lol!

I feel any protestations of "realism" are total BS. Poland didn't conquer the world, but in those games you can do so. None of things you end up doing really happened, it's all make believe, but I still find it so odd that men are more than willing to suspend their disbelief in countless ways to give way to their game play experience, but lose their minds when it comes to any kind of equal opportunity for women in the game.

I don't understand why Zardnaar keeps making these threads, it feels like baiting to me, similar to what Metatron used to do. I don't know what he's hoping to accomplish, but to me it doesn't feel like he's sincerely interested in expanding his horizons.

Pretty much agree with everything you're saying

 

[Zardnaar]

I feel differently, I feel it's demeaning to those women who've suffered throughout history to turn their experiences into some modern day boy's entertainment. I feel it's empowering to create a world of equality, and correct errors of our past.

Anyway, I've only played about 15 minutes of that game, because it totally wasn't for me. I did however spend countless hours playing The Guild 2, which is a historical sandbox type game taking place in the medieval times, where you build your dynasty. In that game, you can freely choose your gender, and which you play as has absolutely no effect on your game play experience in any way. You still get married and have children and everything, who grow up and go to school and (hopefully!) work for your family businesses ... but your women can fully take over everything and do any of the jobs. Usually when playing, I left all the men in the family to be "unemployed scholars" lol!

I feel any protestations of "realism" are total BS. Poland didn't conquer the world, but in those games you can do so. None of things you end up doing really happened, it's all make believe, but I still find it so odd that men are more than willing to suspend their disbelief in countless ways to give way to their game play experience, but lose their minds when it comes to any kind of equal opportunity for women in the game.

I don't understand why Zardnaar keeps making these threads, it feels like baiting to me, similar to what Metatron used to do. I don't know what he's hoping to accomplish, but to me it doesn't feel like he's sincerely interested in expanding his horizons.

Nah no real bait. Poland didn't conquor the world, but you can also have a Cathar empire of women bishops run the show.

Or switch off the gender rules.

It would take some effort but you could make the world a better place relative to the time.

Note I'm not opposed to other genres doing different things or having things like matriarchal rules and flipping the script.

I'm running an Egyptian themed D&D game which is a lot more female empowered than say ye olde European cliche. The Pharoah is male but his great grandmother is around and she is a reborn goddess.

But if you are doing ye olde European cliche vs cliche medieval fair Europe then yeah.

CK2 is more sandboxy, grand strategy acquired taste I suppose.

I'm hopelessly out of date in CK2. Was playing Stellaris which is more freeform I suppose.

 

[red_elk]

I usually choose female character in games with 3-rd person view. If it's a strategy, gender doesn't matter.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I feel differently, I feel it's demeaning to those women who've suffered throughout history to turn their experiences into some modern day boy's entertainment. I feel it's empowering to create a world of equality, and correct errors of our past.

Anyway, I've only played about 15 minutes of that game, because it totally wasn't for me. I did however spend countless hours playing The Guild 2, which is a historical sandbox type game taking place in the medieval times, where you build your dynasty. In that game, you can freely choose your gender, and which you play as has absolutely no effect on your game play experience in any way. You still get married and have children and everything, who grow up and go to school and (hopefully!) work for your family businesses ... but your women can fully take over everything and do any of the jobs. Usually when playing, I left all the men in the family to be "unemployed scholars" lol!

I feel any protestations of "realism" are total BS. Poland didn't conquer the world, but in those games you can do so. None of things you end up doing really happened, it's all make believe, but I still find it so odd that men are more than willing to suspend their disbelief in countless ways to give way to their game play experience, but lose their minds when it comes to any kind of equal opportunity for women in the game.

I don't understand why Zardnaar keeps making these threads, it feels like baiting to me, similar to what Metatron used to do. I don't know what he's hoping to accomplish, but to me it doesn't feel like he's sincerely interested in expanding his horizons.

If a game uses a historical setting then I like it to have some degree of resemblance to history. I haven't played The Guild 2 but I did find it somewhat annoying that in The Guild you could have female bishops. Female nobles, thieves, craftswomen all would have actually existed. Female warriors, although rare, theres enough examples to make them somewhat plausible. Female priests in the Catholic Church would have to disguise their sex to be at all plausible, but an abbess or prioress could be an influential person. So long as there are decent options for female characters I don't think games in a historical setting have to pretend everything was equal.

In Pendragon (which can ignore quite a bit of history being Arthurian) I ran a campaign with male and female players and women could become knights but it was much more difficult for them. Basically son of a noble knighthood was pretty automatic, female character had to prove herself and be better than a man to achieve the same status.

 

[MaryKB]

If a game uses a historical setting then I like it to have some degree of resemblance to history. I haven't played The Guild 2 but I did find it somewhat annoying that in The Guild you could have female bishops. Female nobles, thieves, craftswomen all would have actually existed. Female warriors, although rare, theres enough examples to make them somewhat plausible. Female priests in the Catholic Church would have to disguise their sex to be at all plausible, but an abbess or prioress could be an influential person. So long as there are decent options for female characters I don't think games in a historical setting have to pretend everything was equal.

In Pendragon (which can ignore quite a bit of history being Arthurian) I ran a campaign with male and female players and women could become knights but it was much more difficult for them. Basically son of a noble knighthood was pretty automatic, female character had to prove herself and be better than a man to achieve the same status.

My feeling is I don't believe any of these games are "historical", I believe they're all fantasy. Sure there's a historical setting, but it's only a setting - and soooo much more is totally fictitious and unrealistic. What really bothers me is people seem to be willing to let changes go, but draw a line when it comes to giving women equal opportunity, it feels weird for me that this is one thing too far, you know what I mean?

Like take for example, people in Germany (or Italy, or Spain, or whatever) almost certainly didn't speak English. It's so totally historically inaccurate that English is spoken ... but that's a change made to make things relatable to contemporary gamers.

Even men didn't have unlimited freedom back then. You couldn't just walk into a church and declare yourself a priest, but these games are fantasy and let you do whatever you want (so long as you're male)

I mean, if you want to go with absolute realism, the most likely thing that you would be in the medieval time is a peasant or serf ... so if these games were "realistic" you'd plow fields for your lord all day and do nothing else. But (if you're a man), you get to pick whatever role you want to play, however you want to play it.

But heaven forfend if you're a woman and want to do the same thing!

 

[Zardnaar]

Can't disagree with any of it.

 

[Zardnaar]

My feeling is I don't believe any of these games are "historical", I believe they're all fantasy. Sure there's a historical setting, but it's only a setting - and soooo much more is totally fictitious and unrealistic. What really bothers me is people seem to be willing to let changes go, but draw a line when it comes to giving women equal opportunity, it feels weird for me that this is one thing too far, you know what I mean?

Like take for example, people in Germany (or Italy, or Spain, or whatever) almost certainly didn't speak English. It's so totally historically inaccurate that English is spoken ... but that's a change made to make things relatable to contemporary gamers.

Even men didn't have unlimited freedom back then. You couldn't just walk into a church and declare yourself a priest, but these games are fantasy and let you do whatever you want (so long as you're male)

I mean, if you want to go with absolute realism, the most likely thing that you would be in the medieval time is a peasant or serf ... so if these games were "realistic" you'd plow fields for your lord all day and do nothing else. But (if you're a man), you get to pick whatever role you want to play, however you want to play it.

But heaven forfend if you're a woman and want to do the same thing!

Depends on how fantastical the game is or if there's a baseline.

CK2 dies have a baseline. DLC adds more options, yeah women tend to have it rough.

But you can can go off the rails, there's no right way to play and due to rng and individual may make a better ruler.

If they can become a ruler in the first place. Applies to makes as well- second and third sons.

You don't really Lose the game unless your branch gets wiped out. You can reach n a tolerant elective equal rights country but bigger it is the harder it is to win elections.

 

[AmazonQueen]

My feeling is I don't believe any of these games are "historical", I believe they're all fantasy. Sure there's a historical setting, but it's only a setting - and soooo much more is totally fictitious and unrealistic. What really bothers me is people seem to be willing to let changes go, but draw a line when it comes to giving women equal opportunity, it feels weird for me that this is one thing too far, you know what I mean?

Like take for example, people in Germany (or Italy, or Spain, or whatever) almost certainly didn't speak English. It's so totally historically inaccurate that English is spoken ... but that's a change made to make things relatable to contemporary gamers.

Even men didn't have unlimited freedom back then. You couldn't just walk into a church and declare yourself a priest, but these games are fantasy and let you do whatever you want (so long as you're male)

I mean, if you want to go with absolute realism, the most likely thing that you would be in the medieval time is a peasant or serf ... so if these games were "realistic" you'd plow fields for your lord all day and do nothing else. But (if you're a man), you get to pick whatever role you want to play, however you want to play it.

But heaven forfend if you're a woman and want to do the same thing!

Its a form of fiction. You wouldn't stop fiction depicting racist or sexist societies would you?
So long as they don't glory in it (like the Gor series by John Norman) or depict it as right or to be admired, but something to be struggled against, just a different type of difficulty, it isn't a problem for me.

 

[MaryKB]

Its a form of fiction. You wouldn't stop fiction depicting racist or sexist societies would you?
So long as they don't glory in it (like the Gor series by John Norman) or depict it as right or to be admired, but something to be struggled against, just a different type of difficulty, it isn't a problem for me.

I feel it's different when you're reading a book or watching a television show, you're seeing someone else's story unfolding. And in something like The Handmaid's Tale or Twelve Years a Slave, sexist and racist societies are depicted, but you connect emotionally to the protagonist and her or his struggle against those systems (and hopefully victory too!)

But when you're playing a game, you're creating your own story. I feel a more accurate analogy for your fiction idea would be telling an author "You can't write a story about a medieval woman ruler/warrior, because that's not realistic."