I read in some posts here, that women warrior are unrealistic. Did someone throw in the "viking" card yet ?

There are few historical attestations that Viking Age women took part in warfare. The Byzantine historian John Skylitzes records that women fought in battle when Sviatoslav I of Kiev attacked the Byzantines in Bulgaria in 971

But just to go back on the game - BG3 and this thread.

When taking a step back and look at this 13 14 pages long thread - we have these 3 categories:

1. Female are just fine to have armor with legs open and buttcheek, and I want to see more skin - Male are badass and it's ok that they are covered for protection the matching the D&D fantasy theme;
2. Female are just fine to have armor with legs open and buttcheek - Male should match the female style - make them the same (I'm this category);
3. Cover both from head to toe.

It nails down to that.

The historic conversations around armors, in this thread, are a justification for the 2nd category to make it ok for men to have something like 2000 years ago Roman and bla .. or 5k ago Spartanand bla .. and we end up side tracking on that.

If this forum platform had the ability to spin a poll, I would probably add the "I don't care" as 4th category and let it run a few days until it stabilize and observe the results. The only glitch is how you make it so people only vote once. But this subject could be close reasonably fast. And that would be it - the feedback.

I will have quite a laugh if in patch 4 we all lose our pants smile (and then add em back with a hot fix - I dare you Larian smile )

Last edited by Starlights; 14/01/21 01:10 AM.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a bit, you realize the pig enjoys it.