Dragon Age™: The Veilguard is a Return To Form

[TKVNC]

The main reason women were not used left and right on the battlefields in RL (once a suitable level of development of easily handled weapons was reached) is the necessity to reproduce. No nation could afford the loss of a source of new soldiers and workers. Remove the death at birth for mothers and children (with magic or technology), add enhancers for strength/speed/whatnot (again, with magic or technology) - and you get bigger armies you can throw at the enemy.

Except that's not true, anyway.

In the Middle Ages, most battles were rarely ever more than 30,000 men - often less than this by some numbers in the Early Middle Ages. Quantity has never alone been a particularly well desired trait - quality has always been more important.

The only times this changes in History is when you're forced to take what you can get, such as Jan Žižka during the Hussite Wars - but even then, women, children, and the elderly remained in the wagons with guns or crossbows.

It also takes at least 17 years +/- to make another soldier; it was never that women were too valuable, it was literally just that they are not fit for warfare.

As for Dragon Age however, there's a female elf warden in the first cutscene - interestingly, a war bow is entirely the wrong weapon for a woman - ironically a sword would be a better choice.

For broodmothers - the joining requires lyrium and magic, and is not the same as just eating darkspawn flesh or drinking blood, female wardens become immune to the possibility of turning into broodmothers.

[maidenhaver]

Is the entirety of lore in bioware games all about what can **** what?

[TKVNC]

Is the entirety of lore in bioware games all about what can **** what?

Maybe. Dragon Age Origins lore is basically can one man **** an entire nation out of petty jealousy and delusions of grandeur.

[rusty_shackleford]

Dragon Age Origins lore is basically can one man **** an entire nation out of petty jealousy and delusions of grandeur.

Ah yes.
Cailan.

[TKVNC]

Dragon Age Origins lore is basically can one man **** an entire nation out of petty jealousy and delusions of grandeur.

Ah yes.
Cailan.

Well, yes, but also Loghain.

[maidenhaver]

Did Bioware ever have good dungeons?

[SoLong]

Did Bioware ever have good dungeons?

Not sure if it qualifies as a dungeon but the mage tower during the Broken Circle in DA:O was pretty good.

In other news, Bioware claims that Failtards has crossed the 1M sales threshold. No idea if it's units shipped or units sold by retailers. Also no idea if they're lying.

Even if they're being honest it's ******* pathetic to brag about crossing 1M now, considering the game's profile and estimated costs. I'd hate to be a Bioware drone right now. EA must be ******* stewing over those sales figures.

Please EA, put them out of our misery before they ruin Mass Effect as well. ME:3 wasn't perfect (ending and storywriting in general was weaker than 1 or 2) and ME:A was ******* embarrassing (****** in particular) but if you kill the franchise now Mass Effect can be buried with a modicum of dignity intact.

[Roguey]

Did Bioware ever have good dungeons?

Durlag's Tower is a classic.

[rusty_shackleford]

In other news, Bioware claims that Failtards has crossed the 1M sales threshold. No idea if it's units shipped or units sold by retailers. Also no idea if they're lying.

Congrats on selling about 1/8th~ the number of copies needed to recoup development costs, Bioware!

[UltraFan123]

Even if they're being honest it's ******* pathetic to brag about crossing 1M now, considering the game's profile and estimated costs.

Not to mention just how long after launch did it take to cross the first million sales. lol

[logincrash]

Ah, yes, the lovely ancient elven dialect. How marvelous, like music to my ears.

[Brother Chad]

Is that Solas with hair on the left?

Lol. Lmao even.

[Xenich]

We will never have such realistic and based companions again. Only sterile woke ****.

I want to see someone take the DA:O Characters and have them do a commentary play like they did with the Mass effect crew. That would be hilarious.

[rusty_shackleford]

[TKVNC]

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but it almost seems as though they're implying the fall of Rome, and the French Revolution were good things...

What a strange thing to say.

[Cipher]

We will never have such realistic and based companions again. Only sterile woke ****.

I want to see someone take the DA:O Characters and have them do a commentary play like they did with the Mass effect crew. That would be hilarious.

Holy **** that's actually really good!

And also, that gem about ***** self-insert refusing to call the ****** necromancer by his name, saying he is, in fact, a death mage but then getting bent out of shape for someone "mIsGeNdErInG" her is peak tumblr writing.

The fact that the ***** is a self insert and even normies hate her is just gold. You can't make this **** up.

[UltraFan123]

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but it almost seems as though they're implying the fall of Rome, and the French Revolution were good things...

What a strange thing to say.

Leftard liberals seem to detest the idea of kingdoms and empires - even though that's how most leaders ruled through the vast majority of human history - and find the idea of bringing autocracies down a good thing, even if such a thing ends up as a net negative for everyone.

[A Chinese opium den]

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but it almost seems as though they're implying the fall of Rome, and the French Revolution were good things...

What a strange thing to say.

Leftard liberals seem to detest the idea of kingdoms and empires - even though that's how most leaders ruled through the vast majority of human history - and find the idea of bringing autocracies down a good thing, even if such a thing ends up as a net negative for everyone.

Both the fall of rome and the french revolution were positives for gay ****** libtards though, just not for anyone else.

[rusty_shackleford]

I assume it was made by some butthurt canadian/yuropoor because they chose the french revolution rather than the american revolution

[Rand]

I assume it was made by some butthurt canadian/yuropoor because they chose the french revolution rather than the american revolution

It would have to be a Queeb.
Nobody in real Canada gives a **** about it.
Or even knows much about it.

[Oyster Sauce]

stop trying to make queeb a thing

[rusty_shackleford]

stop trying to make queeb a thing

Going to need some proof you aren't a queeb now

[fkirenicus]

Both the fall of rome and the french revolution were positives for gay ****** libtards though, just not for anyone else.

You're projecting modern viewpoints into history - even ancient history. That's stupid. And positively wrong. Don't be stupid and wrong.
By around 500 AD there were no "gay ****** libtards" and I can assure you for people who were gay, life in the old roman empire before christianity was a far easier existence than the one they endured in both the christian empire and the mayhem that followed its fall.

[TKVNC]

Both the fall of rome and the french revolution were positives for gay ****** libtards though, just not for anyone else.

You're projecting modern viewpoints into history - even ancient history. That's stupid. And positively wrong. Don't be stupid and wrong.
By around 500 AD there were no "gay ****** libtards" and I can assure you for people who were gay, life in the old roman empire before christianity was a far easier existence than the one they endured in both the christian empire and the mayhem that followed its fall.

It was illegal to be Gay in Rome, you know - and, punishable by Death at some times during Rome's history.

Besides, the point is - the people who hated Rome, and who hated Western Europe (and still do), are likely to see it as a benefit - specifically, the Tribals.

[fkirenicus]

It was illegal to be Gay in Rome, you know - and, punishable by Death at some times during Rome's history.

Besides, the point is - the people who hated Rome, and who hated Western Europe (and still do), are likely to see it as a benefit - specifically, the Tribals.

That's, right, it was (at least periodically) - but unless there were political reasons that made you a target that could be removed effortlessly with such accusations, the worst most people had to endure was ridicule and scorn.
So, many gay people were left alone, except if they got "caught in the action", literally. A commoner that was a roman citizen normally had little to fear. However, for a noble who aspired a seat in the Senate is was of course a totally different thing. Finally, how one's contemporaries saw it depended on whether one took the "masculine" role ("penetrator") or the "femine" role (penetrated). If you were gay (or bisexual) and took on the "penetrating role", people would really not care much unless they had reason to use it as a weapon against you. If you were the one getting penetrated, people would laugh at you behind your back, questioning your personal integrity. And they would definitely use such knowledge as a weapon if they had cause to do so.
This changed fundamentally with christianity, however, both the one in the empire (more or less catholicism) and the "heretic" version the gothic invaders had picked up, called arianism. When that happened, being gay really became dangerous. For both "penetrators" and "penetrated".
At any rate, referring to these people as "gay ****** libtards" is about as sane as Taash saying "sooooo... I'm non binary". It's anachronistic and silly.

[A Chinese opium den]

Both the fall of rome and the french revolution were positives for gay ****** libtards though, just not for anyone else.

You're projecting modern viewpoints into history - even ancient history. That's stupid. And positively wrong. Don't be stupid and wrong.
By around 500 AD there were no "gay ****** libtards" and I can assure you for people who were gay, life in the old roman empire before christianity was a far easier existence than the one they endured in both the christian empire and the mayhem that followed its fall.

Shut up you gay ****** libtard, don't assume you know more than me.

[fkirenicus]

Shut up you gay ****** libtard, don't assume you know more than me.

Oh, I needn't assume. I know I know more than you. Ancient Rome was among my fields of study a stone age back, when I went to university.

[A Chinese opium den]

Shut up you gay ****** libtard, don't assume you know more than me.

Oh, I needn't assume. I know I know more than you. Ancient Rome was among my fields of study a stone age back, when I went to university.

Yeah don't talk to me you apeman. I don't even have to pretend I care about what some libs taught you about rome.

[TKVNC]

It was illegal to be Gay in Rome, you know - and, punishable by Death at some times during Rome's history.

Besides, the point is - the people who hated Rome, and who hated Western Europe (and still do), are likely to see it as a benefit - specifically, the Tribals.

That's, right, it was - but unless there were political reasons that made you a target that could be removed effortlessly with such accusations, the worst most people had to endure was ridicule and scorn.
So, many gay people were left alone, except if they got "caught in the action", literally. A commoner that was a roman citizen normally had little to fear. However, for a noble who aspired a seat in the Senate is was of course a totally different thing.
This changed fundamentally with christianity, however, both the one in the empire (more or less catholicism) and the "heretic" version the gothic invaders had picked up, called arianism. When that happened, being gay really became dangerous.
At any rate, referring to these people as "gay ****** libtards" is about as sane as Taash saying "sooooo... I'm non binary". It's anachronistic and silly.

Well, one could simply add "the progenitors of" to 'gay ****** libtards' and you've got a perfectly valid name. That said, it's the wrong group anyway, since it's actually ****.

Also, Arianism does not require "heretic" in quotations, it is textbook heresy. There's no implication, or subjective interpretation required.

As for homosexuality, it was very much prosecuted wherever it was found, people did not "look the other way" as such, people were burnt to death publically, beaten to death (if it was in the Military). Even during the Republic, when the laws were arguably more lenient - they were still fined harshly, and beaten.

A lot of people rely on poor recording of Roman law as a basis of how lenient they were, but going back as far as the "Twelve Tablets" it was illegal. There is little reason to assume this changed, only because later jurisprudence was not recorded well - especially when, once recording begins again, the exact same traditions reappear; applying Occam's Razor works well here, I think.

[fkirenicus]

As for homosexuality, it was very much prosecuted wherever it was found, people did not "look the other way" as such, people were burnt to death publically, beaten to death (if it was in the Military). Even during the Republic, when the laws were arguably more lenient - they were still fined harshly, and beaten.

A lot of people rely on poor recording of Roman law as a basis of how lenient they were, but going back as far as the "Twelve Tablets" it was illegal. There is little reason to assume this changed, only because later jurisprudence was not recorded well - especially when, once recording begins again, the exact same traditions reappear; applying Occam's Razor works well here, I think.

If looking at the military, you are absolutely correct. But this was rather because it was considered "a defeat" to get raped. The "infamia" (the one who got penetrated) would very often end up that way yes, and the penetrator would receive punishment for disobeying orders and weakening morale. And in some cases end up with the same fate as the "infamia".

Remember, they did not speak in the terms of "homosexual" and such words - these are in themselves anachronistic.

But a wealthy senator who had slaves could very well in the confines of his home rape both male and female slaves as he pleased, generally without fear of being punished for it (but people would talk about his back, as people have done through all ages, and still do today). Prostitution existed, both female and male prostitutes. Used by both males and females, though evidence suggests a far greater taboo on lesbian intercourse than on gay intercourse. This did not necessarily happen in bath houses, as many believe were "brothels" by today's standards, but it could occur there as well. There were de facto brothels; in fact, one is open for visit in Pompeii if one wants to see with one's own eyes. Keep in mind people were smaller than many are today, so mind your head.
And as long as one was the "penetrator" ("the one showing strength") and not the one getting penetrated ("the infamia") , among the populace one had a far more safe existence before the christian roman empire, than after it was established (and lost to invaders after that again).