Well, first of all the ideals of "biblical kings" already implies quite the backwards stance on this particular subject, what does the Bible tell us about the place of a woman in society, in her marriage, and the "punishment" of a rapist? That is regardless of course of the applications, interpretations, presumption and de facto state of western nobility at the time. Furthermore it doesn't take at all into account the behavior of the other, lower social classes.
Secondly, you talk about Machiavelli, but seem to imply that he had some sort of global impact on the behavior of all social classes, which is patently false, considering how the contemporary and future critics of his political work bashed him time and again. This is without going into the fact that the Prince is a purely political work that, first of all does not tackle social issues, and second of all was written as a manual to facilitate the unification of Italy, with no pretense to change society. Lastly, though this is something that is often ignored by the critics of the time (and modern) as well, Machiavelli himself, in the work, condemns cruel acts as well (again, for pragmatic reasons, since his work was not about ethics, it was about pure politics). Finally, his work has nothing to do with the subject in question.
Thirdly, you talk about the Crusades, which, again, really have nothing to do with the issue in question, not mentioning that the spiritual drive progressively waned as we move forward in time (the knights of the Fourth Crusade surely cared about what the Pope thought of them...), not mentioning that the First Crusade itself was also imbued with other political factors (dealing with the Normans, relationship with the Eastern Empire, etc.) and so forth.
Even if we forsake all nuance and correct representation of the context and take into account your examples as they are, that still doesn't deny my point: the perception of what constitutes rape today
is different from what it was in previous times of history. Because in your first statment you seemed to imply that medieval people had our same perception on the matter, which is hutterly ridiculous.
Finally, like the issue of romance in DA2, this has nothing at all to do with the topic, the argument that "if the setting is fantasy, then anything can be made up" has been already discussed in detail before. An iron age-level society of humans can follow different paths from the historical one, with both natural and supernatural factors making it diverge, but, as long as it remains a society of humans, what is the norm for iron age humans
must be taken into account, and any divergence from the norm
must be justified in the context of the setting, in order to create a realistic environment.
And again, their universe their rules, it's not pushing political agenda down your throat that they do not include things that you want included. That's more along the lines of your own entitlement.
That is not the point, I would urge you to re-read our previous discussion on the matter.
Character X lives in a fictional medieval setting.
Character X has spikey purple hair.
Do other characters have them? No.
Do other characters find it weird? No.
Do other characters even talk about it? No, he just has spikey purple hair.
Did I forget to mention that the author of Character X, in real life, is a member of a Spikey Purple Hair Activists group?
I do not care that Character X has spikey purple hair, or that an author wants to create a story with a character with spikey purple hair, they are free to do so, and the introduction of a character with spikey purple hair in itself does not automatically make a work better or worse. I care about how said character is forced with no explanation in a place where he doesn't belong to and treated by the rest of the characters and setting as if it was something normal.
