It doesn't make any sense. Historically, defender of the faith was never a thing that existed. Gameplay wise, it punishes countries for having female rulers, which makes no sense to me.
Why are Defender's of the Faith restricted to males only?
- Thread starter User29
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Except it did, and the entire thread has been over this on multiple occasions.
Agreed.
It's either full on sexism those bigots, or it's accidental reinforcement of it and they should feel bad for doing so. I gave two options, calm yourself down as well. I'm not even a social justice warrior, more of a social awareness troll. No need to flip a table.
The HREmperor thing is a nice analogy. They put in options for a woman to be emperor with an event and now decision, that follows history. This is well done. They don't put an absolute block women emperors for any reason ever all game, with no alternative, which would be very much ahistorical due to Maria Theresa.
Passive aggressive? How much more direct and overt do I need to be? I didn't think I could be more direct - either it was done intentionally and is sexist, which I don't think happened, or it was done accidentally and is inadvertently sexist since historically women were and are DotF, and they should feel bad about it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=defender+of+the+faith
- 1
Accidental reinforcement how?
Women can't be DotF --> Sexism existed in History.
If I point out that women didn't get the right to vote at the same time as men, would that be sexist? If I then told you the year women won that right, but got the date wrong, would that be sexism?
This is at worst a mistake by the developers who, incidentally, are not here to defend themselves while you lambast them.
Could these people actually be sexist in their personal beliefs? Sure. We can't really know. But we do know what you call throwing accusations without evidence: a witch hunt.
- 2
While both sides have valid points, this argument is irrelevant to the original topic. Let's just agree that the Defender of the Faith was something that did exist historically, that women did hold it, and move on.
- 1
"Defender of the Faith" was a pretense of monarchs. GB didn't come to every single Protestant's aid after they converted. Scotland never came to any Catholic's aid. You don't get claims on all of the Levant as Spain, who still claims to be the King of Jerusalem to this day IIRC. England doesn't get claims on all of France even after they get kicked out of France, as they claimed to be Kings of France until 1800, IIRC. Defender of the Faith didn't mean anything, and it definitely didn't mean guaranteeing every single same faith country.
The original Defender of the Faith was not a pretense of Monarchs, but a title given to Henry VIII by the Pope before his breach with Rome. The Byzantine and Russian Emperors both claimed to be the protector of the church as well. It certainly meant something, but not in the way the game portrays it. Second, your last two examples were dynastic claims; they have nothing to do with DoF, so really all you've done is further discredit your argument.
You are arguing that the defender of the faith title should not give you a call to arms whenever someone is attacked. That's all well and good; it didn't seem to convey that authority historically except maybe a really tenuous application to how the Russian Empire treated the Balkans in the tail end of the eu4 time period.
Of course this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the DotF title existed or any bearing on the sex of the holder.
- 2
There is no reason why a Monarch can't be defender of Faith in European Universalis sense, even if female. Is not like she will fight during war on the field if this is the problem, the general can do the work. A Chatolic queen in a protestant england, and Isabel of Castille etc.. may want become a defender of faith. Is not like a feminist thing, is reasonable that a ruler can do this, so the devs should correct this because actually is without any reasonable thougt.
Apologies for this, but I misread 'Chatolic' as 'Chataholic' the first time I read through your post.
But, no; it's not a feminist thing, it's just the most historically accurate. Granted, the Devs also made WiH in their spare time, so I highly doubt their sexist.
Could you name an example of a non-catholic attacking a catholic nation causing Henry VIII to heroicly rush to it's defense; England's lack of interests be damned the faith needs me?
He didn't rush to the defense of protestants as a matter of principle either.
The closest thing to DoF was before the game starts; and it included orthodox nations in it (See Nikopolis and Varna).
What is depicted is purely a fantasy; in gameplay terms the title was a one time very small boost to prestige. The Ottoman Empire didn't take Russian claims of Defender of the Faith seriously at Constantinople or Kosovo did it?
Could you perhaps read the post before trying to rebuff me? I said that it means something and it existed historically, which it did, but not in the way the game portrays it (I.E: not rushing to the defense of others).
The title in the case of catholics was completely meaningless; Louis XIV claimed to be defender of the faith when actively helping the Ottoman Empire against the Catholic Hapsburg Empire; the crowned heads of Europe never took Henry VIII as defender of the faith seriously.
In the case of Russia what it reflected an ideological development; but the Tsar's claims never got taken seriously outside of Russia.
The mechanic has a lot more in common with Crusading before the timeline starts then it does with the historical ego booster; and even there it isn't a very good match.
Again, you're missing the point; it existed, and I'm agreeing with you that it isn't represent well in game.