That’s my point. There SHOULD be females of those races. I think you’re confused on which side of the argument I am.
In WC3 there were no units representing female orcs despite female orcs dating back to WC1 (for canonical in-game appearances, lore aside, in which case it’s obviously even more elaborate.)
I was specifically responding to the debate about whether orcs reproduce sexually in the lore or not.
I don’t give a damn about female heroes or units so long as they’re not outright replacements of the male ones.
2 Likes
Then we are in full agreement.
That is, I don’t care if they’re added (so long as they’re not replacements) and I also don’t care if they’re not.
I’m indifferent to the whole thing for the most part.
1 Like
Ok then we have non-conflicting opinions rather. I would like female trolls, orcs and tauren in WC3R. Based on interviews those are at least coming for the hero units as randomly selected alternatives.
Yeah, that’s what I gathered as well.
And then someone on these forums misinterpreted it as a complete replacement and got triggered.
Actually Middle-earth is more of a reference to Midgard in Germanic/Norse mythology.
What about Azerothian men and women?
I mean I don’t care at the end of the day, I just find it funny that you’re that delicate that you get so worked up over people not sharing the same opinion that you go after the person rather than their points.
It’s a bit YourArthas of you.
Garona and Griselda were both in the very first game.
Yeah for some reason people here forget that and posit weird things like orcs reproducing asexually like this is Warhammer.
Though to be fair, Garona is only half orc and half-human/space goat, depending on wildly inconsistent origin story.
1 Like
Citation of what? XD Having plenty of women only characters in the game? Are you serious?
Yes it is relevant? Duuh? We haven’t seen plenty of the females in the Warcraft games. It’s because males are even stronger in the WoW world. Check out the Orc clans from Draenor- most of the females were raising kids and gathering herbs, while males were hunting.
Ogres? Males were participating in the arena fights and were attacking orcs on the Draenor, while females were taking care of their households.
Human? There weren’t many notable females that participated in wars. See: Anduin Lothar, King Wrynn, Varian etc.
I don’t have to write about other races, the only difference are maybe Night Elves, because plenty of their males were sleeping in the Emerald Dream during the third war(they were awakened at the end of it btw.).
Again - citation for what? He didn’t provide any arguments. If someone just says “females should be strong enough to carry bombs/rockets” and use it as an argument then I just call them trolls traightforward, because that’s not an argument.
Citation needed. 
Anyway, even if you do provide one - we already have MORE females than we had in Wc3:Roc and Wc3:TFT - female DK/DH.
This is the only lore for female ogres.
Ogre women have yet to appear in a Warcraft game, but they were just as common as male ogres when Aramar Thorne visited Dire Maul[60] and are mentioned in passing in Code of Rule.[10] The few ogre females mentioned in lore include the unnamed wife of Tharg, who died by the claws of the black dragonflight; [Gug’rokk’s Grandmother]; an unnamed young female who served King Gordok in Dire Maul; and Karrga of the Gordunni. The mysterious island of Ogrezonia is said to be inhabited by giant female ogres who are rumored to perform horrible rituals on men who happen upon their island.[61]
An [Ogre Female Mask] is available during Hallow’s End.
So I’m not sure where you’re getting that one.
The first citation is about you arbitrarily deciding there is plenty. This is an opinion, not a fact.
You’re not even disagreeing with me here when I’m arguing there is a minority of female warriors, but there are female warriors, for all Warcraft races, including humans. WoW is lousy with female warrior NPCs of all races and yes, WoW counts as Warcraft lore.
Whether you, or I, like it or not.
The second citation is about this being a bait thread.
There is no evidence to back up that claim.
And finally, you’re not disagreeing with me there. We have evidence in this very beta build showing a female DK and female DH are going to be included.
There’s also the blizzcon interview from last year where they explicitly mention adding additional female generic heroes to be included. I’ll see if I can dig it up for you.
X_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI10a1GR_jM
X_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhCNQ15ZRko
1 Like
Lcky7 can i personally ask what went through your brain cells when you were making this thread?
3 Likes
There is a lot! Night/high elven archers, hyppogryph riders, huntresses, archmages, wardens, sorceresses, banshees, dark rangers, naga witches, harpies, female demons, priestesses of the night, dryads. They use bows, spears, daggers, whips, staffs, dark/light Magic, sharp feathers, claws, short swords, knives, glaives.
Probably an activist who doesn’t even play/care about the game coming in here demanding changes because “muh representation.”
2 Likes
The night elf models look super ripped.
Even Jaina looks like she’s quite ripped tbh.
If you’re talking about how you’re disappointed that the standard units don’t have variations then I sorta get it.
I want it too.
At the same time I think that the default being one kind probably makes more sense for an RTS where being able to easily identify a unit fast is a good idea. Having too much variation can really hurt the game from a competitive level tbh.
Having the option for different skins would be cool tho, and with the option to turn it on and off.
I don’t at the end of the day you are mentally challenged so, I don’t get worked out, I just can’t deal with the fact someone can be that extremely troubled they can’t even tell what the setting of a fantasy place is =D
So for anyone else smart enough to have a complex train of thoughts…
Eastern kingdom is supposed to be medieval Europe whilst kalimdor is supposed to be America during colonial times…
fact
Is like you didn’t know steampunk for instance is based on Victorian period…
Anyways I know someone that can’t tell what’s 2+2 will not be able to understand this…
I feel sorry for you kiddo
1 Like
Says the guy that thinks Middle-earth, his example for another more grounded/realistic (but still fantasy) setting, alludes to our middle ages and not Midgard.
Sure thing, boss.
Women who fought as equals is a bit misleading tbh.
I prefer to play female characters in games, but it’s kinda annoying when people misrepresent history.
Especially when people bring up cases like Joan of Arc which is just extremely questionable and she’s a really awful and overrated example imo and was basically just propaganda incarnate out of desperation. She also most likely didn’t do anything other than hold a banner, there were professional officers and generals leading things. She was just a symbol that the French church came up with out of complete desperation because they were losing and she was most likely mentally deranged.
But there actually are real examples.
Normally tho it was out of desperation, like as a last stand.
And not as part of an actual organized army ( there’s very rare exceptions, I think that the Mongols had female cavalry archers that used even lighter bows focusing on harassing the enemy. As opposed to common belief, bows were a strongman weapon. Warbows required a ton of strength to use. They definitely weren’t a ‘’ womans weapon ‘’ at all lol… This gaming and Hollywood thing with bows being a female character weapon doesn’t reflect reality at all. Men can’t even use them without a lifetime of training… ).
But yeah most of these women in history were just fighting out of complete desperation because the main army had already been defeated and they had to defend their homes, so everyone who could stand fought.
I don’t necessarily agree tho that they were frowned upon, fighting and dying in combat was generally speaking something that was respected a great deal. Especially by soldiers who had personal experience and knew how much bravery it took, especially if you were fighting on the losing side against all odds.
There were also different cultures that valued strength above pretty much all else. The Varangians for example who were Swedish Vikings were like this, there’s a story of a woman in a village that they pillaged who was about to get violated and she fought back and killed her aggressor. And instead of killing her out of revenge the Varangians threw a celebration in her honor and gave her all of the possessions of the aggressor and buried him in an unmarked grave like a common criminal.
It’s the same with ‘’ shieldmaidens ‘’, they didn’t actually exist like in Hollywood. They were just women who had shown great bravery, like if the men were away raiding and the farm was attacked by petty bandits and the women banded together and fought them off.
There’s also a lot of misinformation being spread about them, like how people read that they found a grave with a womans body buried with weapons and therefore they think that she was a warrior. Which is complete garbage and showcases an insane amount of ignorance in regards to Old Norse culture and burial norms…
I think that’s it’s a bit strange and unfair tho how people hold these types of women up as if they were the same thing as soldiers which is what people imply when they say that ‘’ women fought historically too ‘’. It’s not the same thing, even tho it was very brave and should be held in high regard.
But women just didn’t fight in organized armies historically in the way that people are talking about it.
War was a lot about holding formations and holding ground, and I am sorry to say it but there are very few women who would’ve been capable of standing up and taking a charge or a push from the average man, or even a bellow average man.
1 Like
That’s not even necessarily true.
Women not being as capable in the specific contexts here historically is just a fact, it’s not a matter of opinion or belief.
But it was mostly out of necessity. In the end of the day numbers mattered a lot, and ofc if you could fill your army out with women just to make it bigger then people would’ve done this. They actually did in last stands when they had nowhere to run and the main army had already been defeated.
But that was out of complete desperation and just because people would rather fight than be taken slaves or just die, and a lot of people just commited suicide instead.
There’s a case where a roman army did it by eating dirt because they were so afraid of the slaughter that was to come, that’s how desperate people got.
I don’t agree that men were regarded as worth more tho.
The main reason outside of the physical aspect that women didn’t fight in armies is because a woman was far more valuable to a society than a man. Because womnen give birth… A society can’t survive with a lack of women, but it can with a lack of men because one man can impregnate an infinite amount of women, but women can only become pregnant X amount of times.
And there are good examples of how societal norms back in the day did value women and their dignity higher too.
Burning at the stakes for example was actually a relatively painless death because you went unconcious before you could even feel anything from the smoke, and these were executions favored towards women. And it was usually done privately either far away or behind closed doors.
Men on the other hand were executed in public and it was a public spectacle, being hung drawn and quartered was an exclusively male punishment and it was considered as too harsh and undignified towards women for them to be punished that way.
If you actually read up on history in regards to executions and other punishments and the mindset behind them then it becomes pretty clear that women were favored before men and that people took womens dignity and worth into more consideration than they did with men.
Men had no dignity and worth if they were a criminal, but women absolutely did and people took great care not to make a public spectacle out of punishing them.
1 Like
‘’ Recent real life archeological evidence suggests female warriors were far more common than we thought. ‘’
No… PLEASE STOP THIS.
I know what you’re talking about and I am getting very tired of this.
People who say that just because you find a grave with a womans body buried with weapon is a sign that she was a warrior are either completely ignortant about these historical cultures in question or are deliberately lying because they want to make a political point…
Most of these are from Old Norse cultures, and being buried with weapons was perfectly normal. A lot of women in particular were buried with weapons because it was believed that you took what you were buried with into the next life, so women would be buried with weapons to bring them to their husbands.
In some cases it might’ve been because they thought that she needed to defend herself too tho, like maybe there was some bad blood going on and they thought that someone might want to get her in the afterlife or something.
But regardless, this whole narrative that female warriors were somehow more common than we thought because graves with womens bodies and weapons have been found is just complete garbage and comes from people who don’t understand a thing about these historical cultures…
Edit: Also, a lot of people mistake weapons for tools.
Axes for example weren’t just weapons, they were also tools.
1 Like