Owlcat PLEASE let me romance the Sister of Battle

[TheComedicCommunist]

It isn't fair you can't just have her in the game and not let me you are violating my human rights please fix this oversight ASAP

[Narky]

Originally posted by XartaX:

Originally posted by Black Magic:

Never said they can't; my point was their lives are so religiously devout that the chances of them actually settling down are next to none.

Adepta Sororitas are not "ordinary women"—Argenta, for example, goes into a state of psychosis when battle rears its ugly head. Abelard flat out has to talk her out of it because she was willing to shoot every one present when you first meet her, regarding everyone as targets - albeit, part of that is due to the fact there was a sudden attempt at a coup and friends had turned into foes, leading to the confusion.

Religious furor to that depth of extreme is far from normal, which, again, lends to the possibility of her settling down with a Rogue Trader (the title itself being dubious because a lot of Rogue Traders in 40k are borderline heretics) is next to none. Her not being a romance option is actually pretty sensible from a lore standpoint.

You don't have to "settle down" to have a relationship or get married.

When you explore all of her dialogue options, she's very thoroughly clear that she's 100% happy about the life she has chosen. She doesn't like you back.

[Solomon Kane]

Originally posted by Black Magic:

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

Exactly so, so why is the idea, that if, they can and have fallen to Chaos, which is actually and totally something that is forbidden by penalty of death, that they do not have a loved one and children? This is not at all forbidden either.

Never said they can't; my point was their lives are so religiously devout that the chances of them actually settling down are next to none.

Adepta Sororitas are not "ordinary women"—Argenta, for example, goes into a state of psychosis when battle rears its ugly head. Abelard flat out has to talk her out of it because she was willing to shoot every one present when you first meet her, regarding everyone as targets - albeit, part of that is due to the fact there was a sudden attempt at a coup and friends had turned into foes, leading to the confusion.

Religious furor to that depth of extreme is far from normal, which, again, lends to the possibility of her settling down with a Rogue Trader (the title itself being dubious because a lot of Rogue Traders in 40k are borderline heretics) is next to none. Her not being a romance option is actually pretty sensible from a lore standpoint.

I certainly agree to every point made here, and no, they are not ordinary woman, they are very dogmatic, as the RK can be too, invoking holy powers, outright countering a chaos ritual in the making or a chaos power invoking chant, as it happens in the game.

They are not, different like Space Marines though, neither is the rogue trader.

I guess my argument was not directed at you really, but at mister helldiver to read, for fact is, supported by published works, that they do have romantic relationships which includes having intercourse, so eh, having a loved on longterm and or children, which is not forbidden at all, seems rather logic to me, some might not want to, but some certainly might and can.

[Solomon Kane]

Originally posted by Black Magic:

Originally posted by XartaX:

You don't have to "settle down" to have a relationship or get married.

When you explore all of her dialogue options, she's very thoroughly clear that she's 100% happy about the life she has chosen. She doesn't like you back.

She might not like the RK in a romantic way, but calling him friend, calling him light of the emperor and a honor to follow his lead, seems to me that she does like him, and is a bit of his fangirl too.

Edit: Also in Act three her faith is actually faltering, and it is the RK that can support her then, which only enforces her in depending on the RK as someone she follows, trusts and looks up to in his service to the Empire and the Emperor. Which she also, tells him mind you.

[Helldiver]

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

@ Helldiver

You assume they do not have longterm relationships.

They don't, you've proven nothing, not even Cain's Last stand establishes this. It simply states she was in a relationship with another teacher.

That doesn't establish that they are married or have children as you are implying.

Two, I conceded that Sisters that aren't in a Militant Oder busy killling enemies of the imperium may have relationships, including Sisters that may be retired.

That's all the lore states. You nor anyone, and none of my sources state otherwise. I conceded that by the scant lore we have, and the fact that Argenta's order isn't a Militant one, that I don't see why she shouldn't be a romance option.

So I need to repeat that?

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

First you demanded of me proof they are not Nuns and Celibate,

I never said they are Nuns or Celibate. I made a post further back that GW has portrayed them as nuns with guns. I never said the lore states they are nun or celibate. On the contrary. You are putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

I provided, now you continue, switching your argument to " it is just one book " and " but they cannot have longtterm relationships nor children " How about you show actual valid material that proofs that they do not? Otherwise it is just your personal opinion, not backed up by any Lore at all.

And it's Solomon Kane's opinion that they have long term relationships, based on one passage in one book that doesn't necessarily establish that. You made that conjecture, in this post and in the post prior.

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

Is it forbidden for them to have children and longterm relationships? No, it is not.

I've never said that it's forbidden, I've said I've not seen that in the lore and neither have you.

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

Guess what, if people have sex, that can lead to pregnancies, love and devotion can also, and certainly, go hand in hand. Nothing, ever published, says it never happened or happens, you just continue to argue, because you want to get your viewpoint through, demanding evidence, but not delivering any of your own,.

This is your conjecture based on what you want them to be. Hey more power to you. As I posted earlier, Argenta should have been a short term relationship. Nothing long term as some suggested earlier in the thread.

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

One Sister might not want to, certainly, that does not mean, every Sister is a clone and robot acting the very same, people are different, in a universe where sisters have been falling to chaos too, why would there not be sisters that have children and a loved one somewhere out there? Oh? Only because YOU do not think so? Sorry, but that is no reason that makes it true.

This is your strawman, I never said anything of the sort. I've said it and will repeat it again, you've used one source split it into 3 at one point, to suggest Sisters of Battle marry, have husbands and children. That one source does not mention this, aside from a Sister Jullien (a retired teacher) being in a relationship with one of the teachers. Amberley doesn't elaborate and the book doesn't either. However the way that anecdote is written is meant to imply that it's a fling as the Sister Julien is characterized as the sort that drinks wine, partakes in card games and isn't the stoic, pious sort Sisters of Battle are characterized as.

In my other replies just before this I mentioned: There is no reason why Argenta should not be allowed a fling or short term relationship with the player. Given A, she's not really from a militant order, i.e. she probably has a lot of free time. And B as per demonstrated in Last Stand, Argenta could have a short term fling with the player as she is still on a crusade/mission.

[Solomon Kane]

Originally posted by Helldiver:

They don't, you've proven nothing....

Neither did you

[XartaX]

Originally posted by Black Magic:

Originally posted by XartaX:

You don't have to "settle down" to have a relationship or get married.

When you explore all of her dialogue options, she's very thoroughly clear that she's 100% happy about the life she has chosen. She doesn't like you back.

Incorrect.

[XartaX]

Originally posted by Helldiver:

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

@ Helldiver

You assume they do not have longterm relationships.

They don't, you've proven nothing, not even Cain's Last stand establishes this. It simply states she was in a relationship with another teacher.

That doesn't establish that they are married or have children as you are implying.

Two, I conceded that Sisters that aren't in a Militant Oder busy killling enemies of the imperium may have relationships, including Sisters that may be retired.

That's all the lore states. You nor anyone, and none of my sources state otherwise. I conceded that by the scant lore we have, and the fact that Argenta's order isn't a Militant one, that I don't see why she shouldn't be a romance option.

So I need to repeat that?

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

First you demanded of me proof they are not Nuns and Celibate,

I never said they are Nuns or Celibate. I made a post further back that GW has portrayed them as nuns with guns. I never said the lore states they are nun or celibate. On the contrary. You are putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

I provided, now you continue, switching your argument to " it is just one book " and " but they cannot have longtterm relationships nor children " How about you show actual valid material that proofs that they do not? Otherwise it is just your personal opinion, not backed up by any Lore at all.

And it's Solomon Kane's opinion that they have long term relationships, based on one passage in one book that doesn't necessarily establish that. You made that conjecture, in this post and in the post prior.

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

Is it forbidden for them to have children and longterm relationships? No, it is not.

I've never said that it's forbidden, I've said I've not seen that in the lore and neither have you.

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

Guess what, if people have sex, that can lead to pregnancies, love and devotion can also, and certainly, go hand in hand. Nothing, ever published, says it never happened or happens, you just continue to argue, because you want to get your viewpoint through, demanding evidence, but not delivering any of your own,.

This is your conjecture based on what you want them to be. Hey more power to you. As I posted earlier, Argenta should have been a short term relationship. Nothing long term as some suggested earlier in the thread.

Originally posted by Solomon Kane:

One Sister might not want to, certainly, that does not mean, every Sister is a clone and robot acting the very same, people are different, in a universe where sisters have been falling to chaos too, why would there not be sisters that have children and a loved one somewhere out there? Oh? Only because YOU do not think so? Sorry, but that is no reason that makes it true.

This is your strawman, I never said anything of the sort. I've said it and will repeat it again, you've used one source split it into 3 at one point, to suggest Sisters of Battle marry, have husbands and children. That one source does not mention this, aside from a Sister Jullien (a retired teacher) being in a relationship with one of the teachers. Amberley doesn't elaborate and the book doesn't either. However the way that anecdote is written is meant to imply that it's a fling as the Sister Julien is characterized as the sort that drinks wine, partakes in card games and isn't the stoic, pious sort Sisters of Battle are characterized as.

In my other replies just before this I mentioned: There is no reason why Argenta should not be allowed a fling or short term relationship with the player. Given A, she's not really from a militant order, i.e. she probably has a lot of free time. And B as per demonstrated in Last Stand, Argenta could have a short term fling with the player as she is still on a crusade/mission.

If it's not forbidden it would be insane to claim that it doesn't happen (heck even if it was explicitly forbidden you'd expect outliers). Considering how many millions of people we are talking about here. At that point it's just a number's game.

[Helldiver]

Originally posted by XartaX:

If it's not forbidden it would be insane to claim that it doesn't happen (heck even if it was explicitly forbidden you'd expect outliers). Considering how many millions of people we are talking about here. At that point it's just a number's game.

Right, but then by that metric we may as well water everything down then. All companions should be romanceable sans Pasqual maybe. If we're going to imply "there are thousands of Orders, billions of humans therefor by odds alone XYZ happens" that's borderline gambler's fallacy.

[Marauder]

Originally posted by Helldiver:

Originally posted by XartaX:

There is nothing about her in the game that makes her fit more into Militant orders. Non-Militant doesn't mean unarmed and not dangerous. It just means they aren't fighting on the front lines in wars as an order (they do send fighters to the frontline, but those are often more individual units. In Pronatus case, they might send a battle-sister wearing a powerful relic to sway the tide of battle).

Yeah, like I said, in my edit, I agree.

Although I tend to lean more towards a fleeting romance, not a long term thing as someone suggested earlier.

1. As you said, she's order Prognatus not Militant. Whom are usually stationary and not directly military. They do get training and all though. So that argument being brought up is fairly moot.

2. Argenta, when talked to her in game you'll quickly find out she has no purpose or role anymore. She was lost in the Warp for decades so her role has already been taken over by someone else, and she has no place to go back to either. Which is why she's following us around and has so much free time on her hands. So even a long term commitment is very much a possibility.

3. Fairly sure we have enough artifacts for her to "Guard", especially with us likely building out Foulstone. Hell we'd likely have enough to support an entirely new branch of Ordo Prognatus.

[Helldiver]

Originally posted by Marauder:

2. Argenta, when talked to her in game you'll quickly find out she has no purpose or role anymore. She was lost in the Warp for decades so her role has already been taken over by someone else, and she has no place to go back to either. Which is why she's following us around and has so much free time on her hands. So even a long term commitment is very much a possibility.

I'm to far from that point to go back and copy out all she said. So now I'm a little confused about her. The player questions her about this very thing. I believe it was sometime after you do the cult thing in Footfall and speak to the priest. When you return to the ship new dialogue options open up and nearly each one she goes on about her fervent resolve. You can even ask her if she's thought about leaving that life and settling down to which she replies never as that would show weakness.

I may start a new game so I can copy out all the dialogue options.

[XartaX]

Originally posted by Helldiver:

Originally posted by XartaX:

If it's not forbidden it would be insane to claim that it doesn't happen (heck even if it was explicitly forbidden you'd expect outliers). Considering how many millions of people we are talking about here. At that point it's just a number's game.

Right, but then by that metric we may as well water everything down then. All companions should be romanceable sans Pasqual maybe. If we're going to imply "there are thousands of Orders, billions of humans therefor by odds alone XYZ happens" that's borderline gambler's fallacy.

You are conflating arguments. Argenta shouldn't be romanceable because sororitas engage in romance. That just means there's nothing barring the way for a romance with her because she is a sororitas. Argenta should be romanceable because that was the original intention behind the character.

[XartaX]

Originally posted by Helldiver:

Originally posted by Marauder:

2. Argenta, when talked to her in game you'll quickly find out she has no purpose or role anymore. She was lost in the Warp for decades so her role has already been taken over by someone else, and she has no place to go back to either. Which is why she's following us around and has so much free time on her hands. So even a long term commitment is very much a possibility.

I'm to far from that point to go back and copy out all she said. So now I'm a little confused about her. The player questions her about this very thing. I believe it was sometime after you do the cult thing in Footfall and speak to the priest. When you return to the ship new dialogue options open up and nearly each one she goes on about her fervent resolve. You can even ask her if she's thought about leaving that life and settling down to which she replies never as that would show weakness.

I may start a new game so I can copy out all the dialogue options.

As said earlier, you don't need to "settle down" to be in a relationship/marriage. And if anyone can facilitate an active lifestyle it's a Rogue Trader.

[Helldiver]

Originally posted by XartaX:

Argenta should be romanceable because that was the original intention behind the character.

Oh? I didn't follow the development of the game. Care to elaborate?

All my interactions with her lead me to believe the opposite. Was she changed completely including voice lines?

[XartaX]

Originally posted by Helldiver:

Originally posted by XartaX:

Argenta should be romanceable because that was the original intention behind the character.

Oh? I didn't follow the development of the game. Care to elaborate?

All my interactions with her lead me to believe the opposite. Was she changed completely including voice lines?

One of the devs (Starrok iirc) mentioned on the discord that the lack of an Argenta romance was not because of the character author's vision or budget constraints. Hence why everyone is basically pinning it on GW.

[Innominatam]

There is no official statement on why she isn't, we do know Owlcat wanted her to be and it wasn't due to the fact they didn't have the money or couldn't again they wanted to.

While they never claimed it was GW who said no for whatever reason.

It does make sense it was GW, anyone who knows how they operate knows they are extreme dictatorship with the IP, they will control every thing down to the smallest matter.

Now why they told Owlcat no? would be the question but it being GW is the only logical conclusion knowing Owlcat could and wanted to.