Sounds like you're ready to name and shame, which certainly isn't the point of this thread.
Well people are making it pretty hard not to. When we have people arguing that werewolves being an actual thing and that they would have less ramification in 19th century Britain than racial equality, I can't help but laugh and question the sanity of someone who made such an argument. The medical and scientific ramifications alone would have completely changed the British Empire far more than racial equality ever could. Not to mention the restructuring of the poor and middle class, many will become food and many more will turn, and it's not like the comics and cartoons in which scientist find a 'cure'. We're talking generations of werewolves taking over the major cities. The night life of the British Empire would disappear almost entirely. Night shift jobs are no longer a thing, income dwindles, crime rate increases, fear and paranoia, mob mentality for those they perceive as a werewolf even if it isn't true.
Personally, I thought the diversity in DAI was refreshing. Instead of relying solely on the elves to portray issues of race/diversity, they crafted good human characters of different races. They also didn't harp on the races of some (Viv), she was just a POC in a position of power and no one (IIRC) thought it was strange or commented negatively about it, which was great. I hope more devs do the same.
But DAI is a fictional world where the devs could build its history, politics, and social classes. They did not have to (choose to) work within the bounds of established history, and as such had more freedom to do what they wanted. Which is not to say that devs absolutely have to stick to history, but if that's their goal I don't see it as an illegitimate reason to emulate the setting they want.
And neither has RAD. 1886 sticks to established history about as much as Bloodborne as in it takes place in a fictional world that resembles Victorian era London, that's where it starts and ends, the world is fictional this is evident by the liberties they've taken. Once you start taking too many liberties you can no longer make the argument that they're sticking to "established history" because what they choose to keep or change is completely arbitrary.
And before someone accuses me of yet more bullshit: I know minorities existed in Victorian London. I am only questioning the likelihood of a minority being represented in a group of English royalty/knights
.
Females were of low status in Victorian era unless they were of noble rank and if they were, they would have never been on the front line along side men. At best she would have been a glorified secretary and at no point would be handling weaponry fighting alongside men. You guys might want to read up on women in the Victorian era, they were barely a ring above servants. Hell getting married meant they no longer had control over their body and became their husband's property. If the family didn't have a servant (basically vast majority of people) then the women did the jobs that servants would do.
So unless this alternate timeline accuracy ignores the rampant sexism and struggles of women of that time period, then a new question arises, why is the rampant sexism ignored but the idea of racial diversity is breaking the 'grounded rules'.
Going by the many arguments being levied in here, there better be a damn good explanation as to why they've conscripted a female (when there were no notable female soldiers of high rank in the British Army at the time...which is the argument someone used in this thread against having a minority character). Then if there is an explanation given that completely goes against established history, then the same can be done for minority character and in fact having a minority character would make more sense at that point from a established history standpoint. Many military personnel of high rank had servants. It wouldn't be hard to imagine during war time against rebels and bloody werewolves that a servant went from serving to fighting alongside said soldiers, and would make much more sense from an 'established history' perspective than a woman fighting along side them.
No one questions a female character being part of the team, but the moment someone suggests a minority character people start doing mental gymnastics and crying 'established history' as some sort of counter argument. That same 'established history' that makes a female character questionable as hell.
*zzzzzzz*
And for the record, I'm completely fine with both a female character and/or a minority character because I realize that the world they created is fictional and a hilarious amount of liberties were taken with the setting.