Bret Devereaux

This too just seems wrong: "The game never presents the situation Eivor is in as ‘salvaging the best of a bad situation’ – rather the arrival of the Danes and Norse is repeatedly presented as an unmitigated good to the Saxons"

In many territories, we tried to depict the damage that the Danes wrought -- via Ivarr, via Rued, via Halfdan. And Eivor is indeed trying to "salvage the best of a bad situation" ... still not a forceful condemnation of colonialism, but not a celebration of it either.

As for thralls, and the slave economy -- yes, that was a very difficult subject that we do allude to but found it very difficult to address within the context of the game.

In any case, if the main thrust of your argument is that we "depict the Norse as unapologetically superior" I think that is deeply wrong, and gets more wrong as the story unfolds.

Even the early Ledecestrescire arc makes it clear that Tonna and Ivarr are oportunistic sadists, while the Saxons Ceolwulf, Leofrith, Ceolbert and Aethelsewith are pragmatic and wise, even if they're on the losing side. Here, Eivor certainly makes the best of a bad situation.

I understand this wasn't something the developers were intending to put in the narrative (which is, I should say, well written) but I think it is there. Taking out Norse slavery already puts the game deep into 'white-washing the conqueror's history' territory.

And I think the game, intentionally or not, utilizes that trope, building a contrast between the hard, strong Norse from their hard lands and hard times and the soft, weak Saxons from their soft lands.