PDA

View Full Version : Female Armor. Any Explanation?



Pages : [1] 2

8BitNinja
2016-12-07, 04:02 PM
I'm kind of pissed off about female armor. I can't believe armor designers would screw over an entire gender with their trade.

Women get the same protection as men, but while men have to wear massive, bulky armor, women get to wear a mail bikini. Do you know how much an encumbrance plate is? I wouldn't wear it if there was a lighter variant for men.

So why are women protected so well by barely anything, while men have to wear an entire steel mill's worth of metal for protection?

If you haven't gotten it by now, this thread is a joke, so don't take the opening comment too seriously.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-12-07, 04:09 PM
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02421/zardoz_2421582b.jpg

Cernor
2016-12-07, 04:11 PM
What on earth are you talking about? I thought real men charged into battle wearing naught but a kilt! And occasionally sandals. I can't believe there are men so insecure in their masculinity that they'd feel the need to hide behind, as you so eloquently put it, an entire steel mill's worth of metal!

AvatarVecna
2016-12-07, 04:28 PM
I'm kind of pissed off about female armor. I can't believe armor designers would screw over an entire gender with their trade.

Women get the same protection as men, but while men have to wear massive, bulky armor, women get to wear a mail bikini. Do you know how much an encumbrance plate is? I wouldn't wear it if there was a lighter variant for men.

So why are women protected so well by barely anything, while men have to wear an entire steel mill's worth of metal for protection?

If you haven't gotten it by now, this thread is a joke, so don't take the opening comment too seriously.

The whole 'chainmail bikini' thing isn't realistic, but then again nothing else is either. Still, there's time where I wish designers (and the art team) would actually design "females in armor" rather than "females in armor". Earlier today, I was looking for a nice image to go with my scythe-wielding death paladin decked out in full plate. As you can imagine, death-themed full plate isn't super-difficult to find, but apparently adding the scythe makes such an image too hard to find. I eventually settled for two pictures: this one (http://kekai.weebly.com/uploads/5/4/7/6/5476798/6540425_orig.jpg) for the armor, and this one (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/47/3f/28/473f2891c5cddebefbb9bba0e3b35ae3.jpg) for the "weapon on horse that also has armor in it, but not good armor". But those were found after wading through quite a few image results for "female plate armor scythe", like:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/41/74/45/4174455d39960bdaa74b5e00e090a5ce.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b1/97/fc/b197fca6fcf9b8ec2a5056b992371f53.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gacMOLT1pNQ/T5oVG_UcbrI/AAAAAAAAFL8/tzuVPqlta0k/s1600/Female+Vampire+Knight+by+sci+fi+fantasy+concept+ar t+design+steampunk+costume+demon+hunter+elf+sexy+f emale+sickel+scythe+by+reaper78.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/70/e4/5e/70e45eb0ba8550abf006347ee48c2cae.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1f/9d/c2/1f9dc2fc01546c56ebecc471bbbaf671.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/db/a1/5c/dba15c793e006a6335aa2709334e8409.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/7b/ed/2b/7bed2b9f88c9338caadb1b6853568de3.jpghttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-tDZEL7JIVt0/VqFnuD_R_EI/AAAAAAAAANM/LJtXu4x-dxo/w450-h628/5801244_20131021120812.png

You know what, when I usually build this character, they don't have armor at all, so I can be flexible on the armor, it doesn't have to be plate, but many of these are barely even wearing clothes! Ugh...

Lord Raziere
2016-12-07, 04:29 PM
Tch. Wimps. Kilts are for cowards, real warriors learn martial arts to tough their skin up until it becomes harder than steel then acquire regeneration. Honestly, parrying is just a scrub's way of taking it head on. Dodging is for losers who can't take a hit. Armor is admitting you've already lost because you have to hide in a makeshift turtle shell to even survive a fight for either gender. The whole question is irrelevant really.

Millstone85
2016-12-07, 04:32 PM
It is simple. There are more gods than goddesses among the deities of war. In addition, the former are usually straight or closeted while the latter are openly lesbian. Thus, female warriors gain a great degree of protection from the divine gaze.

Jormengand
2016-12-07, 04:38 PM
It is simple. There are more gods than goddesses among the deities of war. In addition, the former are usually straight or closeted while the latter are openly lesbian. Thus, female warriors gain a great degree of protection from the divine gaze.

Not to mention the divine gays. :smalltongue:

Anonymouswizard
2016-12-07, 04:56 PM
What on earth are you talking about? I thought real men charged into battle wearing naught but a kilt! And occasionally sandals. I can't believe there are men so insecure in their masculinity that they'd feel the need to hide behind, as you so eloquently put it, an entire steel mill's worth of metal!

Kilts? Real men wade into battle with nothing but their mighty sword!

Or is that the bedroom? I forget.

In all seriousness though, am I the only person out there who finds a woman in full gothic plate sexier than one in a chainmail bikini? Because I don't know why, but the idea of a woman who can legitimate kick my arse turns me on more than a woman wearing a paladin themed stripper's costume. I can't tell you how happy I am that in Dragon Age Origins I can make a female human warrior and stick her in massive gothic plate, and there's no boob bumps at all, the armour is just slightly thinner than on men and looks functional.

JustSomeGuy
2016-12-07, 05:05 PM
Judging by those pictures, the entire steel mill was used up on the scythes already.

AvatarVecna
2016-12-07, 05:09 PM
Kilts? Real men wade into battle with nothing but their mighty sword!

Or is that the bedroom? I forget.

In all seriousness though, am I the only person out there who finds a woman in full gothic plate sexier than one in a chainmail bikini? Because I don't know why, but the idea of a woman who can legitimate kick my arse turns me on more than a woman wearing a paladin themed stripper's costume. I can't tell you how happy I am that in Dragon Age Origins I can make a female human warrior and stick her in massive gothic plate, and there's no boob bumps at all, the armour is just slightly thinner than on men and looks functional.

It does it for me a bit too. :smallcool:

But as far as armor goes, functionality is important. Looking super-sexy while wearing basically nothing means you're not looking as cool or as badass as you could be if you were wearing something even a bit more functional. It doesn't have to be much, but a chain shirt instead of a chainmail bikini isn't asking much, right?


Judging by those pictures, the entire steel mill was used up on the scythes already.

Lol, that's a fair assessment. :smalltongue:

Oneris
2016-12-07, 05:13 PM
Because male armor is designed to appeal to males, and female armor is also designed to appeal to males. Guys like to project into a super masculine figure, and they like staring at underdressed feminine figures, particular the backside if it's a 3rd person game. I'd hazard that 1st person shooters and other games have a much lower ratio of ridiculously heavy male armor to ridiculously revealing female armor.

Kiero
2016-12-07, 05:18 PM
As far as the ancient Greeks were concerned, real men fought naked (and oiled) because they were proud of their bodies and keen to show them off. For sport, at least.

Obviously in war you went armoured.

VoxRationis
2016-12-07, 05:30 PM
The whole 'chainmail bikini' thing isn't realistic, but then again nothing else is either. Still, there's time where I wish designers (and the art team) would actually design "females in armor" rather than "females in armor". Earlier today, I was looking for a nice image to go with my scythe-wielding death paladin decked out in full plate. As you can imagine, death-themed full plate isn't super-difficult to find, but apparently adding the scythe makes such an image too hard to find. I eventually settled for two pictures: this one (http://kekai.weebly.com/uploads/5/4/7/6/5476798/6540425_orig.jpg) for the armor, and this one (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/47/3f/28/473f2891c5cddebefbb9bba0e3b35ae3.jpg) for the "weapon on horse that also has armor in it, but not good armor". But those were found after wading through quite a few image results for "female plate armor scythe", like:


Why are the scythes all so big? Does that make them really that much better at being scythes?

AvatarVecna
2016-12-07, 05:31 PM
As far as the ancient Greeks were concerned, real men fought naked (and oiled) because they were proud of their bodies and keen to show them off. For sport, at least.

Obviously in war you went armoured.

Waitiaminute...

...are you saying that "300" was historically innaccurate?!! :eek:

ComradeBear
2016-12-07, 05:33 PM
Because male armor is designed to appeal to males, and female armor is also designed to appeal to males. Guys like to project into a super masculine figure, and they like staring at underdressed feminine figures, particular the backside if it's a 3rd person game. I'd hazard that 1st person shooters and other games have a much lower ratio of ridiculously heavy male armor to ridiculously revealing female armor.

*mumbles something about overwatch and booty*

Granted, my wife usually chooses to be a skimpily dressed femme-fatale when she plays, so I don't think it's as simple as "guys like armor and naked chicks."
I also have female artist friends who usually draw their females as somewhat skimpily armored and sexy. So some ladies like to be deadly and sexy at the same time, IME.

As with most things, I tend to say that this summary is not accurate and somewhat dismissive. Just my 2cp. Don't really wanna start a fight about it, tho.

AvatarVecna
2016-12-07, 05:34 PM
Why are the scythes all so big? Does that make them really that much better at being scythes?

I dunno, is a greatsword really any better than a longsword? It's only a bigger version of a normal sword.

Bigger weapon means more weight behind the blow. That kinda thing matters for weapon-wielders. Of course, too big and they become unwieldy, which most of these scythes would be I imagine. So yes, the images full of scantily-clad women going to battle wearing a stripper uniform are even less functional than originally proposed!

Cernor
2016-12-07, 05:34 PM
Kilts? Real men wade into battle with nothing but their mighty sword!

Or is that the bedroom? I forget.

Ji'e'toh dictates that more honour is earned in battle by touching a foe with your open hand than by killing them... Wonder how much honour slapping them in the face with your "mighty sword" is worth?

However, the benefit of kilts is that they let you flaunt your manhood status as a warrior in a socially acceptable manner, while remaining easy to remove in case you want to ditch it on the battlefield.

Anonymouswizard
2016-12-07, 05:41 PM
Because male armor is designed to appeal to males, and female armor is also designed to appeal to males. Guys like to project into a super masculine figure,

Speaking as a man, personally I take masculine because I fail at fabulous.


and they like staring at underdressed feminine figures, particular the backside if it's a 3rd person game.

Actually, from real life I've discovered that a woman's backside looks just as nice in a pair of trousers, if not better, as do men's. Call me a weird bisexual person who doesn't understand why lesbians are supposed to be hot, but why am I supposed to prefer staring at a woman's exposed arse/tits that looking at a badass warrior in badass armour. Heck, I like mail armour and scale armour, my home setting prioritises them over plate.


I'd hazard that 1st person shooters and other games have a much lower ratio of ridiculously heavy male armor to ridiculously revealing female armor.

Actually the ridiculously heavy male armour is still prominent, because they have to put something on the box so we know who we're apparently playing (otherwise I pretend it's Jim from the house next door). Less ridiculously revealing female armour, but I'm not 100% sure those games have female characters.

Oneris
2016-12-07, 06:02 PM
*mumbles something about overwatch and booty*

Granted, my wife usually chooses to be a skimpily dressed femme-fatale when she plays, so I don't think it's as simple as "guys like armor and naked chicks."
I also have female artist friends who usually draw their females as somewhat skimpily armored and sexy. So some ladies like to be deadly and sexy at the same time, IME.

As with most things, I tend to say that this summary is not accurate and somewhat dismissive. Just my 2cp. Don't really wanna start a fight about it, tho.

I'm merely attempting to make a corollary to Third Person Seductress (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThirdPersonSeductress), which is a documented trope that 3rd person games with a female player character tend to be disproportionately sexualized.

BladeofObliviom
2016-12-07, 06:38 PM
http://i0.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/lady-armor4.jpg?resize=600%2C768&type=vertical

8BitNinja
2016-12-07, 07:49 PM
I love the joke comments, but to address the "serious" ones.

I'm not asking why it exists, I don't care about that. I need to know why a mail bikini protects for women as much as wearing an M1 Abrams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams) for men.

Cluedrew
2016-12-07, 07:59 PM
Personally, what gets me is not actually the female armour, but when it is put beside much more realistic* male armour.

I usually twitch whenever I see the armour with cut a ways or impossible proportions I twitch a little. A few weeks ago I was reading a comic and a female with an over the top body and it actually took a while to register that it was borderline impossible. Then the male lead comes back into frame with his ridiculous height, shoulders so wide his upper body curls out and muscles just rippling through his shirt. Everyone in that story is over the top.

So I guess put both or neither in ridiculous armour, never one.

* Which is not to say real, but it has plausible deniability of being battle armour.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-07, 08:03 PM
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/FM_chart2.GIF


Also...

http://orig13.deviantart.net/86c6/f/2013/303/1/4/now_you_know__by_nebezial-d6sfysa.jpg

Vinyadan
2016-12-07, 08:19 PM
Tch. Wimps. Kilts are for cowards, real warriors learn martial arts to tough their skin up until it becomes harder than steel then acquire regeneration. Honestly, parrying is just a scrub's way of taking it head on. Dodging is for losers who can't take a hit. Armor is admitting you've already lost because you have to hide in a makeshift turtle shell to even survive a fight for either gender. The whole question is irrelevant really.

This reminds me of the way in which Joe Frazier seemed to block with his head during his second fight against Muhammad Ali (Ali won by judges' decision).


Waitiaminute...

...are you saying that "300" was historically innaccurate?!! :eek:

Lolz.

Cluedrew
2016-12-07, 08:29 PM
To 8BitNinja: Hand-wave. If there was a in universe explanation I'm sure the men would be using it too.

Every explanation I have seen has been... ironic commentary at best.

JNAProductions
2016-12-07, 09:19 PM
This thread makes me laugh.

georgie_leech
2016-12-07, 09:47 PM
To be clear, you're complaining that men have to wear such ridiculous amounts of metal in the name of masculinity when they could get away with wearing a few bits of chain around the groin, right? Hear hear!:smallcool:

Talakeal
2016-12-07, 09:59 PM
What on earth are you talking about? I thought real men charged into battle wearing naught but a kilt!

That's actually a common misconception.

You see, in reality the kilt was only for day-to-day wear. In battle, we donned a full-length ball gown covered in sequins. The idea was to blind your opponent with luxury.

warty goblin
2016-12-07, 10:06 PM
It pretty clearly isn't an explanation for chainmail bikinis, but women in realistic armor tend to look pretty much like men in realistic armor. Since the goal of a lot of fantasy art is to have a cool looking and identifiable character, as opposed to a suit of armor that contains some sort of mystery-person, designing the armor to reveal the sort of person wearing it isn't that crazy. I mean sure there's the odd defective person like me who goes 'ooh, fluted tassets!' or who gets annoyed by the constant depiction of vikings in scale armor, but that's probably not a large chunk of the market. Like I said, not what's going on with combat lingerie, since what's going on with that is pretty obvious. Sexy (for some value of the term) character is sexy.

Deophaun
2016-12-07, 10:10 PM
Look, have you ever tried to stick a sword in someone when you have their jubblies shak'n and bake'n right in front of you? It's down right distracting, of course you're going to miss. That's why the function of the breastplate has, historically, been to lift and separate, not this "deflect incoming blows" nonsense that's popular in the pulp fiction market.

Talakeal
2016-12-07, 11:13 PM
It pretty clearly isn't an explanation for chainmail bikinis, but women in realistic armor tend to look pretty much like men in realistic armor. Since the goal of a lot of fantasy art is to have a cool looking and identifiable character, as opposed to a suit of armor that contains some sort of mystery-person, designing the armor to reveal the sort of person wearing it isn't that crazy. I mean sure there's the odd defective person like me who goes 'ooh, fluted tassets!' or who gets annoyed by the constant depiction of vikings in scale armor, but that's probably not a large chunk of the market. Like I said, not what's going on with combat lingerie, since what's going on with that is pretty obvious. Sexy (for some value of the term) character is sexy.

Not only that, but one person looks pretty much interchangeable with one another regardless of gender. It would be a crying shame if you had put Conan in full plate when you have someone with the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime playing him.

Heck, realistic plate armor doesn't even allow you to see the persons face.

Reboot
2016-12-07, 11:29 PM
http://i0.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/lady-armor4.jpg?resize=600%2C768&type=vertical


Funny thing - even the "full armour" there isn't realistic. Too skintight for plate, especially around the belly.

Bad Wolf
2016-12-07, 11:30 PM
Obviously the answer is to put men in chainmail speedos.

Remedy
2016-12-08, 01:01 AM
Obviously the answer is to put men in chainmail speedos.
You can't leave their poor pecs exposed to danger! I recommend the full chainmail bikini for them too, despite the extra metal costs.

Anonymouswizard
2016-12-08, 07:51 AM
I love the joke comments, but to address the "serious" ones.

I'm not asking why it exists, I don't care about that. I need to know why a mail bikini protects for women as much as wearing an M1 Abrams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams) for men.

Because boobs have a mystic power.


You can't leave their poor pecs exposed to danger! I recommend the full chainmail bikini for them too, despite the extra metal costs.

You fool! A man's pecs are like a woman's uterus, they're power is greatest when uncovered!? Why do you think Conan wore naught but a loincloth?

Quild
2016-12-08, 07:58 AM
My female colleagues explained me that male are wimps, that we're in pain for a small cough and that it is scientifically proven that male couldn't stand the pain of giving birth.

So yeah, I guess female are just more resistant than us and it reflects in video games.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-08, 08:35 AM
My female colleagues explained me that male are wimps, that we're in pain for a small cough and that it is scientifically proven that male couldn't stand the pain of giving birth.

So yeah, I guess female are just more resistant than us and it reflects in video games.

Girls see more blood than boys.

Pugwampy
2016-12-08, 10:52 AM
Dont be silly . Of course there is proper armour options for girl adventurers .

Its called a Breastplate .

Kiero
2016-12-08, 10:56 AM
My female colleagues explained me that male are wimps, that we're in pain for a small cough and that it is scientifically proven that male couldn't stand the pain of giving birth.

So yeah, I guess female are just more resistant than us and it reflects in video games.

Men have a higher pain threshold, women have a higher pain tolerance. Threshold is useful for short-term, immediate pain. Tolerance for longer-term and chronic pain.

Stormwalker
2016-12-08, 12:32 PM
Given that 99% of men in fantasy art are running around with their heads unprotected, the level of "realism" to be found there is fairly lacking as well.

Besides, once you introduce "bracers of armor", does it really matter anymore? Magic armor as a force effect is a thing. If someone really wants their hero or heroine to run around half dressed (or simply decked out in the latest fashions!) they can. Avoids those nasty armor check penalties, too.

Segev
2016-12-08, 12:47 PM
I am now amused by the idea of playing my favorite game with this trope. The challenge, of course, being to design "sexy male armor" that is as revealing without looking like the guy's trying to cross-dress.

To be fair, I've seen a fair number of male armored outfits where the "armor" amounts to shoulders, upper-chest breastplate (not boobplate, but still only covering that region), and bracers and leggings. Admittedly, the guys don't have all that's not armored as bare skin; they usually have clothes or at least skin-tight leotards over it. Particularly the midriff.

But applying my favorite game to this trope would actually invert the sex of the armored characters, and leave the now-women fully armoed while redesigning the now-men's armor to not be "female bikini wear" while retaining its sexualized purpose over a more practical functionality.

Deophaun
2016-12-08, 12:48 PM
My female colleagues explained me that male are wimps, that we're in pain for a small cough and that it is scientifically proven that male couldn't stand the pain of giving birth.
I dunno. How many women have ever gotten stuck in a zipper?

Honest Tiefling
2016-12-08, 01:40 PM
I dunno. How many women have ever gotten stuck in a zipper?

Depends on how long their hair is.

But I second the Chainmail Bikni for guys! Nothing wrong with expressing your more feminine side with a bit of head chopping. Probably healthy to be in touch with all sides of our psyche after all.

Problem is, as I am very pasty and pudgy, I know that the instant an evil overlord arises I have to go sign up for his army to be killed by bronzed Adonises. Life isn't fair!

Cluedrew
2016-12-08, 02:05 PM
I am now amused by the idea of playing my favorite game with this trope. The challenge, of course, being to design "sexy male armor" that is as revealing without looking like the guy's trying to cross-dress.I liked this one impractical male armour, which basically had the character armoured in full plate from the waist down, and the shoulders out. Otherwise completely naked.

To make it worse, the character in question used twin handguns as his weapons.

There was some technobabble about how that was supposed to work, but it was obviously a joke.

Talakeal
2016-12-08, 02:12 PM
In the Dragonlance novels the gladiators in Istar where forced to wear sexy impractical armor regardless of gender. Caramon knows how ridiculous it is jokes about how he is going to keep his armor after he leaves the arena just to see his wife's reaction to him wearing sexy male armor.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ba/c9/63/bac963d0580cbb504bb8903e3a756fd3.jpg

http://step.polymtl.ca/~coyote/picturesd/dragnlnc/lance13.jpg

RustyArmor
2016-12-08, 02:50 PM
Why do this type of thread always pop up every few months?

Do you know the answer already and just being a troll or just that blind to the world around you?

Segev
2016-12-08, 02:58 PM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/83/46/55/834655f61944bea68a2f1f7fec293de9.jpg

Honest Tiefling
2016-12-08, 03:01 PM
As for that Istar armor, it looks like the green skinned woman is ignoring the giant Minotaur to try to cop a feel. Maybe that is why men don't wear this type of armor often...

Inevitability
2016-12-08, 03:15 PM
Invisible Spell is a 3.5 metamagic feat that makes a spell's results invisible to sight. Various 3.5 spells, such as Silver Dragonmail, create or conjure armor. Invisible Spell can be applied to those spells.

In other words, all 'impractical female armor' is in fact an invisible suit of full plate covering a few simple undergarments, providing full protection while appearing skimpy.

Segev
2016-12-08, 03:21 PM
Clearly, Charisma is appearance-based, and naked women are more attractive than clothed women. And women have a racial ability to add their Charisma bonus to their AC.

8BitNinja
2016-12-08, 03:49 PM
Given that 99% of men in fantasy art are running around with their heads unprotected, the level of "realism" to be found there is fairly lacking as well.

Besides, once you introduce "bracers of armor", does it really matter anymore? Magic armor as a force effect is a thing. If someone really wants their hero or heroine to run around half dressed (or simply decked out in the latest fashions!) they can. Avoids those nasty armor check penalties, too.

It's called fantasy for a reason

NecroDancer
2016-12-08, 06:54 PM
Clearly, Charisma is appearance-based, and naked women are more attractive than clothed women. And women have a racial ability to add their Charisma bonus to their AC.

That seems op, I hope they fix that in the next edition.

Nifft
2016-12-08, 08:00 PM
That seems op, I hope they fix that in the next edition.

It's balanced by their -4 Strength.

Which is obviously also why they have to wear skimpy armor: they aren't strong enough to wear full plate.

Jay R
2016-12-08, 09:54 PM
You fool! A man's pecs are like a woman's uterus, they're power is greatest when uncovered!? Why do you think Conan wore naught but a loincloth?

According to Conan, he preferred to *not* wear armor, so he could move more quickly and silently. It's worth remembering that he was (among other things) a thief, and would scale walls to get into places.

And that's actually where the nonsense about chainmail bikinis started. Red Sonja was introduced in 1973, as a female Conan equivalent. She wore a bikini just as Conan wore a loincloth. It was made of scales (not mail) as decoration, but she wasn't wearing armor; she was wearing the Comics Code minimum, made of spangly metal as decoration.

People mislabeled it as a chainmail bikini, and that started all the fuss.

It wasn't armor. It was minimal clothes, in deliberate imitation of Conan. Contrasting it with male armor is simply a false comparison.

Squiddish
2016-12-08, 09:55 PM
It's probably because all of the females you see in art have a level in barbarian so they can have unarmored defense, what little "armor" they wear is just for show.

Psikerlord
2016-12-08, 10:34 PM
Look, have you ever tried to stick a sword in someone when you have their jubblies shak'n and bake'n right in front of you? It's down right distracting, of course you're going to miss. That's why the function of the breastplate has, historically, been to lift and separate, not this "deflect incoming blows" nonsense that's popular in the pulp fiction market.

Divide and conquer! Also allows for superior skin/air contact cooling the blood quicker mid fight. Helps the combatant react faster and think sexier. I mean nakeder! I mean straighter!

warty goblin
2016-12-08, 11:01 PM
According to Conan, he preferred to *not* wear armor, so he could move more quickly and silently. It's worth remembering that he was (among other things) a thief, and would scale walls to get into places.

And that's actually where the nonsense about chainmail bikinis started. Red Sonja was introduced in 1973, as a female Conan equivalent. She wore a bikini just as Conan wore a loincloth. It was made of scales (not mail) as decoration, but she wasn't wearing armor; she was wearing the Comics Code minimum, made of spangly metal as decoration.

People mislabeled it as a chainmail bikini, and that started all the fuss.

It wasn't armor. It was minimal clothes, in deliberate imitation of Conan. Contrasting it with male armor is simply a false comparison.

Can't speak to comic Conan, but actual R.E. Howard Conan definitely wore armor on occasion. He specifically mentioned the life-saving benefits of learning to move quietly in mail.

Lord Raziere
2016-12-08, 11:08 PM
Can't speak to comic Conan, but actual R.E. Howard Conan definitely wore armor on occasion. He specifically mentioned the life-saving benefits of learning to move quietly in mail.

.......Wait, why isn't this a feat that people could learn? Like I could totally see "cancel all penalties to stealth made by Light/Medium/Heavy Armor" as being three feats or something, that could totally be useful....

8BitNinja
2016-12-08, 11:18 PM
Divide and conquer! Also allows for superior skin/air contact cooling the blood quicker mid fight. Helps the combatant react faster and think sexier. I mean nakeder! I mean straighter!

If I remember correctly, there is actually a style of fighting that might have been started, but at least it is attributed to ninjas for females where they would intentionally wear revealing clothes and stand provocatively to distract the enemy. This made for slower reaction on the target, easy escapes, and harder focus for the target. Not to mention easy mid-fight diplomacy.

Martin Greywolf
2016-12-09, 03:02 AM
.......Wait, why isn't this a feat that people could learn? Like I could totally see "cancel all penalties to stealth made by Light/Medium/Heavy Armor" as being three feats or something, that could totally be useful....

Well, not as such. Mail is, in actual fact, already silent. It doesn't clink - not unless someone slams an axe into your head, and by then, you have different problems. Since it does restrict your movements, and makes harder to crawl around on your legs and arms, a penalty is warranted, but that can be trained for. With push-ups.

As for armor skimpiness, I don't mind it that much, in certain universes. Movie!Conan is obviously a wish fulfilment fantasy, so go nuts with it, just don't forget to toss in some oiled barbarian for the ladies to ogle, too (Conan solves this brilliantly by making said barbarian the main character).

Where it gets grating is two cases: first one is a world that wants to be realistic and gritty, yet puts womenfolk in boob-plate. If you want to go gritty, go gritty, both Witcher and Game of Thrones clearly demonstrated you can do it, and still provide copious amounts of fanservice - fanservice that also serves some plot reasons and doesn't require me to completely shut off the part of my brain that knows how swords work.

Second case is found in many MMORPGs, and that is where implication of in-game mechanics are that dudes get more powerful by putting on heavy steel, and women get more powerful by putting on less and less clothes. Not only does that cause a dissonance in aesthetics, it also has some unfortunate implications that are then left unadressed, mostly because people who desinged the game don't realize they're there in the first place.

Deophaun
2016-12-09, 03:58 AM
Second case is found in many MMORPGs, and that is where implication of in-game mechanics are that dudes get more powerful by putting on heavy steel, and women get more powerful by putting on less and less clothes. Not only does that cause a dissonance in aesthetics, it also has some unfortunate implications that are then left unadressed, mostly because people who desinged the game don't realize they're there in the first place.
It's not actually steel, but a steel-testosterite alloy.

khadgar567
2016-12-09, 04:09 AM
According to Conan, he preferred to *not* wear armor, so he could move more quickly and silently. It's worth remembering that he was (among other things) a thief, and would scale walls to get into places.

And that's actually where the nonsense about chainmail bikinis started. Red Sonja was introduced in 1973, as a female Conan equivalent. She wore a bikini just as Conan wore a loincloth. It was made of scales (not mail) as decoration, but she wasn't wearing armor; she was wearing the Comics Code minimum, made of spangly metal as decoration.

People mislabeled it as a chainmail bikini, and that started all the fuss.

It wasn't armor. It was minimal clothes, in deliberate imitation of Conan. Contrasting it with male armor is simply a false comparison.
good trivia thanks mate and I think whole universe casting epic mage armor on females when they wear any type of bikini armor( for males this means universe true strike me please note).

Anonymouswizard
2016-12-09, 04:31 AM
As for armor skimpiness, I don't mind it that much, in certain universes. Movie!Conan is obviously a wish fulfilment fantasy, so go nuts with it, just don't forget to toss in some oiled barbarian for the ladies to ogle, too (Conan solves this brilliantly by making said barbarian the main character).

What, so I don't get to ogle the hunky barbarian just because I was born without a vagina? :smallfrown:

But yeah, I also think the tone matters a lot. Movie Conan is half superhero half fantasy hero, I can believe that he's so skilled that blades never get within two inches of his oiled pecs.

Pugwampy
2016-12-09, 05:11 AM
Whats the problem ? You dont hear the boy wizards complaining about wearing multi coloured dresses .

This is a fantasy game and either gender gets to kick butt so yes in a fantasy game there is approriate asthetically pleasing armour for girls in whatever colour they want and separate changing rooms

Âmesang
2016-12-09, 06:27 AM
.......Wait, why isn't this a feat that people could learn? Like I could totally see "cancel all penalties to stealth made by Light/Medium/Heavy Armor" as being three feats or something, that could totally be useful....
D&D 5th has the "Medium Armor Master" feat for eliminating Dexterity (Stealth) check disadvantages from medium armor and grants an additional +1 to AC if your Dexterity score is 16 or higher; so with it you could wear half-plate and receive the same AC as with full plate, but without the disadvantages or requisite Strength score needed.

EDIT: Although that reminds me that the other reason my drow paladin/assassin wore half-plate is because her figurine was depicted wearing only a few scraps of armor; so, she was wearing the "lesser half." :smalltongue:

Inevitability
2016-12-09, 07:03 AM
.......Wait, why isn't this a feat that people could learn? Like I could totally see "cancel all penalties to stealth made by Light/Medium/Heavy Armor" as being three feats or something, that could totally be useful....

4th edition did it for a single feat, which also eliminated all penalties armor imposes to other dexterity-based skills. A similar feat eliminated the penalties to strength- and constitution-based skills.

However, with these penalties so much smaller in 4e, they weren't really worth taking.

Joe the Rat
2016-12-09, 08:25 AM
You can't leave their poor pecs exposed to danger! I recommend the full chainmail bikini for them too, despite the extra metal costs.
The theme-appropriate upper half is to get a chainmail wife-beater (Which Ahnold movie was that? Commando?). Generous sharing of body type, plus unrestricted access to the gun show.


I am now amused by the idea of playing my favorite game with this trope. The challenge, of course, being to design "sexy male armor" that is as revealing without looking like the guy's trying to cross-dress.

To be fair, I've seen a fair number of male armored outfits where the "armor" amounts to shoulders, upper-chest breastplate (not boobplate, but still only covering that region), and bracers and leggings. Admittedly, the guys don't have all that's not armored as bare skin; they usually have clothes or at least skin-tight leotards over it. Particularly the midriff.

But applying my favorite game to this trope would actually invert the sex of the armored characters, and leave the now-women fully armoed while redesigning the now-men's armor to not be "female bikini wear" while retaining its sexualized purpose over a more practical functionality.
I have just recently discovered the Keep on the Borderlands webcomic. There's a half-orc who takes this concept to heart. His armor is specifically to avoid mosquito bites in a sensitive area. With added spikes. The other half (practical women's armor, or at least equally practical) is covered, more or less.


Can't speak to comic Conan, but actual R.E. Howard Conan definitely wore armor on occasion. He specifically mentioned the life-saving benefits of learning to move quietly in mail.And Movie Conan. The chain hauberk he ditches to go undercover? The piece-mail at the battle of the mound? If you're expecting trouble, and don't need to sneak into a cannibal rave orgy by dressing like you're with the band, you grab some armor.

I mean, it all goes out the window in the second one, but they sort of went cartoon caricature there. I can see why nobody has made another one since.

Segev
2016-12-09, 10:05 AM
Second case is found in many MMORPGs, and that is where implication of in-game mechanics are that dudes get more powerful by putting on heavy steel, and women get more powerful by putting on less and less clothes. Not only does that cause a dissonance in aesthetics, it also has some unfortunate implications that are then left unadressed, mostly because people who desinged the game don't realize they're there in the first place.

Is this actually a thing, or just something that gets bandied about? Because I haven't seen a tendency for armor to get bulkier or skimpier based on level of power. Flashiness, perhaps - more spikes or more gilding, less "worn" look - but actually more skin shown for girls based on how powerful it is?

I am not claiming to be an expert, mind. It could be. But this seems like one of those "common knowledge" claims that isn't actually true, to me.

Stormwalker
2016-12-09, 10:11 AM
Is this actually a thing, or just something that gets bandied about? Because I haven't seen a tendency for armor to get bulkier or skimpier based on level of power. Flashiness, perhaps - more spikes or more gilding, less "worn" look - but actually more skin shown for girls based on how powerful it is?

I am not claiming to be an expert, mind. It could be. But this seems like one of those "common knowledge" claims that isn't actually true, to me.

Most of the MMO's I have played have both full-coverage ffemale armor and skimpy female armor at most level ranges (meaning, the people wearing the skimpy armor are choosing it), and raid gear (the really high-end stuff) tends to be full-coverage more often than not. Besides, most major MMO's these days have some sort of system where you can swap the appearance of your armor out with any other armor you have and happen to like... meaning everyone gets to choose how they look.

Speaking as someone who used to be main tank in a raiding guild playing a female paladin in WoW.

On the other hand, there is Final Fantasy XI. I long ago dubbed Vana'diel as "The Land of No Pants" due to the fact that female armors rarely have any (and male armors lack them somewhat frequently as well, but not nearly to the same degree). Then again, anyone who associates "Final Fantasy" with "realistic equipment" is clearly confused, so this is par for the course there...

GungHo
2016-12-09, 10:15 AM
I dunno, is a greatsword really any better than a longsword? It's only a bigger version of a normal sword.
Of course it is. It says so in the name. It's a greatsword. The other one is just long. Who wants one of those?

Khedrac
2016-12-09, 10:46 AM
I only played 2 MMOs, but they were definitely the big ones of their day - EverQuest and World of Warcraft.

EverQuest very much had the 'less is more' armour trope, but it applied to both make and female characters (though probably slightly more to the female).
It was noticeable that putting on armour could increase the amount of skin showing compared with the 'unclothed' state (except for the infamous underwear bug).
It did very much affect both male and female characters, though I don't think it wrong to say most players being male they noticed it on female characters more.
This facet of EQ was across all armour types (robes, leather, mail and plate) though if anything the plate armour covered the least when compared to equivalent caster gear.

World of Warcraft mainly went the other way - the better the armour the more it covered (especially shoulderpads).
WoW did introduce the ability to make armour look like other sets (had to be of the same type, e.g. plate) complicating this though.
Wow also tended to keep Plate armour covering more than mail etc.

The other place to look for blame is fantasy artists (let's not even get started on Boris Vallejo). Clive Caldwell did a lot of art for TSR and he (though otherwise excellent) did like his well-endowed females. The early D&D art was very mixed, but the cover art for the Azure Bonds novel was not helpful.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/7/7d/Azure_Bonds.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070219063852

Oh well, at least Conan tends to give some balance to the issue.

Jay R
2016-12-09, 11:18 AM
Can't speak to comic Conan, but actual R.E. Howard Conan definitely wore armor on occasion. He specifically mentioned the life-saving benefits of learning to move quietly in mail.

On occasion, yes. But he often chooses not to, when skulking and not expecting a battle. Certainly in "The Tower of the Elephant" he starts in a tunic, but after it's torn in the first scene, he spends the rest of the story in loincloth, swordbelt, and sandals.


Well, not as such. Mail is, in actual fact, already silent. It doesn't clink - not unless someone slams an axe into your head, and by then, you have different problems.

Mine isn't silent. It's not very loud, but people can certainly hear it.

After all, even a cloak that swishes around can make noise.

Deophaun
2016-12-09, 11:32 AM
The other place to look for blame is fantasy artists (let's not even get started on Boris Vallejo). Clive Caldwell did a lot of art for TSR and he (though otherwise excellent) did like his well-endowed females. The early D&D art was very mixed, but the cover art for the Azure Bonds novel was not helpful.
Obviously that's recent battle damage from a fortuitous sword slash.

Segev
2016-12-09, 11:43 AM
Obviously that's recent battle damage from a fortuitous sword slash.

Ah! So the shredded "armor" that gets more and more revealing as the fight goes on is doing it's job! It's taking the hits so that the supple flesh beneath does not! No wonder it's what female warriors choose to wear: it's super-effective!

Hamste
2016-12-09, 11:54 AM
The other place to look for blame is fantasy artists (let's not even get started on Boris Vallejo). Clive Caldwell did a lot of art for TSR and he (though otherwise excellent) did like his well-endowed females. The early D&D art was very mixed, but the cover art for the Azure Bonds novel was not helpful.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/7/7d/Azure_Bonds.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070219063852

Oh well, at least Conan tends to give some balance to the issue.

I just want to note the presumably male (He isn't in a chainmail bikini and appears to be holding some kind of phallic mushroom headed sword) lizard man in the background has no pants on.

spineyrequiem
2016-12-09, 12:55 PM
Well, not as such. Mail is, in actual fact, already silent. It doesn't clink - not unless someone slams an axe into your head, and by then, you have different problems. Since it does restrict your movements, and makes harder to crawl around on your legs and arms, a penalty is warranted, but that can be trained for. With push-ups.


Have you ever actually worn mail? Because everyone I've known who's worn it is followed by a deafening jingle when running. OK, that might be partly because most of us wear chausses but still.

JadedDM
2016-12-09, 01:26 PM
Obviously that's recent battle damage from a fortuitous sword slash.
Nope, the true story is far dumber, in fact. I've read that book, and I remember it well.

There's a point in the story where the woman on the cover is kidnapped by evil cultists that intend to sacrifice her. They dress her in that armor as part of the ceremony. The idea is that the gap in the middle is where they are going to plunge the dagger that will kill her.

After she's rescued, she decides to keep that armor because...and I'm not making this up...it turns out that the armor is magical. It actually offers better protection than a real suit of chain mail.

I remember even as a kid, I was like...what? Why would the cultists make the armor magical? Wouldn't that make plunging a dagger into her heart even harder?

Segev
2016-12-09, 02:05 PM
Nope, the true story is far dumber, in fact. I've read that book, and I remember it well.

There's a point in the story where the woman on the cover is kidnapped by evil cultists that intend to sacrifice her. They dress her in that armor as part of the ceremony. The idea is that the gap in the middle is where they are going to plunge the dagger that will kill her.

After she's rescued, she decides to keep that armor because...and I'm not making this up...it turns out that the armor is magical. It actually offers better protection than a real suit of chain mail.

I remember even as a kid, I was like...what? Why would the cultists make the armor magical? Wouldn't that make plunging a dagger into her heart even harder?

I'm sure we could contrive a reason, but...yeah.

Hamste
2016-12-09, 02:29 PM
Nope, the true story is far dumber, in fact. I've read that book, and I remember it well.

There's a point in the story where the woman on the cover is kidnapped by evil cultists that intend to sacrifice her. They dress her in that armor as part of the ceremony. The idea is that the gap in the middle is where they are going to plunge the dagger that will kill her.

After she's rescued, she decides to keep that armor because...and I'm not making this up...it turns out that the armor is magical. It actually offers better protection than a real suit of chain mail.

I remember even as a kid, I was like...what? Why would the cultists make the armor magical? Wouldn't that make plunging a dagger into her heart even harder?
"TED GET IN HERE! Did you give the good suit of armor on the sacrifices again? You know that is only supposed to be for sexy times."-Cultist Boss
"Sorry boss, but I wasn't able to find any clean ones. All the other ones has blood rust marks on them. So I just took that one." -Cultist Ted
"Great and now she has escaped with the armor...oh and Heather is bleeding out on the floor. Thinking about it, maybe using a real dagger in roleplay is a bad idea."-Cultist Boss

This is the best explanation I can figure out for why they had a magical suit of armor sitting around.

So what is the explanation about the lizardman? Specifically the lack of pants, arm coverings and the mushroom headed sword?

JadedDM
2016-12-09, 02:45 PM
So what is the explanation about the lizardman? Specifically the lack of pants, arm coverings and the mushroom headed sword?
That's Dragonbait, a saurial paladin. They come from a different dimension. Saurials aren't lizardmen, exactly, more like dinosaur-men.

He's not wearing pants because...well, I don't think any would fit him, due to his tail and all.

His weird sword is a holy sword from his own dimension. It looks really bulky, but somehow he makes it work. Probably magic.

georgie_leech
2016-12-09, 02:55 PM
That's Dragonbait, a saurial paladin. They come from a different dimension. Saurials aren't lizardmen, exactly, more like dinosaur-men.

He's not wearing pants because...well, I don't think any would fit him, due to his tail and all.

His weird sword is a holy sword from his own dimension. It looks really bulky, but somehow he makes it work. Probably magic.

Considering all the other tailed races that still get leg armor... Just because, then? :smallamused:

Deophaun
2016-12-09, 03:22 PM
That's Dragonbait, a saurial paladin.
Is that the reptilian version of jailbait? That's why he's not wearing pants?

Lord Torath
2016-12-09, 04:33 PM
What, so I don't get to ogle the hunky barbarian just because I was born without a vagina? :smallfrown:That’s right! Cover those eyes. COVER THEM! Okay, he’s off-screen now; you can look again.


"So what is the explanation about the lizardman? Specifically the lack of pants, arm coverings and the mushroom headed sword?"It's called a genital sheath, look it up!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html)

Klara Meison
2016-12-09, 05:48 PM
I'm kind of pissed off about female armor. I can't believe armor designers would screw over an entire gender with their trade.

Women get the same protection as men, but while men have to wear massive, bulky armor, women get to wear a mail bikini. Do you know how much an encumbrance plate is? I wouldn't wear it if there was a lighter variant for men.

So why are women protected so well by barely anything, while men have to wear an entire steel mill's worth of metal for protection?

If you haven't gotten it by now, this thread is a joke, so don't take the opening comment too seriously.

Which female armor designers? Dark Souls female armors seem fine to me, so it can't be all of them. You have some specific ones in mind? Maybe mention them then?

See, I don't really see the point you are trying to make here. It's fantasy, not rational!fantasy. What, you really think this dude's loadout (https://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderRPG/PZO1115-Alain.jpg) is realistic in terms of combat performance? Or how about this one (http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/pathfinder/images/8/89/Harsk.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080602015800)? Cluttered much?

It's not like males don't have their own examples of naked armors either. Example. (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lXYVg_H1zDE/VDI3y-pbX_I/AAAAAAAAE_Q/7RNIVRbBkWk/s1600/Valeros.jpg) Another. (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6a/d4/ec/6ad4ec4bbcbf694f9449ddbe7501ab43.jpg) And another. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/_/rsrc/1474175134743/images/Pathfinder-Darius-by-Yama-320.png)

Finally, if you want realistic armors, fine, that's great, more power to you. But you'll lose out on a lot of fantasy art that way. For example, first(or maybe second, after gauntlets/vambraces) most crucial piece of armor is a helmet-you can fight without an arm, a leg, and with a gaping wound in your belly, but can't do it without your head. But humans like faces. Even most of the "realistic" art out there pictures heroes without their helmets on(example (http://pre02.deviantart.net/25a8/th/pre/i/2013/337/1/7/kavina_comm_by_yamao-d6wnkli.jpg)), even though that's arguably more stupid than going into a fight in a bikini(but with a helmet).

Or take this picture (http://orig10.deviantart.net/8861/f/2015/115/7/c/captain_paracountess_vorrea_by_yamaorce-d8r0v00.jpg) for example. No boobwindow, no skin shown-realistic armor, right? No it's not. All those loose tassels, hair, and a cape (https://youtu.be/M68ndaZSKa8?t=2m8s) would serve as perfect handholds for an enemy to grasp in melee, and might also snag on various features of the environment (e.g. a nail sticking out of a plank+your cloak as you run past=you sprawled on the ground, prone, ready to be stabbed to death). I'd much prefer to go into a swordfight without bellyarmor, relying on my skill to parry any attacks aimed there, than wearing armor that is actively helping my enemy kill me. Honorary mention goes to various spiked shoulderpads and horned helmets in fantasy art, because nothing says "I want to die" like an enormous twistable lever attached to one of the biggest weakpoints in your entire body(neck).

Compare that to actual historic illustrations (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/18/8f/9e/188f9e829155e92a0545c45fb236991d.jpg) of armor. Nothing to grasp, all sleek and flat, and, ultimately, quite boring because of that.

Really, it's kinda hillarious what people usually post as examples of "unrealistic" armors, when someone like this real-life metalworker (http://www.gamesradar.com/gamings-most-impractical-suits-armor-metalworker-weighs/) said "no" when asked if you should wear this in combat (http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6f6de328cbbd961a45ddf9fa4df54d87-650-80.jpg), and "Sure, why not, might work" when asked about this in a similar fashion. (http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ae08f0474df13d811df46891b1939c52-650-80.jpg)

Cluedrew
2016-12-09, 06:44 PM
See, I don't really see the point you are trying to make here. It's fantasy, not rational!fantasy.True, but there are also matters of the willing suspension of disbelief (which I am less likely to use if it is for something degrading*) and internal consistency.

The internal consistency one especially comes up if only one gender has impractical armour, or if the setting is over all quite serious and then you see ... what may or may not actually be a showgirl prancing across the battlefield it is jarring. Similarly if the character is a more reserved character, but then wears armour with particularly placed holes in it, it clashes with the character herself.

Over the top heavy armour and giant weapons can lead to similar problems, but tend to not quite as quickly for several reasons. The first is that it doesn't jump out in the same way. The armour being slightly to big around is not as noticeable as it suddenly becoming skin coloured. Secondly it usually fits with the character better and similarly usually comes off as symbolic for the character's strength and power.

As for helmets... as unrealistic as that may be I understand the need for character identification and expression. So particularly in visual medium I will let that one go unless they are supposed to be very realistic.

* I acknowledge the fact not all may find it degrading. In fact I don't in all cases, but over all.

Deophaun
2016-12-09, 07:02 PM
See, I don't really see the point you are trying to make here.
The point is in the very last sentence of what you quoted.

Talakeal
2016-12-09, 08:00 PM
I once read a quote that essentially said "If given a choice between impractical fantasy armor for males or females, give me the female version every time. A chainmail bikini may not protect you, but it won't actively hinder you either, unlike the men's armor with shoulder-plates so big and heavy that they wouldn't be able to stand up straight, let alone swing a sword."

Keltest
2016-12-09, 09:13 PM
So what is the explanation about the lizardman? Specifically the lack of pants, arm coverings and the mushroom headed sword?

As mentioned, he's extradimensional, but more to the point, he's covered in scales that function as, well, scale armor on their own. His sword is magical, but it also gets damaged when Alias (the woman) smacks an earth elemental with it.

warty goblin
2016-12-09, 10:32 PM
I once read a quote that essentially said "If given a choice between impractical fantasy armor for males or females, give me the female version every time. A chainmail bikini may not protect you, but it won't actively hinder you either, unlike the men's armor with shoulder-plates so big and heavy that they wouldn't be able to stand up straight, let alone swing a sword."

I've said basically this a number of times. There are worse choices than fighting virtually nude. Being unable to raise your arms over your head for example.

Lord Raziere
2016-12-09, 10:35 PM
Basically:
-Mobility in combat is often overlooked in these discussions. Those big plate armors? they're impractical because the intention was to use them on horses, sure you can walk around in them, but they're inflexible and slow and plate was supposed to be the armor for knights, the tanks of the medieval world, with the rider being all the defense and the horse being all the mobility, and combined to be this charging terrifying hard thing with a spear coming to stab right through you.

-everyone else on the other hand, don't have luxury of good trained horses and their own blacksmiths to make the most expensive pieces of medieval armor in the world. So they have to figure out how to be mobile and protected at the same time, with things like round shields, which were both your primary means of protection and the way you told friend from foe, they'd often paint their lords insignia on it so that no one would be like "wait is this guy my enemy or not?", so you have to figure out how to think on your feet, literally, and constantly block your opponent's blows with your shield because if they actually got to your armor and skin that was bad enough itself.

-So really, if female armor as depicted was actually a thing, it'd be sort of moot, since you'd probably pick up a shield for your actual defense anyways, any armor for a foot soldier is supposed to be both mobile and protective, your shield with an active defense is supposed to do the vast majority of the actual protection and you can't really do anything about a foe that attacks from behind anyways

- the only other really practical piece of armor defense wise rather than mobility wise, is a helm, and even then you might actually want a field holes and openings, because you'll want to hear things and at least some peripheral vision. Your helm is mostly to block any arrows that bypass your shield.

-the rest of the armor is pretty much chain/leather/quilt/whatever to make sure your mobile but have SOME layer of protection there. sure, showing too much skin is impractical with this, but so is becoming a walking steel coffin without a horse.

yeah, thats basically a good term for any armor too impractically big, heavy, immobile and inflexible: steel coffins.

this is fantasy of course, so any fantastical armor is going to be either chainmail bikini or steel coffin most of the time.

8BitNinja
2016-12-09, 11:27 PM
Which female armor designers? Dark Souls female armors seem fine to me, so it can't be all of them. You have some specific ones in mind? Maybe mention them then?

See, I don't really see the point you are trying to make here. It's fantasy, not rational!fantasy. What, you really think this dude's loadout (https://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderRPG/PZO1115-Alain.jpg) is realistic in terms of combat performance? Or how about this one (http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/pathfinder/images/8/89/Harsk.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080602015800)? Cluttered much?

It's not like males don't have their own examples of naked armors either. Example. (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lXYVg_H1zDE/VDI3y-pbX_I/AAAAAAAAE_Q/7RNIVRbBkWk/s1600/Valeros.jpg) Another. (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6a/d4/ec/6ad4ec4bbcbf694f9449ddbe7501ab43.jpg) And another. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/_/rsrc/1474175134743/images/Pathfinder-Darius-by-Yama-320.png)

Finally, if you want realistic armors, fine, that's great, more power to you. But you'll lose out on a lot of fantasy art that way. For example, first(or maybe second, after gauntlets/vambraces) most crucial piece of armor is a helmet-you can fight without an arm, a leg, and with a gaping wound in your belly, but can't do it without your head. But humans like faces. Even most of the "realistic" art out there pictures heroes without their helmets on(example (http://pre02.deviantart.net/25a8/th/pre/i/2013/337/1/7/kavina_comm_by_yamao-d6wnkli.jpg)), even though that's arguably more stupid than going into a fight in a bikini(but with a helmet).

Or take this picture (http://orig10.deviantart.net/8861/f/2015/115/7/c/captain_paracountess_vorrea_by_yamaorce-d8r0v00.jpg) for example. No boobwindow, no skin shown-realistic armor, right? No it's not. All those loose tassels, hair, and a cape (https://youtu.be/M68ndaZSKa8?t=2m8s) would serve as perfect handholds for an enemy to grasp in melee, and might also snag on various features of the environment (e.g. a nail sticking out of a plank+your cloak as you run past=you sprawled on the ground, prone, ready to be stabbed to death). I'd much prefer to go into a swordfight without bellyarmor, relying on my skill to parry any attacks aimed there, than wearing armor that is actively helping my enemy kill me. Honorary mention goes to various spiked shoulderpads and horned helmets in fantasy art, because nothing says "I want to die" like an enormous twistable lever attached to one of the biggest weakpoints in your entire body(neck).

Compare that to actual historic illustrations (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/18/8f/9e/188f9e829155e92a0545c45fb236991d.jpg) of armor. Nothing to grasp, all sleek and flat, and, ultimately, quite boring because of that.

Really, it's kinda hillarious what people usually post as examples of "unrealistic" armors, when someone like this real-life metalworker (http://www.gamesradar.com/gamings-most-impractical-suits-armor-metalworker-weighs/) said "no" when asked if you should wear this in combat (http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6f6de328cbbd961a45ddf9fa4df54d87-650-80.jpg), and "Sure, why not, might work" when asked about this in a similar fashion. (http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ae08f0474df13d811df46891b1939c52-650-80.jpg)

I'm pretty sure that you didn't read the last part. I don't care if female armor exists or not. This entire thread is a joke. So far, it's pretty funny.

Arbane
2016-12-10, 01:34 AM
this is fantasy of course, so any fantastical armor is going to be either chainmail bikini or steel coffin most of the time.

And then there's the women's armors that split the difference by being MOSTLY heavily armored... aside from the cleavage-window. :smalleek:

Deophaun
2016-12-10, 01:48 AM
And then there's the women's armors that split the difference by being MOSTLY heavily armored... aside from the cleavage-window. :smalleek:
It's simple physics: if you encase a hot woman COMPLETELY in heavy armor, they will overheat, and the most optimum point for heat exchange on the female body is between the flesh pillows. Joan of Arc wore a full set of armor and she burst into flames. If that doesn't prove the wisdom, I don't know what would.

Forum Explorer
2016-12-10, 04:09 AM
Is that the reptilian version of jailbait? That's why he's not wearing pants?

That's hilarious. You win the thread, and can I please quote these comments? :smallbiggrin:


It's simple physics: if you encase a hot woman COMPLETELY in heavy armor, they will overheat, and the most optimum point for heat exchange on the female body is between the flesh pillows. Joan of Arc wore a full set of armor and she burst into flames. If that doesn't prove the wisdom, I don't know what would.

I already said you won! You can stop making me laugh now! :smallbiggrin:


Anyways, when it comes to unrealistic armor, I like this (http://oglaf.com/newmodelarmy/)interpretation of it. (Warning Oglaf link. Most of the webcomic is NSFW, but that particularly storyline is only mildly saucy.)

Inevitability
2016-12-10, 04:57 AM
Anyways, when it comes to unrealistic armor, I like this (http://oglaf.com/newmodelarmy/)interpretation of it. (Warning Oglaf link. Most of the webcomic is NSFW, but that particularly storyline is only mildly saucy.)

The title text is hilarious too.


Painting on loan from the orcish war museum, which is a pile of skulls and a painting.

However, I'm pretty sure this storyline violates some forum rules too: strong language and all that.

animewatcha
2016-12-10, 05:00 AM
Can the breast size of a woman change over lifetime? Also, what about woman who has to fight major battle while big-belly pregnant?

Reboot
2016-12-10, 05:11 AM
Really, it's kinda hillarious what people usually post as examples of "unrealistic" armors, when someone like this real-life metalworker (http://www.gamesradar.com/gamings-most-impractical-suits-armor-metalworker-weighs/) said "no" when asked if you should wear this in combat (http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6f6de328cbbd961a45ddf9fa4df54d87-650-80.jpg), and "Sure, why not, might work" when asked about this in a similar fashion. (http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ae08f0474df13d811df46891b1939c52-650-80.jpg)
Well, I can see why wearing enough heavy metal to keep headbangers going for a couple of years would be a bad idea. But on the second one... let's leave aside for the moment how any stab - never mind bullet or arrow - would end you, since it provides no protection at all there, and focus on the fact that it would be hard to run much with the sheer amount of chafing from the metal strips, never mind boobs bouncing around and risk of exposure (as in cold).

Keltest
2016-12-10, 07:37 AM
Can the breast size of a woman change over lifetime? Also, what about woman who has to fight major battle while big-belly pregnant?

If youre fighting months into your pregnancy, something, somewhere, has gone horribly wrong.

8BitNinja
2016-12-10, 12:03 PM
And then there's the women's armors that split the difference by being MOSTLY heavily armored... aside from the cleavage-window. :smalleek:

This seems counter productive, as is midriff bearing armor. Armor is supposed to protect your vitals. If not, it's just useless clothes that weighs you down.


It's simple physics: if you encase a hot woman COMPLETELY in heavy armor, they will overheat, and the most optimum point for heat exchange on the female body is between the flesh pillows. Joan of Arc wore a full set of armor and she burst into flames. If that doesn't prove the wisdom, I don't know what would.

So that's why the commanding officers tell us to stay frosty.


Can the breast size of a woman change over lifetime? Also, what about woman who has to fight major battle while big-belly pregnant?

I'm pretty sure they are going to be hiding in the center of the fortress/town with all the other non combatants.

Beleriphon
2016-12-10, 12:19 PM
I think the biggest thing in the armour deal is that the chainmail bikini is the female version of the mighty thewed barbarian in a loincloth. Besides, as pointed out Red Sonja's outfit is top and bottoms with that amount to Hyberborian age sequins stitched on.

Cate Blanchet wearing armour based on Elizabeth I from Elizabeth The golden Age:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ec/91/dd/ec91dd58fa34c0bc5897b0385937c573.jpg

Probably the best picture of a female in plate armour. It's the middle aged human woman, that looks suspiciously like my mother, in the foreground, holding a purple glowing ring:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/3f/84/ec/3f84ec99db7eedd1fb68b0f7a5202339.jpg

Satinavian
2016-12-10, 12:26 PM
Well, I can see why wearing enough heavy metal to keep headbangers going for a couple of years would be a bad idea. But on the second one... let's leave aside for the moment how any stab - never mind bullet or arrow - would end you, since it provides no protection at all there, and focus on the fact that it would be hard to run much with the sheer amount of chafing from the metal strips, never mind boobs bouncing around and risk of exposure (as in cold).The comment discusses only the armor, not the clothing (or lack of it) and thus concentrates on if it might be sensible to armor one leg and not the other with the answer being yes.

I don't agre with all the assessments, but at least the reasons are given this time.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-10, 12:28 PM
Basically:
-Mobility in combat is often overlooked in these discussions. Those big plate armors? they're impractical because the intention was to use them on horses, sure you can walk around in them, but they're inflexible and slow and plate was supposed to be the armor for knights, the tanks of the medieval world, with the rider being all the defense and the horse being all the mobility, and combined to be this charging terrifying hard thing with a spear coming to stab right through you.

-everyone else on the other hand, don't have luxury of good trained horses and their own blacksmiths to make the most expensive pieces of medieval armor in the world. So they have to figure out how to be mobile and protected at the same time, with things like round shields, which were both your primary means of protection and the way you told friend from foe, they'd often paint their lords insignia on it so that no one would be like "wait is this guy my enemy or not?", so you have to figure out how to think on your feet, literally, and constantly block your opponent's blows with your shield because if they actually got to your armor and skin that was bad enough itself.

-So really, if female armor as depicted was actually a thing, it'd be sort of moot, since you'd probably pick up a shield for your actual defense anyways, any armor for a foot soldier is supposed to be both mobile and protective, your shield with an active defense is supposed to do the vast majority of the actual protection and you can't really do anything about a foe that attacks from behind anyways

- the only other really practical piece of armor defense wise rather than mobility wise, is a helm, and even then you might actually want a field holes and openings, because you'll want to hear things and at least some peripheral vision. Your helm is mostly to block any arrows that bypass your shield.

-the rest of the armor is pretty much chain/leather/quilt/whatever to make sure your mobile but have SOME layer of protection there. sure, showing too much skin is impractical with this, but so is becoming a walking steel coffin without a horse.

yeah, thats basically a good term for any armor too impractically big, heavy, immobile and inflexible: steel coffins.

this is fantasy of course, so any fantastical armor is going to be either chainmail bikini or steel coffin most of the time.


Those "big plate armors" being "steel coffins", and "just for on horseback" is pure myth.

Beleriphon
2016-12-10, 12:35 PM
Those "big plate armors" being "steel coffins", and "just for on horseback" is pure myth.

In fairness a knight in plate really was meant to fight primarily from horseback. That was kind of the whole point of being equipped with a lance. That being said I know full well a suit of harness-and-plate is perfectly functional as vary as movement goes, it is heavy and is tiring to wear for a long time but it isn't anywhere near as restrictive as is portrayed.

D&D's concept of the knight in armour really draws from the early part of Hundred Years' War. While its idea of infantry in plate draws from a much later period in the 14th and 15th centuries, and a move away from as much leg armour to keeping the upper body well protected from pikes and similar formations.

8BitNinja
2016-12-10, 01:50 PM
Those "big plate armors" being "steel coffins", and "just for on horseback" is pure myth.

Agreed. Armor worn by reenactors today are up to 40 pounds heavier than actual knight armor, and they can run, do cartwheels, and even swim in them effectively.

And these guys don't have the vigorous combat training of knights.

Talakeal
2016-12-10, 01:55 PM
Those "big plate armors" being "steel coffins", and "just for on horseback" is pure myth.

Real plate armor didnt weight hundreds or thousands of pounds like most of their fantasy equivelents.

Honest Tiefling
2016-12-10, 02:01 PM
Real plate armor didnt weight hundreds or thousands of pounds like most of their fantasy equivelents.

But how will I have my model of a city or giant eagle on my pauldrons if it doesn't? If I don't have the eagles, no one will know I am a Paladin!

Koo Rehtorb
2016-12-10, 02:13 PM
Those "big plate armors" being "steel coffins", and "just for on horseback" is pure myth.

This is tournament jousting armour, I think. Too impractical for actual battle or fighting on foot, but good for making sure people don't die during tournaments.

Satinavian
2016-12-10, 02:19 PM
Yes, late jousting armor could be impractical for anything else.

Normal plate for warfare was not that heavy, not significantly more heavy than earlier mail.



Much of the fantasy armor is stupidly oversized and would be far too heavy.

VoxRationis
2016-12-10, 02:24 PM
But how will I have my model of a city or giant eagle on my pauldrons if it doesn't? If I don't have the eagles, no one will know I am a Paladin!

A model of a city—that's a new one! That made me chuckle. I should make an NPC with that concept. Looks at his shoulder to navigate and can't raise his arms above his head.

Beleriphon
2016-12-10, 02:28 PM
Much of the fantasy armor is stupidly oversized and would be far too heavy.

I think part of the reason is original pewter minis had to have comically oversized armour to even be recognizable at that scale. If you look at WH40K the creators have outright said for a number of models (vehicles usually) that the rivets aren't really supposed to be the size of 4L paint cans, but if they made them to scale they wouldn't be visible on the model.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-10, 02:59 PM
This is tournament jousting armour, I think. Too impractical for actual battle or fighting on foot, but good for making sure people don't die during tournaments.


Yeah, I think a lot of the myths about plate armor worn in actual combat have come from historians and writers with NO hands-on experience looking at the elaborate ceremonial and jousting sets in royal collections, reading accounts of tournaments, etc, and assuming those massive nobility-protecting sets for show and sport were representative of plate armor in general.

Deophaun
2016-12-10, 03:16 PM
That's hilarious. You win the thread, and can I please quote these comments? :smallbiggrin:
Quote away! I have done my job.

slachance6
2016-12-10, 03:22 PM
Honestly, most armor depicted in D&D game books and fanart is unrealistic in some way or another, but unless one of the players is an expert on medieval warfare, it generally won't matter unless you want to play an extremely gritty game. Realism in D&D terms is relative, and is probably better defined as "believability". Yes, some groups might want to play a Game of Thrones, where magic is rare, characters are vulnerable and the world doesn't look too different than the real world's Middle Ages. More often, though, players will want to play something a bit closer to the other extreme, which is something like Final Fantasy, where suspension of disbelief is high, every character has flashy magical powers, and every character is depicted as extremely attractive with awesome, but impractical or anachronistic, armor and weapons. The depiction of female armor is particularly notorious because it's not only unrealistic but also sexist.

I honestly don't think it's that much of a problem, though. Yes, in the 70s and 80s D&D books were full of warrior women in chainmail bikinis, but they've seriously died down over the years as people have actually started to realize that there is actually some female interest in RPGs. It's really only on deviantart and deep into Google Images that I've found an oversaturation of fantasy cheesecake. And even then, it's usually depicting character archetypes that don't wear a ton of armor, like spellcasters and such. If you Google image search for "female paladin", (https://www.google.com/search?q=Female+Paladin&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS703US703&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=974&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip8ri9surQAhVps1QKHY01DEYQ_AUIBigB#imgr c=_) only one of the first twenty or so entries have cleavage. Yes, women are still sexualized far more often than men in fantasy art, but I feel like someone sensible art shows up more often than borderline pornographic art.

Also, something that people might be forgetting is that it's completely possible for a character to be sexy without being a sex object. A stupid counter-argument to this whole issue is that "men are sexualized, too! Look at Conan the Barbarian in a loincloth!" There's a difference between exposing plenty of skin and serving as a pure sexual fantasy. First of all, it's completely possible (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/pathfinder/images/0/0b/Amiri.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080602015712) to have a female character in someswhat revealing clothing without being sexualized at all. Second of all, Conan is a badass first and foremost. He is a total male power fantasy: strong, tough, brave and intimidating. Being attractive is just the icing on the cake as to why you want to picture yourself in a fantasy world as this character. He definitely isn't just there for women and gay guys to say "I want to bang him", which is true for plenty of depictions of female characters (with the opposite genders of course).

In short, there's a world of difference between this:
http://orig13.deviantart.net/4bd3/f/2014/127/5/2/s_amarie_reg_by_anotherwanderer-d7hhqld.jpg

and this:
http://orig15.deviantart.net/ccf9/f/2014/003/0/e/you_want_some__by_dantewontdie-d70m2w8.jpg

Both girls were very attractive (the first one more so in my opinion) and both were wearing at least somewhat revealing clothing. But the difference was that the first one seemed like she could be strong female character that could kick some serious butt and be taken seriously, and could serve as a female power fantasy. The second one is really just there for perverted guys to jerk off to.

Arbane
2016-12-10, 03:30 PM
Video of an obstacle course run in full armor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw).

Anonymouswizard
2016-12-10, 03:33 PM
http://orig13.deviantart.net/4bd3/f/2014/127/5/2/s_amarie_reg_by_anotherwanderer-d7hhqld.jpg


I'm not totally okay with the image, but if I saw it in a book as 'warrior demoness' I honestly wouldn't bat an eyelid. For a human I would prefer a breastplate (hehe) that covered her entire torso and didn't have holes in it, or at least covered most of her torso, but the general idea of 'this is someone who can kick your arse and look sexy in it' is there in the picture. I mean, it's not a perfect picture, but it's clearly coming from the same checklist as shirtless barbarians, let's have a character who:
1) is willing and ready to kill people.
2) can look hot while doing it.

Millstone85
2016-12-10, 06:03 PM
But the difference was that the first one seemed like she could be strong female character that could kick some serious butt and be taken seriously, and could serve as a female power fantasy. The second one is really just there for perverted guys to jerk off to.The first one also seems to be marching into battle, or maybe she just won. The second one looks like she is, in fact, engaging in foreplay with somebody. And the first one is supposed to be an illustration for a game, while the second one probably isn't supposed to be anything but fap material.

So, isn't this like saying a movie isn't as sexualized as its porn adaptation?

Klara Meison
2016-12-10, 06:04 PM
The first one also seems to be marching into battle, or maybe she just won. The second one looks like she is, in fact, engaging in foreplay with somebody. And the first one is supposed to be an illustration for a game, while the second one probably isn't supposed to be anything but fap material.

So, isn't this like saying a movie isn't as sexualized as its porn adaptation?

>movie isn't as sexualized as its porn adaptation

I mean, that isn't incorrect.

Deophaun
2016-12-10, 06:18 PM
The first one also seems to be marching into battle, or maybe she just won. The second one looks like she is, in fact, engaging in foreplay with somebody. And the first one is supposed to be an illustration for a game, while the second one probably isn't supposed to be anything but fap material.
The second one, if you pull your eyes away from the naughty bits, is also clearly a succubus, with the black wings, horns, and spade tail. In other words, that "problem" pose is entirely appropriate for what it is.

Besides, there's this idea being presented that somehow male power fantasies are something other than sexual fantasies. The male of the species's sexual power is tied up in his capabilities; that's why cheesecake calendars largely feature firemen or woodsmen or lifeguards. Women actually have sexual power that is independent of anything else, so you can have women posing with cars or carp and it doesn't matter if they clearly have no business being around either one (yes, the carp thing is real). A man who has nothing but sexuality to offer is presented as parody and winds up being not sexually attractive because of it.

Millstone85
2016-12-10, 06:31 PM
The second one, if you pull your eyes away from the naughty bits, is also clearly a succubus, with the black wings, horns, and spade tail. In other words, that "problem" pose is entirely appropriate for what it is.While the last sentence is exactly what I was getting at, I feel obligated to point out that the first woman also has black wings and horns.

Deophaun
2016-12-10, 06:38 PM
While the last sentence is exactly what I was getting at, I feel obligated to point out that the first woman also has black wings and horns.
Well, you were going for audience, I was going for nature of the beast. The "succubus as battle maiden" thing is actually less appropriate.

Cluedrew
2016-12-10, 06:47 PM
Yeah, I think a lot of the myths about plate armor worn in actual combat have come from historians and writers with NO hands-on experience ...I'd actually blame it on the artists (visual) who make the pictures. I have never seen either type of problem armour in a pure text medium*.

Actually most of the truly horrible examples I have seen have come from ads for games I have never bothered to check out. So at that point it is not even eye candy, it is a visual hook.

* Not to say it hasn't happened, there was an example earlier in the thread even, but I haven't read any of those.

Nifft
2016-12-10, 06:58 PM
Well, you were going for audience, I was going for nature of the beast. The "succubus as battle maiden" thing is actually less appropriate.

... and wearing sensible full-plate into battle would be totally inappropriate for a succubus. This is the first axiom.

Second axiom: being inappropriate is appropriate for a succubus.

Therefore, all truth is false.

Deophaun
2016-12-10, 07:06 PM
... and wearing sensible full-plate into battle would be totally inappropriate for a succubus.
If she's going into battle, she's not keeping the enemy general/hero in bed.

Talakeal
2016-12-10, 07:06 PM
Also, something that people might be forgetting is that it's completely possible for a character to be sexy without being a sex object. A stupid counter-argument to this whole issue is that "men are sexualized, too! Look at Conan the Barbarian in a loincloth!" There's a difference between exposing plenty of skin and serving as a pure sexual fantasy. First of all, it's completely possible (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/pathfinder/images/0/0b/Amiri.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080602015712) to have a female character in someswhat revealing clothing without being sexualized at all. Second of all, Conan is a badass first and foremost. He is a total male power fantasy: strong, tough, brave and intimidating. Being attractive is just the icing on the cake as to why you want to picture yourself in a fantasy world as this character. He definitely isn't just there for women and gay guys to say "I want to bang him", which is true for plenty of depictions of female characters (with the opposite genders of course).

I never get tired of blatant double standards that pervade this particular field of criticism.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-10, 07:07 PM
I'd actually blame it on the artists (visual) who make the pictures. I have never seen either type of problem armour in a pure text medium*.

Actually most of the truly horrible examples I have seen have come from ads for games I have never bothered to check out. So at that point it is not even eye candy, it is a visual hook.

* Not to say it hasn't happened, there was an example earlier in the thread even, but I haven't read any of those.


I was talking about the generally held nonsense about plate armor being massively heavy and unwieldy and the wearer being in danger of "I've fallen and I can't get up".

slachance6
2016-12-10, 07:13 PM
The first one also seems to be marching into battle, or maybe she just won. The second one looks like she is, in fact, engaging in foreplay with somebody. And the first one is supposed to be an illustration for a game, while the second one probably isn't supposed to be anything but fap material.

So, isn't this like saying a movie isn't as sexualized as its porn adaptation?

The origin of the images isn't really my point. Neither of these images are directly related to D&D. But the fact that they were only a couple of clicks apart on Deviantart means that people will find lightly-sexualized and heavily-sexualized images near each other. And the first picture definitely says "badass adventurer" or "threatening villain" or whatever her role is in any given game than the second. Unless you're playing FATAL and all the male characters also have ridiculously sexualized images, combat will probably be more prevalent than sex in your game, so if the male PCs are depicted in warlike poses then the women shouldn't look like porn stars.


I'm not totally okay with the image, but if I saw it in a book as 'warrior demoness' I honestly wouldn't bat an eyelid. For a human I would prefer a breastplate (hehe) that covered her entire torso and didn't have holes in it, or at least covered most of her torso, but the general idea of 'this is someone who can kick your arse and look sexy in it' is there in the picture. I mean, it's not a perfect picture, but it's clearly coming from the same checklist as shirtless barbarians, let's have a character who:
1) is willing and ready to kill people.
2) can look hot while doing it.

Yeah, the image search was kind of sloppy I suppose, I was on Deviantart and the pictures just happened to be demonlike, and demons usually have some kind of natural armor or magical protection. I agree that in any half-realistic game heavy armor should be heavy armor, which really isn't that hard to find on a female at this point. (https://www.google.com/search?q=d%26d+fighter+female&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS703US703&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=974&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRqqzd6erQAhWhwFQKHQaZBjwQ_AUIBigB#tbm= isch&q=d%26d+female+fighter&imgrc=_) There are occasional chainmail bikinis but they aren't too frequent you don't need to use them for your game. Sorceresses and possibly bards and some rogues can probably be sexualized with the most justification since they usually have high CHA and wear little or no armor (often having magic protecting them) and still simply look like a hot adventurer rather than a stripper. (http://orig11.deviantart.net/0901/f/2014/050/a/2/s_courtney_by_anotherwanderer-d774i5q.jpg) But it's still a matter of taste. How people want to envision their game is extremely subjective.

On that note, I think that an issue that I haven't really heard people talk about is that so many franchises sexualize every female character. It's usually completely fine to depict a single character who's known as a seductress or otherwise has exceptional beauty in a skimpy outfit, given that she isn't supposed to be a tanky front-line warrior, but if every single woman in a fighting game or comic book series or RPG book looks like a stripper, then it starts to break immersion.

Cluedrew
2016-12-10, 07:18 PM
To Max_Killjoy: Hu... I don't think I have ever seen armour presented that way. I have seen some armour that probably should lead to that problem, but I can't think of a time it has.

I thought you were talking about the latter point, the armour being lighter than it should be from its appearance.

Deophaun
2016-12-10, 07:27 PM
The origin of the images isn't really my point. Neither of these images are directly related to D&D. But the fact that they were only a couple of clicks apart on Deviantart means that people will find lightly-sexualized and heavily-sexualized images near each other. And the first picture definitely says "badass adventurer" or "threatening villain" or whatever her role is in any given game than the second. Unless you're playing FATAL and all the male characters also have ridiculously sexualized images, combat will probably be more prevalent than sex in your game, so if the male PCs are depicted in warlike poses then the women shouldn't look like porn stars.
Well, if that's what we're complaining about, I recently made a sorceress that was part dragon for a game. So, I searched for "dragon sorceress." And I got hundreds of version of that sorceress with the huge tracks of land from that computer game that has "Dragon" in the name. I swear, how she keeps dwarves from trying to settle her chest, I have no idea, but it must be a constant struggle.

Anyway, the point of Deviantart, however, is not to provide character portraits for our games. It's for artists to share their work. Just because their work isn't useful for your characters doesn't mean that the content is a "problem." If you want something specific, you can go there and hire an artist to draw what you want. Then, if you get something highly sexualized back that you didn't want, and only then, is it a problem.

Nifft
2016-12-10, 07:33 PM
I was talking about the generally held nonsense about plate armor being massively heavy and unwieldy and the wearer being in danger of "I've fallen and I can't get up".

It's probably a succubus just pretending to be encumbered to get your sympathy.

Shoot her from a distance with Cold Iron arrow-heads.

Sermil
2016-12-10, 08:08 PM
Since we've somehow managed to get 5 pages into a discussion of skimpy armor without mention of The Road Warrior, allow me to point out at least one more skimpy male costume:

https://ocdviewer.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/the-humungus-resplendent.jpg

Seriously, how is he not sunburned? Sometimes it seemed like Max was the only one who was properly dressed for the desert.

Arbane
2016-12-10, 09:52 PM
Another peeve of mine is women in chainmail bikinis... in a snow-covered environment. BRRRR!

Hawkstar
2016-12-10, 11:09 PM
Another peeve of mine is women in chainmail bikinis... in a snow-covered environment. BRRRR!Ever heard of acclimation? There are plenty of women who hang out in snow-covered environments in normal bikinis.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-10, 11:47 PM
Another peeve of mine is women in chainmail bikinis... in a snow-covered environment. BRRRR!

What's hilarious is even the chainmail covered parts probably don't feel too much warmer considering how metal isn't a great insulator.

8BitNinja
2016-12-11, 12:46 AM
But how will I have my model of a city or giant eagle on my pauldrons if it doesn't? If I don't have the eagles, no one will know I am a Paladin!

Just wear a holy symbol. That's what I do.


This is tournament jousting armour, I think. Too impractical for actual battle or fighting on foot, but good for making sure people don't die during tournaments.

They actually did occasionally, but it wasn't intentional.


Honestly, most armor depicted in D&D game books and fanart is unrealistic in some way or another, but unless one of the players is an expert on medieval warfare, it generally won't matter unless you want to play an extremely gritty game. Realism in D&D terms is relative, and is probably better defined as "believability". Yes, some groups might want to play a Game of Thrones, where magic is rare, characters are vulnerable and the world doesn't look too different than the real world's Middle Ages. More often, though, players will want to play something a bit closer to the other extreme, which is something like Final Fantasy, where suspension of disbelief is high, every character has flashy magical powers, and every character is depicted as extremely attractive with awesome, but impractical or anachronistic, armor and weapons. The depiction of female armor is particularly notorious because it's not only unrealistic but also sexist.

I honestly don't think it's that much of a problem, though. Yes, in the 70s and 80s D&D books were full of warrior women in chainmail bikinis, but they've seriously died down over the years as people have actually started to realize that there is actually some female interest in RPGs. It's really only on deviantart and deep into Google Images that I've found an oversaturation of fantasy cheesecake. And even then, it's usually depicting character archetypes that don't wear a ton of armor, like spellcasters and such. If you Google image search for "female paladin", (https://www.google.com/search?q=Female+Paladin&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS703US703&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=974&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip8ri9surQAhVps1QKHY01DEYQ_AUIBigB#imgr c=_) only one of the first twenty or so entries have cleavage. Yes, women are still sexualized far more often than men in fantasy art, but I feel like someone sensible art shows up more often than borderline pornographic art.

Also, something that people might be forgetting is that it's completely possible for a character to be sexy without being a sex object. A stupid counter-argument to this whole issue is that "men are sexualized, too! Look at Conan the Barbarian in a loincloth!" There's a difference between exposing plenty of skin and serving as a pure sexual fantasy. First of all, it's completely possible (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/pathfinder/images/0/0b/Amiri.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080602015712) to have a female character in someswhat revealing clothing without being sexualized at all. Second of all, Conan is a badass first and foremost. He is a total male power fantasy: strong, tough, brave and intimidating. Being attractive is just the icing on the cake as to why you want to picture yourself in a fantasy world as this character. He definitely isn't just there for women and gay guys to say "I want to bang him", which is true for plenty of depictions of female characters (with the opposite genders of course).

In short, there's a world of difference between this:
http://orig13.deviantart.net/4bd3/f/2014/127/5/2/s_amarie_reg_by_anotherwanderer-d7hhqld.jpg

and this:
http://orig15.deviantart.net/ccf9/f/2014/003/0/e/you_want_some__by_dantewontdie-d70m2w8.jpg

Both girls were very attractive (the first one more so in my opinion) and both were wearing at least somewhat revealing clothing. But the difference was that the first one seemed like she could be strong female character that could kick some serious butt and be taken seriously, and could serve as a female power fantasy. The second one is really just there for perverted guys to jerk off to.

For the last time, I don't care about if armor is "sexist" or not. This thread is a joke. I don't care how you portray anyone with any armor. It's called freedom of speech.

Also, it's called fantasy for a reason. It's not supposed to be realistic.

As a personal point, I also don't care if it doesn't portray said female as a "strong character". If you read the first post I made. I was actually talking about how unfair it is for men to not have small amounts of armor. While males get protection or mobility, females get protection and mobility.

Please don't make this a thread on "social justice". The only white knights we need here are ones who kill dragons and save princesses here.

Nifft
2016-12-11, 12:49 AM
If you read the first post I made. I was actually talking about how unfair it is for men to not have small amounts of armor. While males get protection or mobility, females get protection and mobility.

Women need more mobility so they can press their boobs against the glass ceiling.

But seriously, in 5e a male Barbarian can get one of the best ACs in the game by wearing nothing but a shield and a grin. (Female Barbarians can do the same thing, of course.)

CharonsHelper
2016-12-11, 02:10 AM
I always figured that females were really wearing heavy armor too, but they all glamoured their armor to look revealing in order to distract their male opponents.

That's why the Diablo 2 Amazon could put on the same suit of armor that the Barbarian had just worn to look like a trash can, and the Amazon would have cleavage. There wasn't really cleavage - she put on a glamour.

Arbane
2016-12-11, 02:30 AM
They actually did occasionally, but it wasn't intentional.

For the last time, I don't care about if armor is "sexist" or not. This thread is a joke. I don't care how you portray anyone with any armor. It's called freedom of speech.

Also, it's called fantasy for a reason. It's not supposed to be realistic.

As a personal point, I also don't care if it doesn't portray said female as a "strong character". If you read the first post I made. I was actually talking about how unfair it is for men to not have small amounts of armor. While males get protection or mobility, females get protection and mobility.

Please don't make this a thread on "social justice". The only white knights we need here are ones who kill dragons and save princesses here.

You might want to start filling this out. (http://ozziescribbler.deviantart.com/art/Female-Armor-Rhetoric-BINGO-PDF-438905627?q=BikiniArmorBeDamned%2F53158787&qo=6) Think you're pretty close to a bingo.

https://gomakemeasandwich.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/bingo.jpg

Âmesang
2016-12-11, 02:51 AM
This reminds me of wanting to draw a female human paladin of mine (if I ever get to drawing again :smalltongue:) in full plate—probably somewhat form-fitting, but full-none-the-less—since I tend to imagine her as a paladin first, female second… and to me, paladin means "knight in shining armor (http://dnd.schadenfreudestudios.com/paladin.png)," emphasis on the armor; the only intentional silly aspect would be to make any chain sections heart-shaped since her name is "Valentine," not unlike this (http://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/backup/pictures/wallpapers/heartmaille.png). Granted, she's based on a character I made in Adventure Quest (http://aq.battleon.com/build30/charview.asp?temp=3187006) so, helmet or not, she'll always have luxurious hair.

(Note: she's normally bigger than depicted on that stat page, it's just that the "Little Me" armor is very, very rare and I like showing it off—this would be her default look, the unisex "Guardian Plate (http://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/backup/pictures/valentine_aq01.png)," and I'd replace the uniform dark portions with the heart-shaped chain.)


I always figured that females were really wearing heavy armor too, but they all glamoured their armor to look revealing in order to distract their male opponents.
Speaking of Valentine, I have imagined her making use of glamered armor to make her full plate look "sexy": super form-fitting, cleavage window, metal thong, as over-the-top-as-it-gets… because it would look silly in any kind of "real" context, and she knows that.

Are paladins allowed to have a sense of humor?

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-11, 06:19 AM
You know, I do have a rather nuanced, but strong opinion on the portrayal of women in gaming media, what its effects are, how it affects people, what people have a right to say or otherwise do about such things, and I know I can roll up my sleeves and draw out the claws to argue about it, but here's the thing:

I DON'T GORRAM WANT TO

Instead I want to poke some lighthearted humor at the utter silliness that can sometimes happen with what artists decide women's armor ends up looking like.

Because whether you are on the side of "It's offensive and insulting and I'll criticize it!" or the side of "Artists draw what they want, stop complaining or go away!" I don't think anyone REALLY thinks that the way that several versions of women's armor in fantasy art are presented are not silly in any way.

It is silly, and it's entertaining to find silly ways of explaining it away.

Cluedrew
2016-12-11, 07:31 AM
Stealth Marmot is right, lets get of this tangent and get back to the main topic. The subliminal messaging that males are incapable and require massive armour and weapons to make up for their lack of skill. I understand completely that the main topic was something else.


Are paladins allowed to have a sense of humor?You wouldn't think so, but in orders that consider joy a virtue it is actually encouraged.

Nifft
2016-12-11, 07:37 AM
Stealth Marmot is right, lets get of this tangent and get back to the main topic. The subliminal messaging that males are incapable and require massive armour and weapons to make up for their lack of skill. Let them quote you themselves
Ah, I see, this is a Male Rights issue.

In that case, my support is not in question.


You wouldn't think so, but in orders that consider joy a virtue it is actually encouraged.

That explains why so many images feature exposed midriffs and armpits: so they can tickle each other, which generates additional joy.

Anonymouswizard
2016-12-11, 08:45 AM
Are paladins allowed to have a sense of humor?

If not most of mine would have fallen two minutes after their vows. Heck, even my AI character has a sense of humour, although at the moment it mainly consists of chuckling at how inefficient humans are (I mean why did they post me my humanity registration papers? email would have been far faster).

That reminds me, in my current game the only person with the sense to wear armour has been a woman (a four armed VenucianHespiran woman, but still a woman) who has a bulletproof vest. Considering the other three characters are an energy blob, a robot with inbuilt armour, and someone who can summon more muscles than an army of barbarians it's sort of justified that we have moved past the limitations of ordinary men (women for the energy blob).

Did I mention how the city is like 99% human? We have the entire Artificial Intelligence population of the city working for us (half if I can convince the university to employ my character's child), as well as the entire energy blob population and a hundredth of the alien population.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 08:47 AM
To Max_Killjoy: Hu... I don't think I have ever seen armour presented that way. I have seen some armour that probably should lead to that problem, but I can't think of a time it has.

I thought you were talking about the latter point, the armour being lighter than it should be from its appearance.

You've never seen discussions of armor turn to knights needing to be winched into the saddle and being unable to get up if they fell down, because their armor was so so heavy and unwieldy? Or watched a fight scene in a movie with two "Medieval" dudes trying to clumsily bludgeon each other with their apparently 30-pound swords?

http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 08:53 AM
As a personal point, I also don't care if it doesn't portray said female as a "strong character". If you read the first post I made. I was actually talking about how unfair it is for men to not have small amounts of armor. While males get protection or mobility, females get protection and mobility.


Can we point out that the supposed choice between protection and mobility is ridiculous and rife with pseudohistorical nonsense, or does that make us "SJWs" too?




Please don't make this a thread on "social justice". The only white knights we need here are ones who kill dragons and save princesses here.


I think "social justice" is largely nonsense, and yet somehow I've thought that "women's armor" as often depicted in fantasy art and film and games was sketchy and odd and unrealistic since before I'd ever heard of any of that garbage.

Huh.

Cluedrew
2016-12-11, 10:09 AM
To Max_Killjoy: Thanks for the link, interesting read. Still no I haven't seen much of those myths. I have recalled presentation of Macbeth with clunky warriors and there are probably a few other cases I'm forgetting. But still I have seen these myths more often in the context of someone debunking them than anyone believing them.

Also I think that is the point 8BitNinja (correct me if I am wrong) is trying to make: We all know it is stupid, so why not make some jokes about it.

georgie_leech
2016-12-11, 10:43 AM
To Max_Killjoy: Thanks for the link, interesting read. Still no I haven't seen much of those myths. I have recalled presentation of Macbeth with clunky warriors and there are probably a few other cases I'm forgetting. But still I have seen these myths more often in the context of someone debunking them than anyone believing them.

Is that the Macbeth where they invaded as a forest by all holding tiny branches? If so, I don't think the awkwardness of that sword fight was from the armor. :smallamused:

CharonsHelper
2016-12-11, 10:49 AM
Is that the Macbeth where they invaded as a forest by all holding tiny branches? If so, I don't think the awkwardness of that sword fight was from the armor. :smallamused:

Lol - I don't think that that's how they invaded the forest. Holding the branches was just stage symbolism for being in a forest.

georgie_leech
2016-12-11, 10:55 AM
Lol - I don't think that that's how they invaded the forest. Holding the branches was just stage symbolism for being in a forest.

Ah, you saw it on stage. I'm thinking of a movie we watched in English class as an example of "no, you can't just watch the movie and expect to know the material." Other highlights included the second witches coven being a bunch of naked old ladies.

Nifft
2016-12-11, 10:56 AM
Is that the Macbeth where they invaded as a forest by all holding tiny branches? If so, I don't think the awkwardness of that sword fight was from the armor. :smallamused:

"We are a shrub."

"Move along."

Cluedrew
2016-12-11, 11:10 AM
Oh Nifft, I forgot this last time but:

That explains why so many images feature exposed midriffs and armpits: so they can tickle each other, which generates additional joy.New favourite explanation for holes in armour.

A excellent combination of some kind of internal logic and the right kind of ridiculous.

ComradeBear
2016-12-11, 11:37 AM
Fantasy armor isn't designed by armorsmiths. It's designed to look neat.

I think it's interesting that most helmeted armored figures are assumed to be male. We have no actual way of knowing for sure, since physical gender markers don't communicate through armor.

Essentially, any armored individual who has a covered face and body, who it is not explicitly stated to be male, may as well be a female.
Case in point: Captain Phasma from Star Wars Ep. VII. Before I was told it would be a specific female character, I just thought it was a new sort of stormtrooper. No gender attached, just some kind of new shiny trooper.

I'll also note that the choice between Armor and Mobility is real. Due to how physics work. Be as buff as you like, putting a bunch of sheetmetal on your body will make you less mobile than if you didn't have a bunch of sheetmetal on you. There is definitely a tradeoff between protection and mobility. It is simply less severe in the case of knights than some would like to belief. But there's a reason your sedan can outpace pretty much any tank or Armored Personnel Carrier. Even the fastest APC ever made needs to really put the pedal to the metal to achieve normal highway speeds. Yes, this is a more extreme case and not on a human body, etc. But there is negative correlation between How Mobile You Are and How Much Armor You've Got On.

Jay R
2016-12-11, 02:35 PM
The explanation is that the picture of the woman in armor is not intended as documentation of intelligent armor design. It is intended to sell the product.

[Also, I suspect that for many artists, at the exact moment when he is drawing the swell of a woman's bosom, he isn't keenly focused on the tactical aspects of armor design.]

Hawkstar
2016-12-11, 02:42 PM
Lol - I don't think that that's how they invaded the forest. Holding the branches was just stage symbolism for being in a forest.Actually, they did invade as a forest. They disguised their approach on the fortress with [actually large] branches to conceal their numbers, positions, etc. It also played into the prophesy about Macbeth's defeat (Which he, of course, interpreted to be about his invincibility) "[He] Shall not be vanquished until Birnam Wood comes against him in Dunsinane Hill".

Segev
2016-12-11, 02:45 PM
I've said basically this a number of times. There are worse choices than fighting virtually nude. Being unable to raise your arms over your head for example.
As was said to the Romans when they boasted of conquering all of England: "Picts, or it didn't happen."


http://orig15.deviantart.net/ccf9/f/2014/003/0/e/you_want_some__by_dantewontdie-d70m2w8.jpg


The second one, if you pull your eyes away from the naughty bits, is also clearly a succubus, with the black wings, horns, and spade tail. In other words, that "problem" pose is entirely appropriate for what it is.

Besides, there's this idea being presented that somehow male power fantasies are something other than sexual fantasies. The male of the species's sexual power is tied up in his capabilities; that's why cheesecake calendars largely feature firemen or woodsmen or lifeguards. Women actually have sexual power that is independent of anything else, so you can have women posing with cars or carp and it doesn't matter if they clearly have no business being around either one (yes, the carp thing is real). A man who has nothing but sexuality to offer is presented as parody and winds up being not sexually attractive because of it.This is, again, an opportunity for my favorite game to examine things.

Take that second image, and try to imagine a male version of it. Make a male version of that character, wearing a costume designed to sexualize him just as much, in just as sexualized a pose. What does it look like? (Key point: you're not trying to make a humor pic of a cross-dressing guy grossing people out; you're trying to make the "aimed at the attracted-to-males audience" equivalent of it.)

Now that you've done this, how does that differ from male fantasy art that is commonly used to say "men are drawn near-naked, too?" DOES it differ, or is it a matter of subjective opinion?



The other point to consider, as well, is whether the first pic or the second pic is more likely to appear in a fantasy novel or a fantasy gamebook. I posit that the second one might appear in a novel where the term "fantasy" means something other than what we usually discuss on this forum.

Satinavian
2016-12-11, 03:14 PM
You've never seen discussions of armor turn to knights needing to be winched into the saddle and being unable to get up if they fell down, because their armor was so so heavy and unwieldy? Or watched a fight scene in a movie with two "Medieval" dudes trying to clumsily bludgeon each other with their apparently 30-pound swords?

http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm
Time marches on.

The last time i have seen those opinions meant serious is like two decades ago.

Beleriphon
2016-12-11, 03:43 PM
Take that second image, and try to imagine a male version of it. Make a male version of that character, wearing a costume designed to sexualize him just as much, in just as sexualized a pose. What does it look like? (Key point: you're not trying to make a humor pic of a cross-dressing guy grossing people out; you're trying to make the "aimed at the attracted-to-males audience" equivalent of it.)

Now that you've done this, how does that differ from male fantasy art that is commonly used to say "men are drawn near-naked, too?" DOES it differ, or is it a matter of subjective opinion?

Depends, the male equivalent tends to be romance novel covers, since the majority audience is heterosexual females. And really the novels are about "romance".

Some examples:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gE-a96aCwCk/SwjETD7zlKI/AAAAAAAABBk/NV68XT5PyH4/s1600/DSC00826.JPG
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-04/enhanced/webdr04/16/13/enhanced-23561-1397668595-3.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f3/85/6d/f3856d776a8644923f206cdb0a52a316.jpg

Supposedly a fantasy novel (he's got a sword, what do I know?):
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/fa/d7/2d/fad72d5718f063badc11c1fc4f18ba16.jpg

Segev
2016-12-11, 03:54 PM
Depends, the male equivalent tends to be romance novel covers, since the majority audience is heterosexual females. And really the novels are about "romance".

Some examples:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gE-a96aCwCk/SwjETD7zlKI/AAAAAAAABBk/NV68XT5PyH4/s1600/DSC00826.JPG
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-04/enhanced/webdr04/16/13/enhanced-23561-1397668595-3.jpg

And I'd posit that most books which feature the sexualized demoness (rather than the non-sexualized one) are going to be about *ahem* "fantasy" and not the sort of high fantasy we're usually discussing around here.


That said, we do have plenty of "slave girl in a dungeon" sexualized imagery showing up from time to time. I think that harks back to the notion that the setting itself is somewhat sexist. Which makes such settings fun fodder for my favorite game in their own right!

Beleriphon
2016-12-11, 03:59 PM
And I'd posit that most books which feature the sexualized demoness (rather than the non-sexualized one) are going to be about *ahem* "fantasy" and not the sort of high fantasy we're usually discussing around here.


That said, we do have plenty of "slave girl in a dungeon" sexualized imagery showing up from time to time. I think that harks back to the notion that the setting itself is somewhat sexist. Which makes such settings fun fodder for my favorite game in their own right!

Oh, I agree. It can difficult to find art of men/males/whatever pronoun that isn't a romance novel by virtue of the demographics that tend to get chased. I'm just suggesting that the best way to find a sexualized male image is via the romance novel cover, since they tend to pretty common. Oddly though there seems to be pretty standard poses that you just have to change the hair colour and clothes of the models to get a romance novel cover.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 04:02 PM
The explanation is that the picture of the woman in armor is not intended as documentation of intelligent armor design. It is intended to sell the product.


Which I guess wouldn't be a problem if so many people were fully aware of what was going on and didn't succumb to "rule of kewl".

Segev
2016-12-11, 04:18 PM
Which I guess wouldn't be a problem if so many people were fully aware of what was going on and didn't succumb to "rule of kewl".

I'm afraid I don't follow. What problem is perpetuated by "rule of kewl" here?

Talakeal
2016-12-11, 04:19 PM
Just wear a holy symbol. That's what I do.



They actually did occasionally, but it wasn't intentional.



For the last time, I don't care about if armor is "sexist" or not. This thread is a joke. I don't care how you portray anyone with any armor. It's called freedom of speech.

Also, it's called fantasy for a reason. It's not supposed to be realistic.

As a personal point, I also don't care if it doesn't portray said female as a "strong character". If you read the first post I made. I was actually talking about how unfair it is for men to not have small amounts of armor. While males get protection or mobility, females get protection and mobility.

Please don't make this a thread on "social justice". The only white knights we need here are ones who kill dragons and save princesses here.

You can't make a joke about a serious subject which a lot of people have deeply held beliefs about and then expect people to discuss your joke without voicing their opinions on said subject.



This is, again, an opportunity for my favorite game to examine things.

Take that second image, and try to imagine a male version of it. Make a male version of that character, wearing a costume designed to sexualize him just as much, in just as sexualized a pose. What does it look like? (Key point: you're not trying to make a humor pic of a cross-dressing guy grossing people out; you're trying to make the "aimed at the attracted-to-males audience" equivalent of it.)

Now that you've done this, how does that differ from male fantasy art that is commonly used to say "men are drawn near-naked, too?" DOES it differ, or is it a matter of subjective opinion?



The other point to consider, as well, is whether the first pic or the second pic is more likely to appear in a fantasy novel or a fantasy gamebook. I posit that the second one might appear in a novel where the term "fantasy" means something other than what we usually discuss on this forum.

I am not quite sure at what you are getting at here.

But, to answer the question, I imagine a man in a similar costume would look ridiculous and not at all sexy. But then again I am probably not the right person to ask, as the initial image also looks ridiculous and not at all sexy to me. I think she is trying to wink seductively at me, but she really looks more like she was photographed mid-sneeze.




Depends, the male equivalent tends to be romance novel covers, since the majority audience is heterosexual females. And really the novels are about "romance".


I have always wondered why people rant and rave about comic book and game covers but never mention romance novels. One of my friends likes reading romance novels, and I notice that a lot of the covers are just a muscular guys naked torso; say you will about cheese-cake fantasy art, but at least those women have heads.

Again, more celebrated double standards I guess.

Segev
2016-12-11, 04:33 PM
But, to answer the question, I imagine a man in a similar costume would look ridiculous and not at all sexy. But then again I am probably not the right person to ask, as the initial image also looks ridiculous and not at all sexy to me. I think she is trying to wink seductively at me, but she really looks more like she was photographed mid-sneeze.


Well, since you think this looks ridiculous, perhaps you can't picture a non-ridiculous male equivalent.

The challenge is to see if there IS a male equivalent that looks as (non-)ridiculous as the presented female version. If there isn't, it's something to consider when discussing standards (double or otherwise). If there is, it's also something to consider.

The point of my favorite game is to see if there are any cultural norms or assumptions that are so hidden you don't even realize they're there. Sometimes the results are mildly amusing, but don't reveal anything you hadn't considered before. Other times, things go from "hillarious" to "shocking." (See: Love Hina) Or they go from "mildly uncomfortable but humorous" to "scandalously horrifying."

Arbane
2016-12-11, 04:48 PM
Because whether you are on the side of "It's offensive and insulting and I'll criticize it!" or the side of "Artists draw what they want, stop complaining or go away!"

Point of order: In commercial products, the artists are usually drawing what the Marketing Department ordered, not what they want. Credit where credit is due.

Deophaun
2016-12-11, 05:00 PM
Point of order: In commercial products, the artists are usually drawing what the Marketing Department ordered, not what they want. Credit where credit is due.
In commercial products, artists are drawing money, which is what they want.

Lord Raziere
2016-12-11, 05:02 PM
Point of order: In commercial products, the artists are usually drawing what the Marketing Department ordered, not what they want. Credit where credit is due.

Yeah, I find it strange to criticize the artist for a commercial product that he was probably ordered to do by other people so he can make money for his job and thus y'know. Eat.

While criticizing internet art that no one is paying for is also kind of strange, because your not paying for that to be there, freedom of speech, so they can put it up if they want, they're probably not getting any money for it. or its a commission that other people, again, paid that artist to do. generally if the artist is making money off of it, its not their personal preference while if its their personal preference they're probably not making any money off of it.

The problem then, is that people have a problem with people paying that person to produce that artwork. and that guy needing to produce that artwork, because again, they need to eat and making art is the only job they actually enjoy. So its like, how you gonna solve things so that artists don't need to produce such art to make money?

8BitNinja
2016-12-11, 05:13 PM
Oh crap. What have I gotten myself into this time?


You've never seen discussions of armor turn to knights needing to be winched into the saddle and being unable to get up if they fell down, because their armor was so so heavy and unwieldy? Or watched a fight scene in a movie with two "Medieval" dudes trying to clumsily bludgeon each other with their apparently 30-pound swords?

http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

Actually no. I have not. Can you direct me to any?


Can we point out that the supposed choice between protection and mobility is ridiculous and rife with pseudohistorical nonsense, or does that make us "SJWs" too?




I think "social justice" is largely nonsense, and yet somehow I've thought that "women's armor" as often depicted in fantasy art and film and games was sketchy and odd and unrealistic since before I'd ever heard of any of that garbage.

Huh.

No, that isn't being an "SJW". The problem I had was that the comment I replied to was derailing this into a sociopolitical issue. I was trying to keep this from starting into an argument that could get this thread closed. The poster was complaining about female armor being a male power fantasy on a joke thread. That's like talking about politics because peoe were making video game jokes. What started out as fun for everyone turns into a ticking time bomb really fast.


Also I think that is the point 8BitNinja (correct me if I am wrong) is trying to make: We all know it is stupid, so why not make some jokes about it.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. Thank you.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 05:17 PM
I'm afraid I don't follow. What problem is perpetuated by "rule of kewl" here?

Ignorance, for starters.

GloatingSwine
2016-12-11, 05:20 PM
So why are women protected so well by barely anything, while men have to wear an entire steel mill's worth of metal for protection?



Female armour provides tactical protection for the only parts of the anatomy that male opponents are capable of perceiving, ergo its armour class is inversely proportional to the amount of coverage.

Cazero
2016-12-11, 05:24 PM
I have always wondered why people rant and rave about comic book and game covers but never mention romance novels. One of my friends likes reading romance novels, and I notice that a lot of the covers are just a muscular guys naked torso; say you will about cheese-cake fantasy art, but at least those women have heads.

Again, more celebrated double standards I guess.
In a romance novel, the sexy bits are relevant. It's what bring you to buy the book in the first place.

On game book covers, it is false advertising and sexist pandering. I don't need sexy pics in my gaming books, thank you very much. I have the internet for that.

Akolyte01
2016-12-11, 05:28 PM
Because male armor is designed to appeal to males, and female armor is also designed to appeal to males. Guys like to project into a super masculine figure, and they like staring at underdressed feminine figures, particular the backside if it's a 3rd person game. I'd hazard that 1st person shooters and other games have a much lower ratio of ridiculously heavy male armor to ridiculously revealing female armor.

When representations of men are chosen to appeal to females, they still tend to be hyper masculine.... I can promise you the shots of Chris Evans flexing to hold back the helicopter in the new Captain America movies weren't included for the sake of straight males.

And it's not hard to tell, from general trends in who females choose to represent in cosplay, that females are quite fond of the 'scantily-clad-woman-warrior' type designs as well.

Both women and men create a demand for characters to be 'sexy.' Sexiness for male characters just isn't as reliant on nudity.

Lord Raziere
2016-12-11, 05:37 PM
Ignorance, for starters.

I know fully well what is or isn't possible. Dual-Wielding chainsaws while wearing power armor, is not possible. giant indestructible swords of legend are not possible. all this impractical armor is not possible nor is any mobility the people that wear them is possible. There are a thousand and one cool things that are not possible, know fully well they never will and I accept that wholeheartedly.:smallbiggrin:

That is why I participate in this fantastic imagination hobby at all! So I can imagine them if they WERE there. That is what the rule of cool is all about! Not ignorance, its about knowing that its not possible and allowing yourself to enjoy it anyways. anyone with sense could tell you these things are not possible. you don't go to the movies to educate yourself, you go to have fun. and everyone goes home after, gushes about the experience, talk about the movies flaws and where it went right, each with their own opinions. :smallwink:

This is not about ignorance, you just don't like it. Or at the least form you think is there but doesn't apply to the cool things you give passes to because you like them. Like any form of magic, that is rule of cool no matter how slight. Everything fantastical is cool in some way, and anything else is just an excuse to have them be there.

GloatingSwine
2016-12-11, 05:37 PM
I have always wondered why people rant and rave about comic book and game covers but never mention romance novels. One of my friends likes reading romance novels, and I notice that a lot of the covers are just a muscular guys naked torso; say you will about cheese-cake fantasy art, but at least those women have heads.

Again, more celebrated double standards I guess.

Heads yes. Spines not so often.

(I mean I know lamias are big in the monstergirl scene, but everyone being part snake?)

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 05:54 PM
I know fully well what is or isn't possible. Dual-Wielding chainsaws while wearing power armor, is not possible. giant indestructible swords of legend are not possible. all this impractical armor is not possible nor is any mobility the people that wear them is possible. There are a thousand and one cool things that are not possible, know fully well they never will and I accept that wholeheartedly.:smallbiggrin:

That is why I participate in this fantastic imagination hobby at all! So I can imagine them if they WERE there. That is what the rule of cool is all about! Not ignorance, its about knowing that its not possible and allowing yourself to enjoy it anyways. anyone with sense could tell you these things are not possible. you don't go to the movies to educate yourself, you go to have fun. and everyone goes home after, gushes about the experience, talk about the movies flaws and where it went right, each with their own opinions. :smallwink:

This is not about ignorance, you just don't like it. Or at the least form you think is there but doesn't apply to the cool things you give passes to because you like them. Like any form of magic, that is rule of cool no matter how slight. Everything fantastical is cool in some way, and anything else is just an excuse to have them be there.

Well, thank you for informing me as to what I think. You must be a mind-reader, or something.

Or not.


Goodbye.


/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet)).

Akolyte01
2016-12-11, 06:04 PM
Well, thank you for informing me as to what I think. You must be a mind-reader, or something.

Or not.


Goodbye.


/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet)).

You're the one implicitly calling other people ignorant. You're being hypocritical and incredibly thin-skinned.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 06:25 PM
You're the one implicitly calling other people ignorant. You're being hypocritical and incredibly thin-skinned.

Who in this thread did I call ignorant? Hmm? Show us the post where I called anyone in this thread or any particular person ignorant.

Oh wait, you can't.

8BitNinja
2016-12-11, 07:01 PM
Female armour provides tactical protection for the only parts of the anatomy that male opponents are capable of perceiving, ergo its armour class is inversely proportional to the amount of coverage.

Next time I play a paladin or fighter, I'm going to buy a piece of dental floss and become invincible.

SaintRidley
2016-12-11, 07:16 PM
I love the joke comments, but to address the "serious" ones.

I'm not asking why it exists, I don't care about that. I need to know why a mail bikini protects for women as much as wearing an M1 Abrams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams) for men.

Well, the thing is that women and men are very distinct entities biologically. Men's organs are spread out throughout the body (the reason you wear greaves is because it turns out your liver is actually in your left leg while the gallbladder is in the right). Women, on the other hand, keep their organs in the regions covered by the bikini, and thus need much less coverage on empty regions of the body.

Anonymouswizard
2016-12-11, 07:22 PM
On game book covers, it is false advertising and sexist pandering. I don't need sexy pics in my gaming books, thank you very much. I have the internet for that.

This is actually what annoys me about d6 Fantasy. I love the game, and the interior art is amazing (there's maybe three pictures of scantily clad women, one's a midriff varying thief who may be make, one's an assassin disguised as a dancing girl, one I have no idea but isn't a warrior), and the art for the female pictures on the example characters are good, the Bard has a low cut cut, the cleric's armour has boob bumps, and the thief's clothes have a few holes, but they're all sensibly dressed apart from that and the merchant makes up for the small bits with her sensible dress and gloves. But what does the cover show? A female warrior wearing a breastplate that accentuates her boobs and stomach, knickers, long gloves, and though high boots. It's a real shame when the roaring, fire breathing dragon also on the cover is awesome, just take the design of the Cleric and show her fighting that! (The Cleric picture is to me the equivalent of the 'shirtless barbarian' for ladies, pretty while looking like she could kick your arse, and showing skin [bare arms and thighs] while still wearing a decent breastplate, gauntlets, and greaves).

The worst part is, d6 Adventure and d6 Space had much better covers. d6 Adventure gets a man ready to fire his dual pistols at you in front of a city, while d6 Space gets a hacker girl in a skintight suit connected to cables. Okay, so d6 Space does still have a pretty lady, but the focus of more on the in her hand than her breasts.

Akolyte01
2016-12-11, 07:22 PM
Who in this thread did I call ignorant? Hmm? Show us the post where I called anyone in this thread or any particular person ignorant.

Oh wait, you can't.

Do you know what 'implicitly' means? You said that the inclusion of fantasy armor tropes you don't like perpetuates ignorance, which implicitly declares that the people who disagree that it is a problem are ignorant.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 07:31 PM
Do you know what 'implicitly' means? You said that the inclusion of fantasy armor tropes you don't like perpetuates ignorance, which implicitly declares that the people who disagree that it is a problem are ignorant.

That would be your inference, not anything that my statement implied. But hey, I'm the one who's being thin-skinned, etc. Right.


I've run into too many -- gamers and otherwise -- whose conception of period arms and armor comes from terrible artwork, Hollywood crap, and perpetuated Victorian-era "history". I don't need to be talking about ANYONE in this thread, and it had nothing to do with whether someone disagrees with me on the particulars of this discussion.

Cluedrew
2016-12-11, 08:09 PM
Um...

Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

Maybe we misunderstood the evidence or made a mistake in our reasoning, but perhaps a little more evidence would help. That is to say, why don't you just explain what you mean and then we can move on.

On Context: Personally the bad armour and similar really gets me in two main cases. The first is a double standard, for instance the males have completely different style of armour (the romance covers pass here because the females aren't exactly... modestly attired either). The second is when it does not fit the tone, when the setting/story is otherwise serious (the covers are for romance novels, fits perfectly).

Deophaun
2016-12-11, 08:19 PM
On Context: Personally the bad armour and similar really gets me in two main cases. The first is a double standard, for instance the males have completely different style of armour (the romance covers pass here because the females aren't exactly... modestly attired either). The second is when it does not fit the tone, when the setting/story is otherwise serious (the covers are for romance novels, fits perfectly).
But, as stated, the male power fantasy is a sexual fantasy, just as much as women's romance novels are sexual fantasies. Therefore, covers depicting strong men and scantily clad ladies deserve the same pass as you would find on a romance novel; they serve the same function.

Personally, I don't like either, but then I don't think the covers are about me, so I don't complain about them.

Reboot
2016-12-11, 08:20 PM
This is actually what annoys me about d6 Fantasy. I love the game, and the interior art is amazing (there's maybe three pictures of scantily clad women, one's a midriff varying thief who may be make, one's an assassin disguised as a dancing girl, one I have no idea but isn't a warrior), and the art for the female pictures on the example characters are good, the Bard has a low cut cut, the cleric's armour has boob bumps, and the thief's clothes have a few holes, but they're all sensibly dressed apart from that and the merchant makes up for the small bits with her sensible dress and gloves. But what does the cover show? A female warrior wearing a breastplate that accentuates her boobs and stomach, knickers, long gloves, and though high boots. It's a real shame when the roaring, fire breathing dragon also on the cover is awesome, just take the design of the Cleric and show her fighting that! (The Cleric picture is to me the equivalent of the 'shirtless barbarian' for ladies, pretty while looking like she could kick your arse, and showing skin [bare arms and thighs] while still wearing a decent breastplate, gauntlets, and greaves).

Okay, I found the Cleric picture you were mentioning online, and gave it a (VERY!) quick colour to show roughly the area of skin exposed:

https://i.imgur.com/FZEc4nA.jpg

Please note how she's virtually spilling out her top! (Here's the picture in the original black & white, for reference (https://i.imgur.com/DJh5l9v.jpg). Note the complete lack of any sort of line that suggests her upper chest & cleavage is covered!)

Anonymouswizard
2016-12-11, 08:41 PM
Okay, I found the Cleric picture you were mentioning online, and gave it a (VERY!) quick colour to show roughly the area of skin exposed:

https://i.imgur.com/FZEc4nA.jpg

Please note how she's virtually spilling out her top! (Here's the picture in the original black & white, for reference (https://i.imgur.com/DJh5l9v.jpg). Note the complete lack of any sort of line that suggests her upper chest & cleavage is covered!)

Huh, yeah, sorry, working from a much smaller picture, it's easy to miss the lack of line. As in, there were literally two milimeterz of her neck without something covering it, I mistook some strands of hair as part of her top. Still, it's still eighty times better than the woman on the front cover, and once I fetch a pen it'll all be solved.

(I have to mention that my favourite of the sample characters is the merchant because she's basically not showing any skin, but the Cleric is the only 'warrior' in the female sample characters. At least she's wearing more armour than the gladiator and monster hunter.)

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 08:45 PM
Um...

Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

Maybe we misunderstood the evidence or made a mistake in our reasoning, but perhaps a little more evidence would help. That is to say, why don't you just explain what you mean and then we can move on.


The difference is still that an inference comes from the reader, while the implication comes from the writer. I implied nothing like what he inferred.

As noted in the above edit, I've come across too many people outside these forums who get their ideas about period weapons, armor, and combat from things like bad cover art. Or the guy who kept trying to play his warrior like the "Spartans" in 300 or the "Greeks" in the rebooted Clash of the Titans... or the guy who thinks katanas are superweapons and Europeans swords were crude bludgeoning instruments.




On Context: Personally the bad armour and similar really gets me in two main cases. The first is a double standard, for instance the males have completely different style of armour (the romance covers pass here because the females aren't exactly... modestly attired either). The second is when it does not fit the tone, when the setting/story is otherwise serious (the covers are for romance novels, fits perfectly).


Honestly, it makes me gunshy about actually trying to get some of the things I've written published, because I'm pretty sure they'd try to tart the protagonist up on the cover art.

Hawkstar
2016-12-11, 08:45 PM
Yeah, I find it strange to criticize the artist for a commercial product that he was probably ordered to do by other people so he can make money for his job and thus y'know. Eat.

While criticizing internet art that no one is paying for is also kind of strange, because your not paying for that to be there, freedom of speech, so they can put it up if they want, they're probably not getting any money for it. or its a commission that other people, again, paid that artist to do. generally if the artist is making money off of it, its not their personal preference while if its their personal preference they're probably not making any money off of it.

The problem then, is that people have a problem with people paying that person to produce that artwork. and that guy needing to produce that artwork, because again, they need to eat and making art is the only job they actually enjoy. So its like, how you gonna solve things so that artists don't need to produce such art to make money?Actually, you're dramatically undervaluing the input an artist has in a piece of work. Most artists like drawing what they're commissioned to draw (It's why they get commissioned to draw it in the first place, and why they accept the commissions). A lot of times, artists go for more impractical/'sexy' outfits for the art they're commissioned to draw because they can (IIRC, Paizo had to send a LOT of art back to the authors because "She's way too skimpily-dressed".)

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 08:47 PM
But, as stated, the male power fantasy is a sexual fantasy, just as much as women's romance novels are sexual fantasies. Therefore, covers depicting strong men and scantily clad ladies deserve the same pass as you would find on a romance novel; they serve the same function.

Personally, I don't like either, but then I don't think the covers are about me, so I don't complain about them.

I don't really care for either, either.

But I also don't really buy into that Freudian stuff about power and sex being inextricably intertwined, or that all "male power fantasy" is about sex.

Nifft
2016-12-11, 08:48 PM
Oh Nifft, I forgot this last time but:
New favourite explanation for holes in armour.

A excellent combination of some kind of internal logic and the right kind of ridiculous.
Glad the idea ... tickled your fancy.


Actually, you're dramatically undervaluing the input an artist has in a piece of work. Most artists like drawing what they're commissioned to draw (It's why they get commissioned to draw it in the first place, and why they accept the commissions). A lot of times, artists go for more impractical/'sexy' outfits for the art they're commissioned to draw because they can (IIRC, Paizo had to send a LOT of art back to the authors because "She's way too skimpily-dressed".) I did not know that.

I had wanted to find some excuse to mention that so far as I have seen, the D&D 5e official art has been pretty great in terms of not sexualizing its subjects.

Now I wonder how much they had to send back.

Cluedrew
2016-12-11, 09:03 PM
But, as stated, the male power fantasy is a sexual fantasy, just as much as women's romance novels are sexual fantasies. Therefore, covers depicting strong men and scantily clad ladies deserve the same pass as you would find on a romance novel; they serve the same function.I like my gender neutral stories set in a fantasy setting with sensibly dressed characters. What can I say, its a guilty pleasure.


The difference is still that an inference comes from the reader, while the implication comes from the writer. I implied nothing like what he inferred.Hence me asking for more information. On a similar note: Are you saying that what you don't like is when the rule of cool is mistaken for accurate representation?


Honestly, it makes me gunshy about actually trying to get some of the things I've written published, because I'm pretty sure they'd try to tart the protagonist up on the cover art.I'm not even worried about that, I'm just am scared the artist will get the protagonist's portrait wrong. That translation from words to image is tricky and I have seen it messed up too many times to feel confident in it. Not that anything I have written is ready for publishing yet but hopefully some day I will actually have to worry about that.

To Nifft: Yes... yes it did.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 09:13 PM
I like my gender neutral stories set in a fantasy setting with sensibly dressed characters. What can I say, its a guilty pleasure.


Same here.

I'm not that interested in power fantasies, or that other kind, in my fiction.




Hence me asking for more information. On a similar note: Are you saying that what you don't like is when the rule of cool is mistaken for accurate representation?


That's a big part of it, yes. Or the "rule of sexy", or the "rule of this was done to sell the product", or...




I'm not even worried about that, I'm just am scared the artist will get the protagonist's portrait wrong. That translation from words to image is tricky and I have seen it messed up too many times to feel confident in it. Not that anything I have written is ready for publishing yet but hopefully some day I will actually have to worry about that.


Yeah. As I write I'm also trying desperately to find images I can send along and say "this is as close as I found to the protagonist's face", "this is as close as I found to the protagonist's clothing", etc.

Deophaun
2016-12-11, 09:46 PM
But I also don't really buy into that Freudian stuff about power and sex being inextricably intertwined, or that all "male power fantasy" is about sex.
It's not Freudian. Not Freudian at all. Darwinian. Females are the ones who determine what is and is not sexually attractive in a male, and that is the ability to provide. Evolutionarily, that has translated into being the ability to hunt, to protect from other tribes, and even to successfully raid other tribes. If a male wants to win the reproductive game, that is what biology says he must master. We channel these into civic pursuits such as sports and business in real life, but in fantasy settings we can let it all out: go slay a dragon and prove your worthiness.

I like my gender neutral stories set in a fantasy setting with sensibly dressed characters. What can I say, its a guilty pleasure.
Really? Which ones have you written? Got an Amazon page?

8BitNinja
2016-12-11, 09:49 PM
Well, the thing is that women and men are very distinct entities biologically. Men's organs are spread out throughout the body (the reason you wear greaves is because it turns out your liver is actually in your left leg while the gallbladder is in the right). Women, on the other hand, keep their organs in the regions covered by the bikini, and thus need much less coverage on empty regions of the body.

So that's why boobs exist?

My biology professor lied to me!


I don't really care for either, either.

But I also don't really buy into that Freudian stuff about power and sex being inextricably intertwined, or that all "male power fantasy" is about sex.

I just think it's funny.

That's why this thread exists.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 10:18 PM
It's not Freudian. Not Freudian at all. Darwinian. Females are the ones who determine what is and is not sexually attractive in a male, and that is the ability to provide. Evolutionarily, that has translated into being the ability to hunt, to protect from other tribes, and even to successfully raid other tribes. If a male wants to win the reproductive game, that is what biology says he must master. We channel these into civic pursuits such as sports and business in real life, but in fantasy settings we can let it all out: go slay a dragon and prove your worthiness.


Meh. So it's not Freudian "everything is sex" nonsense, it's "evolutionary psychology" nonsense.

Whatever.

Deophaun
2016-12-11, 10:22 PM
Meh. So it's not Freudian "everything is sex" nonsense, it's "evolutionary psychology" nonsense.

Whatever.
Interesting. I did not know "nonsense" meant "solid, well supported reasoning." You learn something new everyday!

Cluedrew
2016-12-11, 10:25 PM
Really? Which ones have you written? Got an Amazon page?Nothing officially published yet. Well a couple of articles in a small newspaper that takes all kinds of submissions. I got design notes for one open in another window that I am working on right now. Post apocalyptic environmental fantasy. Or something, I just made that phase up.

On Evolution: Your evolutionary reasons probably work, but it is also more complex than that. What about loyalty? From a purely evolutionary perspective males need it to know the kids are their own and females need it to know they will be provided for. What about companionship? Humans feed off of social interactions but we as a race depend on the power of numbers and have been wired to seek and form ties with other beings. There are probably more, but I think my general point has been made. It is not quite as simple as "provider" and "child barer".

And of course evolution is essentially randomness with a slight slant towards what works. That becomes a strong slant over millions of years yes, but still the answers aren't always straight forward.

My only regret is I didn't finish this two posts earlier. I did start it before that, but I'm a slow writer.

Hawkstar
2016-12-11, 10:30 PM
Interesting. I did not know "nonsense" meant "solid, well supported reasoning." You learn something new everyday!Evolutionary Psychology is a pseudoscience not supported in any credible academic or scientific circles. It might not be 'nonsense', but it's still garbage.

Deophaun
2016-12-11, 10:36 PM
NOn Evolution: Your evolutionary reasons probably work, but it is also more complex than that.
Everything is more complex. I don't think the board could handle a post that went deep into it (and I'm pretty sure we're annoying the OP who is being very generous in not yelling at us to stop it). As an example, to talk about companionship goes back to the primate's shift to binocular vision and then takes off from there. The issues you bring up all play a part, no doubt. But, as a schema, the simple version works pretty darn well; it's the close-enough, back-of-the-envelope Newtonian model versus the relativistic one.

Evolutionary Psychology is a pseudoscience not supported in any credible academic or scientific circles. It might not be 'nonsense', but it's still garbage.
So bird's don't migrate and dogs are the same as wolves. More things I'm learning.

Lord Raziere
2016-12-11, 10:45 PM
The real reason why female armor is that everyone knows people are actually physical incapable of attacking certain female body parts. This is an inborn instinct to protect any potential unborn children. Hardwired, so much that no one can overcome it. People male and female go up to them, swing their sword and somehow it always just curves to the armored parts without them being able to do anything about it. It just happens man. It just happens.

Or the real reason why female armor is because succubi were the first female warriors ever. All the men? caught completely off guard and slaughtered relentlessly. So all the women took inspiration from that as a form of female empowerment and began blacksmithing similar pieces of armor, and now all men run away because they are reminded through their ancestral memory the day that women wearing that armor killed so many. They are just so afraid.

Or the real reason why female armor is the female body is actually incredibly hard and protective, much more so than men. They just put it on to humor them, its just there for show, to distract people from the truth.

Or the real reason is that half the armor is invisible. The parts showing flesh are just there to fool you into attacking those parts when really they are just as protected as all the rest, so that your weapon bounces off foolishly instead of looking for the actual openings.

Or the real reason is that there is no female armor at all. Its all just an illusion to make them look like they are wearing any armor at all, to make people hesitate and point out that armor is ridiculous so that you can respond "what armor?" and kill them while their guard is down because your not actually wearing any.

Either that or the armor is actually alive and enhances your physical capabilities beyond what most are capable of, but if it covers too much skin the armor takes control so they're designed to cover as little as possible so that it enhances your fighting ability so much you don't actually need the protection. Thats right: all skimpy female armor are actually tame life fibers.

Or all the females wearing such armor are just female Exalts. It doesn't matter how impractical their armor, they will kick your ass. Thats right, every single female conveyed in such artwork? A female Solar Exalt. Every single one.

@8bitninja: so you would say that this thread is here because of the rule of funny?

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-11, 11:04 PM
Interesting. I did not know "nonsense" meant "solid, well supported reasoning." You learn something new everyday!

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

It's an interesting idea, but repeatedly, routinely ends up with the sort of "just so" stories that your first post on the matter put forth. "Well of course women like X and men like Y, just as we've always thought, it simply makes evolutionary sense, by jove!"

It also strips out a lot of individual variation on what's going on inside people's heads, and reduces them to nothing more than products of their genes and a base urge to reproduce -- it's all nature, no nurture and no free will. "Well, you see, men like larger breasts, because they're an sign of female fertility!" If you can't see all the myriad problems with that sort of statement, then...


Turns out a lot of these "just so" gender-genetic-essentialist claims about what men and women supposedly want just don't hold up when actually examined in an empirical manner -- https://jezebel.com/5849842/six-myths-about-sex-and-gender-busted

Arbane
2016-12-12, 12:01 AM
Well, the thing is that women and men are very distinct entities biologically. Men's organs are spread out throughout the body (the reason you wear greaves is because it turns out your liver is actually in your left leg while the gallbladder is in the right). Women, on the other hand, keep their organs in the regions covered by the bikini, and thus need much less coverage on empty regions of the body.

If that's the sort of anatomy they teach in art school, suddenly a lot of Liefeldian comic-book art starts to make sense.

CharonsHelper
2016-12-12, 12:02 AM
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

It's an interesting idea, but repeatedly, routinely ends up with the sort of "just so" stories that your first post on the matter put forth. "Well of course women like X and men like Y, just as we've always thought, it simply makes evolutionary sense, by jove!"

It also strips out a lot of individual variation on what's going on inside people's heads, and reduces them to nothing more than products of their genes and a base urge to reproduce -- it's all nature, no nurture and no free will. "Well, you see, men like larger breasts, because they're an sign of female fertility!" If you can't see all the myriad problems with that sort of statement, then...


Turns out a lot of these "just so" gender-genetic-essentialist claims about what men and women supposedly want just don't hold up when actually examined in an empirical manner -- https://jezebel.com/5849842/six-myths-about-sex-and-gender-busted

They're both interesting, but so many of those studies on either side of issues seem to go into the study with so many preconceptions that they want to prove that I always take them with huge grains of salt.

Plus - we never even see the studies' #s - just the conclusions that somebody reached from them. (Which are often terrible - like the classic idea that ice cream consumption increases drownings.)

Klara Meison
2016-12-12, 12:04 AM
Interesting. I did not know "nonsense" meant "solid, well supported reasoning." You learn something new everyday!

Thing with evolutionary psychology is that unlike with other sciences(e.g. physics, chemistry), it's very easy to get arguments based on it to the point where they seem very solid without actually needing to know much about the subject or requiring a lot of research. Same with all psychology, really, but EP is kinda worse at that. Unless you have actually studied the field, you should be very wary of any arguments you put out. That doesn't mean it's pseudoscience, just that it's particularily tricky to use.


Evolutionary Psychology is a pseudoscience not supported in any credible academic or scientific circles. It might not be 'nonsense', but it's still garbage.

Peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Cambridge that includes articles on EP (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences).

Talk by Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist on EP (https://youtu.be/BzJUCG7L9I4)

Another peer-reviewed journal on EP, this one published by Elsevier (http://www.ehbonline.org/)

Do I need to provide more to prove my point? It's not really hard to find these.


Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

It's an interesting idea, but repeatedly, routinely ends up with the sort of "just so" stories that your first post on the matter put forth. "Well of course women like X and men like Y, just as we've always thought, it simply makes evolutionary sense, by jove!"

It also strips out a lot of individual variation on what's going on inside people's heads, and reduces them to nothing more than products of their genes and a base urge to reproduce -- it's all nature, no nurture and no free will. "Well, you see, men like larger breasts, because they're an sign of female fertility!" If you can't see all the myriad problems with that sort of statement, then...

Turns out a lot of these "just so" gender-genetic-essentialist claims about what men and women supposedly want just don't hold up when actually examined in an empirical manner -- https://jezebel.com/5849842/six-myths-about-sex-and-gender-busted

You use Jezebel as a scientific source and expect to be taken seriously? Really?

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-12, 12:18 AM
You use Jezebel as a scientific source and expect to be taken seriously? Really?


Did you read the article and their source for it, or just say "oh Jezabel must be stupid"?

The article is a summary of an in-depth study (http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/5/296.abstract) conducted by psychologists at the University of Michigan (which happens to be one of the premier research universities in the world). I recall at the time it came out that NPR, etc, presented summaries along the same lines as the one in Jezebel that you just poo-pooed.

Klara Meison
2016-12-12, 12:44 AM
Did you read the article and their source for it, or just say "oh Jezabel must be stupid"?

The article is a summary of an in-depth study (http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/5/296.abstract) conducted by psychologists at the University of Michigan (which happens to be one of the premier research universities in the world). I recall at the time it came out that NPR, etc, presented summaries along the same lines as the one in Jezebel that you just poo-pooed.

And did you read the actual study? I trust Jezebel to accurately report the findings about as much as I would trust a very hungry lion to guard a goat without eating it.

Akolyte01
2016-12-12, 03:11 AM
That would be your inference, not anything that my statement implied. But hey, I'm the one who's being thin-skinned, etc. Right.


I've run into too many -- gamers and otherwise -- whose conception of period arms and armor comes from terrible artwork, Hollywood crap, and perpetuated Victorian-era "history". I don't need to be talking about ANYONE in this thread, and it had nothing to do with whether someone disagrees with me on the particulars of this discussion.

It's a loose implication of what you said. About as loose as your 'interpretation' of Lord Raziere "informing you of what you think." Your use of the term "ignorant" isn't the issue, your childish hissy fit over someone disagreeing with you is.

Zalabim
2016-12-12, 05:10 AM
That explains why so many images feature exposed midriffs and armpits: so they can tickle each other, which generates additional joy.
I'm pretty sure the bare armpits is to more easily do the fart-noise thing. Creates AoE joy.

That's also the current somatic component of Destructive Wave, but it's still an improvement on the original somatic gesture of "pull my finger."

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-12, 07:25 AM
Is that the Macbeth where they invaded as a forest by all holding tiny branches? If so, I don't think the awkwardness of that sword fight was from the armor. :smallamused:
Technically the story actually goes into a prophecy where the forests "walk" and Macbeth dismisses it as impossible. Then an army cuts down a bunch of branches in order to hid themselves. They aren't actually HIDDEN, People can tell there are dudes with branches walking through the woods, but it's hard to target people since it looks like a mishmash of moving branches. At 50 feet, you could tell, but 300 feet away, walking between other trees? Not so easy.


"We are a shrub."

"Move along."

http://www.thetick.ws/images/ninjahedge.jpg

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-12, 07:26 AM
It's a loose implication of what you said. About as loose as your 'interpretation' of Lord Raziere "informing you of what you think." Your use of the term "ignorant" isn't the issue, your childish hissy fit over someone disagreeing with you is.

Since you're incapable of addressing any of the topics at hand and have to repeatedly fall back on ad hom...

Bye.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-12, 07:32 AM
And did you read the actual study? I trust Jezebel to accurately report the findings about as much as I would trust a very hungry lion to guard a goat without eating it.

Yes, I did. I had to borrow someone else's access to publication, so I can't like to where I read it directly.

Did you read it?


And as noted, several other news sources also presented the same summary of the findings when it came out. NPR, notably.

Is this now where you tell us that NPR is also utterly untrustworthy?

Cluedrew
2016-12-12, 07:42 AM
:smallmad:Look, I could weight in on just about every post that has been made recently, but I'm not going to. Instead I'm going to ask (and the fact I have to ask this shows something) can we get back to the sexist armour discussion?

Points Zalabim for staying on topic.

Cluedrew
2016-12-12, 07:44 AM
... I didn't put a smiley there. How did that smiley get there? I don't use smileys. That's not even the one I would have used. What is going on?

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-12, 07:57 AM
... I didn't put a smiley there. How did that smiley get there? I don't use smileys. That's not even the one I would have used. What is going on?

Some combinations of punctuation are auto-parsed by some forum software as smilies. That's while you'll often see extra spaces before or after parentheses in my posts, to avoid that sort of thing.

That might be what happened to you.




Look, I could weight in on just about every post that has been made recently, but I'm not going to. Instead I'm going to ask (and the fact I have to ask this shows something) can we get back to the sexist armour discussion?


As evidenced, this topic attracts things like nitwitted just-so-stories "science" about why all men just genetically like bigger breasts... and I can't seem to resist ripping that kind of junk once I get going.

I don't find the actual topic at all funny, and I'm not at all a fan of coming up with nonsense explanations to "make sense of " nonsense.

So, I'll just avoid the thread as much as possible, and see if it goes back to being fun for other people.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-12, 07:58 AM
New theory: Women fighters operate at a specific regulated temperature and thus need extra ventilation. In fact, the entire reason they all mostly have extremely long flowing hair too is because the hair is actually a heat sink!

georgie_leech
2016-12-12, 09:53 AM
Technically the story actually goes into a prophecy where the forests "walk" and Macbeth dismisses it as impossible. Then an army cuts down a bunch of branches in order to hid themselves. They aren't actually HIDDEN, People can tell there are dudes with branches walking through the woods, but it's hard to target people since it looks like a mishmash of moving branches. At 50 feet, you could tell, but 300 feet away, walking between other trees? Not so easy.


Agreed! The trouble is that the movie I'm referencing used twigs about two feet long from the end of pine tree branches, offering as much defensive advantage as a festive sweater.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-12, 09:57 AM
Agreed! The trouble is that the movie I'm referencing used twigs about two feet long from the end of pine tree branches, offering as much defensive advantage as a festive sweater.

I'll have you know that a festive sweater can provide excellent defense.

Ever seen a Christmas sweater so ugly that arrows actually turn and sway away from it because the arrows are too disgusted to even TOUCH the sweater? Melee attackers are greeted with a Save vs. Fortitude or suffer blindness.

georgie_leech
2016-12-12, 10:00 AM
I'll have you know that a festive sweater can provide excellent defense.

Ever seen a Christmas sweater so ugly that arrows actually turn and sway away from it because the arrows are too disgusted to even TOUCH the sweater? Melee attackers are greeted with a Save vs. Fortitude or suffer blindness.

Dangit, this is one of those posts that make me wish this forum had a like button.:smallbiggrin:

GungHo
2016-12-12, 01:40 PM
Nope, the true story is far dumber, in fact. I've read that book, and I remember it well.

There's a point in the story where the woman on the cover is kidnapped by evil cultists that intend to sacrifice her. They dress her in that armor as part of the ceremony. The idea is that the gap in the middle is where they are going to plunge the dagger that will kill her.

After she's rescued, she decides to keep that armor because...and I'm not making this up...it turns out that the armor is magical. It actually offers better protection than a real suit of chain mail.

I remember even as a kid, I was like...what? Why would the cultists make the armor magical? Wouldn't that make plunging a dagger into her heart even harder?

Cassandra can dispel the magic and get rid of the boob window force-field. I don't get it, though. You can compel her to change clothes, lie down long enough to let you stab her in the chest, but you can't make her wear a robe, Elinore's dress from Wizards, or something else sacrifice-appropriate? Instead you give her something she can use to beat you up with? Morons.


His weird sword is a holy sword from his own dimension. It looks really bulky, but somehow he makes it work. Probably magic.
"Ladies... it's weird and bulky, but I can make it work." smells like cloves and cinnamon.

Segev
2016-12-12, 01:58 PM
In a romance novel, the sexy bits are relevant. It's what bring you to buy the book in the first place.

On game book covers, it is false advertising and sexist pandering. I don't need sexy pics in my gaming books, thank you very much. I have the internet for that.The thing is that "sexy" doesn't always mean "sexualized," and generally speaking, "sexy" can be part of a power fantasy without actual sex being involved at all. Good heavens, at least one strain of "empowered woman" feminism is all about how wearing clothes that make her feel sexy empowers a woman.

"Being attractive to the opposite sex" is one of the hallmark expressions of power. So having sexy (again, not sexualized) pictures of characters - of either sex - is fitting for many RPGs. Particularly fantasy and sci-fi, where clothes really don't have to make sense so much as make a statement about the character.

As much as you might try to say "boob-window says she's a sex object" is the message, it really isn't. Any more than a woman wearing a midriff-bearing shirt down main street in the summer is making a statement that objectifies her. And no more than "bare torso says Aladdin is/wants to be a sex object" does in Disney's Aladdin.

This really comes down, again, to the difference between the two demon-woman pictures somebody linked. Both are (at least arguably) sexy. The second is sexualized, while the first one is not. The first one fits right in with generic high fantasy. The second is...a different kind of fantasy.


Ignorance, for starters.


That would be your inference, not anything that my statement implied. But hey, I'm the one who's being thin-skinned, etc. Right. Terseness that doesn't make at least an attempt to fully answer a question carries implication of smugness, inherently. It is very common for people to deliberately use it to imply the person to whom they're responding is exactly an illustration of the problem they've brusquely named, and thus unworthy of the time it takes to elaborate.

If you don't want people inferring things you don't mean to imply, be careful you aren't implying them so strongly that it's almost like you're laying a trap when they infer it. "You know," Max said to Margot, who asked if that dress made her look fat, "Whales are really awesome creatures." Margot tears up, and asks why he would call her fat in such a callous way, and Max scoffs, "What? I never SAID you were fat. You just inferred it."


I've run into too many -- gamers and otherwise -- whose conception of period arms and armor comes from terrible artwork, Hollywood crap, and perpetuated Victorian-era "history". I don't need to be talking about ANYONE in this thread, and it had nothing to do with whether someone disagrees with me on the particulars of this discussion.See, this is a good answer to my question. If you'd included this with the "Ignorance, for one," comment, it would have actually be informative and wouldn't have risked people inferring that you were, in your pity one-liner, implying that people talking to you are part of that problem of ignorance.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-12, 02:50 PM
*hits head on wall repeatedly*

Segev
2016-12-12, 04:09 PM
*hits head on wall repeatedly*

And if you were wearing a helmet, rather than attempting to do the unrealistic sex-appeal thing of exposing your face, that wouldn't hurt NEARLY as much!

Akolyte01
2016-12-12, 04:59 PM
Since you're incapable of addressing any of the topics at hand and have to repeatedly fall back on ad hom...

Bye.

LMAO, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not discussing your argument. In fact, I'm pretty sure I agree with you. But your response to those who do criticize your argument has been absurd.

Knaight
2016-12-12, 05:15 PM
I'd actually blame it on the artists (visual) who make the pictures. I have never seen either type of problem armour in a pure text medium*.

Actually most of the truly horrible examples I have seen have come from ads for games I have never bothered to check out. So at that point it is not even eye candy, it is a visual hook.

* Not to say it hasn't happened, there was an example earlier in the thread even, but I haven't read any of those.

The base attempt to sex appeal is pretty pointless in a text based medium (describing the armors involved is just going to sound stupid), but I have absolutely seen other problems. There's people writing who throw around ridiculous weights, there's people who describe armor that gets shredded effortlessly, etc. George R. R. Martin is a big offender - for a vastly popular series that is constantly compared to history the armor and weapons described clearly show that GRRM knows jack all about the subject. There's the weapons explicitly too heavy for people other than their wielder to lift, there's people cutting through plates nonchalantly, there's people slowed down more than they should be, there's that obnoxious trope where it's presented as a good idea to wear thin leather armor in a duel against someone in plate because the plate will slow them down so much (haha no), the list goes on.

Squiddish
2016-12-12, 05:39 PM
I think I figured it out.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1471100486-20160813.png

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-12, 06:27 PM
Actually no. I have not. Can you direct me to any?


Well, here's a famous example...


The base attempt to sex appeal is pretty pointless in a text based medium (describing the armors involved is just going to sound stupid), but I have absolutely seen other problems. There's people writing who throw around ridiculous weights, there's people who describe armor that gets shredded effortlessly, etc. George R. R. Martin is a big offender - for a vastly popular series that is constantly compared to history the armor and weapons described clearly show that GRRM knows jack all about the subject. There's the weapons explicitly too heavy for people other than their wielder to lift, there's people cutting through plates nonchalantly, there's people slowed down more than they should be, there's that obnoxious trope where it's presented as a good idea to wear thin leather armor in a duel against someone in plate because the plate will slow them down so much (haha no), the list goes on.

weet555
2016-12-12, 06:51 PM
The answer is simple 'plot armor' over generations people have discovered a ways to use 'plot armor' without being a main hero (or villain) and one way is to wear impractical/sexualize armor.

I'm sure many of the women in skimpy armor don't like it, but if its the price of 'plot armor' some are whiling to pay it. I mean 'plot armor' can let you live through 1 in million chances, it can ever bring the dead back to life.

This is a joke entry, not meant to be a serious reply.

8BitNinja
2016-12-12, 07:03 PM
@8bitninja: so you would say that this thread is here because of the rule of funny?

Exactly

Like I said a million times already, I don't care what anyone thinks about female armor. I, like many others, find it ridiculous. It's just a goof, man.


I think I figured it out.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1471100486-20160813.png

Everything makes sense.


The answer is simple 'plot armor' over generations people have discovered a ways to use 'plot armor' without being a main hero (or villain) and one way is to wear impractical/sexualize armor.

I'm sure many of the women in skimpy armor don't like it, but if its the price of 'plot armor' some are whiling to pay it. I mean 'plot armor' can let you live through 1 in million chances, it can ever bring the dead back to life.

This is a joke entry, not meant to be a serious reply.

Frozen_Feet
2016-12-12, 07:10 PM
The explanation is pretty boring:

1) most artists are not armorsmiths; it's pretty rare for them to know what effective armor would even be like.
2) actively desiring accurate portrayals of armor in fiction, as opposed to what's aesthetically pleasing, is even rarer than knowing what accurate portrayal would even be.
3) Scantily-clad feminine figures have pretty wide aesthetic appeal to men and women both.

Put these three things together and you'll realize there is nearly nill pressure for the industry to really change towards realistic armor. Trying to pin it on some divide between male and female preferences is a bit silly. Even when a woman finds portrayal of female armor in fantasy to be lacking, they are unlikely to both know about and care about a shift to more realistic armor. Which is why, if you look at the most popular fantasy heroines among women, they still tend to wear stuff women would like to wear, instead of what would be most practical or effective. Now go and take a good long look at what women, especially young women, like to wear. :smalltongue:

Cluedrew
2016-12-12, 07:27 PM
Even when a woman finds portrayal of female armor in fantasy to be lacking, they are unlikely to both know about and care about a shift to more realistic armor.Unlikely, perhaps, but certainly not impossible. Does anyone have any idea how one could track down goto124's ... re-armour project? I'm sure there were problems there as well, but it was an honest attempt.

Frozen_Feet
2016-12-12, 07:50 PM
Sure, but nothing stops the world where it's possible from being the same as the world where women who care about realistic armor are outnumbered by Kill la Kill cosplayers. Or double as said cosplayers.

Lord Raziere
2016-12-12, 09:23 PM
Also, there is a matter of in-setting costs to think about. Whats realistic for a noble to wear, isn't necessarily realistic for a commoner to wear as armor. Simply because nobles have so much free time they can use to train in high quality heavy armor and learn how to actually wield a sword which takes years to pick up, while a commoner generally is given a spear assuming all is well and maybe some chain armor if they're lucky, more likely they're wearing a particularly thick and heavy leather coat as armor.

point is: good armor is an expensive thing to make. and like any field of development is full of mishaps and mistakes and reworkings. like as time went on, helms actually became more open and less protective of the face and ears, because people couldn't hear anyone else through those full helms that completely cover your head, and of course the helmet muffles your own voice in turn. Combine that with shouting and the constant clangor of combat and having no peripheral vision, and you wouldn't know what was going on in the middle of battle at all, you wouldn't be able to hear your orders from your superior and your ability to pass on info if you see anything was stifled, there is a lot of reasons why modern militaries use the helmets they do today, and its not just the gun thing.

if you want practical armor, just put on an open helm, some chain armor, get a round shield then get a spear. Boom thats your ideal medieval foot soldier. Now go march in formation with the rest of the commoners and block-stab-block-stab-block-stab, assuming that of course your in front of the formation, in which you'll probably be one of the first to die. The noble on the horse will be taking the credit for your sacrifice in what is probably a pointless crusade over some obscure doctrine a bunch of priests couldn't agree upon so they decided to schism over it and the larger part decided that the smaller part were heretics, which will probably end up burning down a bunch of villages after these so-called holy crusaders pillage the innocent commoners for food and supplies in hopes of one day getting to the actual place they want to attack so that they can pillage that for the real treasure, assuming you don't die from disease, famine or getting shot by an arrow or run over by a horse, or getting attacked by bandits created from your pillaging. Assuming your lucky enough to survive all that and get to your destination that your enemy retreated from to find out that the fabled treasure doesn't actually exist and that it was all just something some guy made up, you might just witness the noble who dragged you out here getting backstabbed by some other noble and serving under him as a new guard in a new land he claims as his own before the enemy comes back, surrounds you and starves you out in a siege. :smalltongue: how exciting.

VoxRationis
2016-12-12, 10:09 PM
Also, there is a matter of in-setting costs to think about. Whats realistic for a noble to wear, isn't necessarily realistic for a commoner to wear as armor. Simply because nobles have so much free time they can use to train in high quality heavy armor and learn how to actually wield a sword which takes years to pick up, while a commoner generally is given a spear assuming all is well and maybe some chain armor if they're lucky, more likely they're wearing a particularly thick and heavy leather coat as armor.

point is: good armor is an expensive thing to make. and like any field of development is full of mishaps and mistakes and reworkings. like as time went on, helms actually became more open and less protective of the face and ears, because people couldn't hear anyone else through those full helms that completely cover your head, and of course the helmet muffles your own voice in turn. Combine that with shouting and the constant clangor of combat and having no peripheral vision, and you wouldn't know what was going on in the middle of battle at all, you wouldn't be able to hear your orders from your superior and your ability to pass on info if you see anything was stifled, there is a lot of reasons why modern militaries use the helmets they do today, and its not just the gun thing.

if you want practical armor, just put on an open helm, some chain armor, get a round shield then get a spear. Boom thats your ideal medieval foot soldier. Now go march in formation with the rest of the commoners and block-stab-block-stab-block-stab, assuming that of course your in front of the formation, in which you'll probably be one of the first to die. The noble on the horse will be taking the credit for your sacrifice in what is probably a pointless crusade over some obscure doctrine a bunch of priests couldn't agree upon so they decided to schism over it and the larger part decided that the smaller part were heretics, which will probably end up burning down a bunch of villages after these so-called holy crusaders pillage the innocent commoners for food and supplies in hopes of one day getting to the actual place they want to attack so that they can pillage that for the real treasure, assuming you don't die from disease, famine or getting shot by an arrow or run over by a horse, or getting attacked by bandits created from your pillaging. Assuming your lucky enough to survive all that and get to your destination that your enemy retreated from to find out that the fabled treasure doesn't actually exist and that it was all just something some guy made up, you might just witness the noble who dragged you out here getting backstabbed by some other noble and serving under him as a new guard in a new land he claims as his own before the enemy comes back, surrounds you and starves you out in a siege. :smalltongue: how exciting.

I feel like "wants armor to actually be useful as armor=cannon fodder from the Hundred Years War" might be a wee bit of a false equivalency. Romance and armor can coexist without one looking like one is trying to romance someone in one's armor. Even so, the credit-stealing nobles you mentioned are going to want good armor, because it's nice to be alive when you steal the credit.

8BitNinja
2016-12-12, 10:18 PM
I feel like "wants armor to actually be useful as armor=cannon fodder from the Hundred Years War" might be a wee bit of a false equivalency. Romance and armor can coexist without one looking like one is trying to romance someone in one's armor. Even so, the credit-stealing nobles you mentioned are going to want good armor, because it's nice to be alive when you steal the credit.

I agree. I'm pretty sure armor can still be protective and you can perform feats of heroism.

AlmaPenzare
2016-12-13, 01:39 AM
Real men and women alike run screaming into battle wearing nothing but warpaint and the remains of their last beverage.

Akolyte01
2016-12-13, 03:04 AM
The explanation is pretty boring:

1) most artists are not armorsmiths; it's pretty rare for them to know what effective armor would even be like.
2) actively desiring accurate portrayals of armor in fiction, as opposed to what's aesthetically pleasing, is even rarer than knowing what accurate portrayal would even be.
3) Scantily-clad feminine figures have pretty wide aesthetic appeal to men and women both.

Put these three things together and you'll realize there is nearly nill pressure for the industry to really change towards realistic armor. Trying to pin it on some divide between male and female preferences is a bit silly. Even when a woman finds portrayal of female armor in fantasy to be lacking, they are unlikely to both know about and care about a shift to more realistic armor. Which is why, if you look at the most popular fantasy heroines among women, they still tend to wear stuff women would like to wear, instead of what would be most practical or effective. Now go and take a good long look at what women, especially young women, like to wear. :smalltongue:



On the other hand, a guy on youtube I follow makes a really great argument for how artists can really benefit from having some grounding in realism for their armor. You can still have fantastical armor, but if you ground that fantasy in the knowledge that real armorers accumulated over hundreds of years, you can achieve designs that are immediately perceived as more *real* and draw the audience in. Here's his video (https://youtu.be/q8DaGHL8WzM?t=741) linked to a part which showcases the spectacular results of such an approach. The whole video is really worth watching, though!



Also, there is a matter of in-setting costs to think about. Whats realistic for a noble to wear, isn't necessarily realistic for a commoner to wear as armor. Simply because nobles have so much free time they can use to train in high quality heavy armor and learn how to actually wield a sword which takes years to pick up, while a commoner generally is given a spear assuming all is well and maybe some chain armor if they're lucky, more likely they're wearing a particularly thick and heavy leather coat as armor.

point is: good armor is an expensive thing to make. and like any field of development is full of mishaps and mistakes and reworkings. like as time went on, helms actually became more open and less protective of the face and ears, because people couldn't hear anyone else through those full helms that completely cover your head, and of course the helmet muffles your own voice in turn. Combine that with shouting and the constant clangor of combat and having no peripheral vision, and you wouldn't know what was going on in the middle of battle at all, you wouldn't be able to hear your orders from your superior and your ability to pass on info if you see anything was stifled, there is a lot of reasons why modern militaries use the helmets they do today, and its not just the gun thing.

if you want practical armor, just put on an open helm, some chain armor, get a round shield then get a spear. Boom thats your ideal medieval foot soldier. Now go march in formation with the rest of the commoners and block-stab-block-stab-block-stab, assuming that of course your in front of the formation, in which you'll probably be one of the first to die. The noble on the horse will be taking the credit for your sacrifice in what is probably a pointless crusade over some obscure doctrine a bunch of priests couldn't agree upon so they decided to schism over it and the larger part decided that the smaller part were heretics, which will probably end up burning down a bunch of villages after these so-called holy crusaders pillage the innocent commoners for food and supplies in hopes of one day getting to the actual place they want to attack so that they can pillage that for the real treasure, assuming you don't die from disease, famine or getting shot by an arrow or run over by a horse, or getting attacked by bandits created from your pillaging. Assuming your lucky enough to survive all that and get to your destination that your enemy retreated from to find out that the fabled treasure doesn't actually exist and that it was all just something some guy made up, you might just witness the noble who dragged you out here getting backstabbed by some other noble and serving under him as a new guard in a new land he claims as his own before the enemy comes back, surrounds you and starves you out in a siege. :smalltongue: how exciting.

This is not very historically accurate. You didn't really have people in just a chain shirt in battle with a spear next to someone in full plate. Brigandine mayyyyybe. And maybe less armor on archers.

The poorest soldiers might be wearing armor from a mismatched, poorly fitting collection of 30 year old pieces. But for the vast majority of time where full plate was available, 30 year old armor was also plate.

Hamste
2016-12-13, 11:15 AM
Real men and women alike run screaming into battle wearing nothing but warpaint and the remains of their last beverage.

Real men and woman use sippy cups so they can actually drink their last beverage and not have to wear it.

Keltest
2016-12-13, 11:23 AM
Real men and woman use sippy cups so they can actually drink their last beverage and not have to wear it.

Wearing beverages is a badge of honor! The only greater source of pride is having all your soup caught in your beard. All of it. If any of it makes its way to your bowels, you are disgraced.

Hamste
2016-12-13, 01:03 PM
Wearing beverages is a badge of honor! The only greater source of pride is having all your soup caught in your beard. All of it. If any of it makes its way to your bowels, you are disgraced.

They must have some really nasty diarrhea if anything entering their bowels disgraces them.

JadedDM
2016-12-13, 01:40 PM
Cassandra can dispel the magic and get rid of the boob window force-field. I don't get it, though. You can compel her to change clothes, lie down long enough to let you stab her in the chest, but you can't make her wear a robe, Elinore's dress from Wizards, or something else sacrifice-appropriate? Instead you give her something she can use to beat you up with? Morons.

If I were to guess what really happened, is that the writers had no say or control over the cover (this is usually the case, from my understanding). So the cover artist was told to draw a sexy chick with a big boob window in her armor by the publisher, and the writers tried their best to offer an explanation for why she would wear anything like that. "Because it's magical armor" is not a very good explanation, granted, but to be honest, I find myself hard pressed to come up with a better one.

Lord Torath
2016-12-13, 02:48 PM
If you're fighting months into your pregnancy, something, somewhere, has gone horribly wrong.Case in Point (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0587.html)


You've never seen discussions of armor turn to knights needing to be winched into the saddle and being unable to get up if they fell down, because their armor was so so heavy and unwieldy? Or watched a fight scene in a movie with two "Medieval" dudes trying to clumsily bludgeon each other with their apparently 30-pound swords?Anyone watch Court Jester with Danny Kaye? Poor Grizwold gets pulled off his horse by a magnetic shield, so Hawkins can slowly stagger over to put his sword point on the fallen man's chest.

Of course, that's from a movie made in the 50's, and a comedy, no less.

Knaight
2016-12-13, 03:00 PM
Anyone watch Court Jester with Danny Kaye? Poor Grizwold gets pulled off his horse by a magnetic shield, so Hawkins can slowly stagger over to put his sword point on the fallen man's chest.

Of course, that's from a movie made in the 50's, and a comedy, no less.

It's also a movie that openly mocks the idea that it's historical in the opening credits. That's not to say the idea wasn't there - A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court stands out, and then there's the people on the internet talking about 200 lb suits of armor and 50 lb swords.

Max_Killjoy
2016-12-13, 03:07 PM
It's also a movie that openly mocks the idea that it's historical in the opening credits. That's not to say the idea wasn't there - A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court stands out, and then there's the people on the internet talking about 200 lb suits of armor and 50 lb swords.

And the far more recent (and sadly regarded as realistic by many) GoT you mentioned as an example.

Lord Torath
2016-12-13, 03:49 PM
It's also a movie that openly mocks the idea that it's historical in the opening credits. That's not to say the idea wasn't there - A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court stands out, and then there's the people on the internet talking about 200 lb suits of armor and 50 lb swords.Hah! That's right!

(sing-song)
We did re-search
Authenticity was a "Must"!

Whew! Did we search!
And what did we find?
<achoo>
A lot a' dust!

:smallwink:

Stan
2016-12-13, 04:39 PM
To be clear, you're complaining that men have to wear such ridiculous amounts of metal in the name of masculinity when they could get away with wearing a few bits of chain around the groin, right? Hear hear!:smallcool:

Careful. I bet chain mail doubles as a depilatory if is directly touching any unsmooth or unshaven parts as the hairs poke through all the tiny holes.

8BitNinja
2016-12-13, 06:18 PM
To be clear, you're complaining that men have to wear such ridiculous amounts of metal in the name of masculinity when they could get away with wearing a few bits of chain around the groin, right? Hear hear!:smallcool:

It would provide lots of mobility, plus if it's made out of femalium, the metal that is used to make chainmail bikinis, it should protect as much as plate.

2D8HP
2016-12-13, 06:26 PM
plus if it's made out of femalium, the metal....
*too weak to resist*
Femali-yum!
:redface:

8BitNinja
2016-12-13, 06:39 PM
*too weak to resist*
Femali-yum!
:redface:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J83lw0eFIJA

Wardog
2016-12-17, 04:13 PM
Back in the 80's, some men did get their armour from the same design school as the females:
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/He-Man-Masters-of-the-Universe-he-man-604198_393_616.jpg
http://static9.comicvine.com/uploads/original/4/49448/2525087-thundercats05.jpg

And then of course there are Warhammer 40k's Catachans, whose vests or webbing (or maybe just their muscles) provide the same protection as a standard-issue flak jacket (or carapace armour for some veterans).
https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/c/cc/CatachanJungleFighters.jpg/300px-CatachanJungleFighters.jpg

Arbane
2016-12-17, 08:35 PM
Looks lie the fine folks at Bikini Armor Battle Damage (http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com) blog are way ahead of you all:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2n1k4l7hI1rqdz1fo1_1280.png

Nozza
2016-12-17, 09:39 PM
Whenever I DM d&d, I always include "Chainmail bikinis", and standard armor that is slightly tweaked to fit females, but still appears almost identical to male armor. I never tell the players that the bikinis, which they go for immediately, have no protection whatsoever. Cue any player who uses them getting disemboweled on their first Kobold fight and having to roll up a new character.

Hawkstar
2016-12-17, 10:04 PM
Looks lie the fine folks at Bikini Armor Battle Damage (http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com) blog are way ahead of you all:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2n1k4l7hI1rqdz1fo1_1280.png

With a bit of tweaking to better fit the anatomy, I'd love to see more of this armor in art and games.