Armor designs for females?

[Lord Raziere]

I'm sorry - but arguing about the artwork of armor in fantasy RPG games being too revealing and/or unrealistic on a forum based on a stick figure webcomic is a serious concern? I think you might be taking it TOO seriously.

Only if you have no sense of perspective. the pen is mightier than the sword. words hurt more than any stick.

If I say “my father” does that mean I own my father? You're being too touchy.

Saying all princesses do is make babies is like saying all princes do is wage war. I know which I'd rather be doing.

I wish I could not believe that culture has degenerated this far, that the wonderful, perennial “damsels in distress” is a controversial, nigh taboo trope. It's like we want our women to be ravished by monsters now, unless they can defend themselves because they are Super Duper Warriors. My point is friendly male energy has from the beginning of time been dedicated towards defending women from hostile male energy. In our rush to make war seem fun and "equal" in our gaming lives we have lost sight of that basic truth. That we live in a time when it has been perverted in the name of equality is unfortunate, and, for gamers, all the worse that it has bled into gaming as well. It's a war on men and the male libido and aforementioned natural role is what it is.

A caveat: I'm happy to be inclusive of women players and women characters. I even mostly prefer women warriors dressed like they're serious rather than sex-pots (Frank Frazetta aside). Women in serious armour/uniforms can be just as sexy--in some cases moreso, because they convey an attitude of reality to them whereas most cheesecake fantasy art conveys a "Wha? What world does that make sense in?" And of course women (someone mentioned the Scythians a few threads back) have and can participate in war and fighting. So it's not women I take an issue with as such, it's the assumption that because we've reached the modern state of secular enlightenment, that all bets are off and women as a class (not as a tiny subset of women warriors) don't need protecting by men--even in anachronistic fantasy!

your spewing bull on how we're making "war" on male stuff, yeah thats says more about you, that you hurl the accusation than it does about me. and as well as bull about "how we're saying women don't protecting." and men do not need protecting? that somehow all men are born warriors? do you know that its ok for men to not be strong all the time? that its ok that a man is not a warrior, that they don't fight? there are many men that don't ever fight anyone, and I imagine they live happy lives not being strong or a warrior. fighting is for the trained, not for people with penises. a penis does not inherently mean your fit for the training or for going into combat. there are men who are pacifists, who genuinely stand by their code to never harm another, are they denying their "rightful role"?

and what "monsters" do you speak of? other men? what separates one from the other? how can anyone tell what is "good" or "bad" "male energy"? everyone makes decisions, and the thing separating a good person from a bad person is their decisions not some imaginary energy. its more bull to cover up your own issues. get over it. there is more to your identity than how strong you are, more to men than what you romanticize them to be, and more to women than your worries for them.

Because men ain't all macho badasses who protect everyone ever.

Sorry. Next time I'll say it with my sunglasses on.

If you think that would solve anything your sadly mistaken.

Yeah, do you have any idea how fast it gets old referring to my siblings as "the brother who happens to be born to the same mother and father as I, and I sharing a similar kinship. Also the woman, who in sharing a mother and father with us both," as opposed to "my brother and sister"? Yeesh.

Frankly, if the damsel in distress trope ever goes the way of the dodo, it'll be a sad day indeed. It will be the moment when people no longer care. It won't matter if some lady was kidnapped by the dragon, the brigand, the troll. Nobody cares enough about her to go save her anymore. Maybe it'll just be the dude in distress trope from that point forward. The only characters worth saving will be male. Just Mario and Cloud Strife. Screw Princess Peach and the cloud she flew in on.

Because when you get right down to it, the core of the damsel in distress trope is caring. Someone or something took someone you loved and you're driven to dive into the depths of hell itself to rescue them. You do not undertake the hero's journey because some orc kidnapped your mule. You do not fight off dragons and demons to protect your baseball card collection. You do not risk death itself because someone stole your favorite chocolate bar. No, you face the wrath of the satan by putting your life on the line for someone that means so much to you that they are irreplaceable. In other words, someone like your wife, daughter, etc.

"Hunt them down? Find them? Kill them? Pfft, heavens no. My daughter's a modern woman. She'd never want to perpetuate those tired old tropes," said no one ever.

If one's compassion stops at a pretty face intimacy and a flowing dress, one is not caring at all.

You seem to be fond of art, let me show you mine, the things that real heroes fight to save rather than some damsel:

The poor, the downtrodden

the sick

the defenseless

In these three pictures are things more worth caring for than all the scantily clad sexiness or princesses in the world: common people suffering at the hands of violent death and destruction or being worn down by the horrible environment around them, regardless of gender. regardless of age. the plague does not know your private parts. poverty does not care whether your voice sounds deeper. invaders only care as far as what entertainment they can get before you die. nor does any of this care if your ugly as sin or as pretty as an angel. suffering is suffering, and everyone is deserving of being saved- but everyone also has the potential to be the savior, and why limit your chances by arbitrarily cutting potential saviors in half? "only the women are in danger, men are safe to risk their lives!" said no one ever. "only the pretty women you know are worth protecting, forget everyone else!" said no one ever.

[Max_Killjoy]

If one's compassion stops at a pretty face intimacy and a flowing dress, one is not caring at all.

You seem to be fond of art, let me show you mine, the things that real heroes fight to save rather than some damsel:

The poor, the downtrodden

the sick

the defenseless

In these three pictures are things more worth caring for than all the scantily clad sexiness or princesses in the world: common people suffering at the hands of violent death and destruction or being worn down by the horrible environment around them, regardless of gender. regardless of age. the plague does not know your private parts. poverty does not care whether your voice sounds deeper. invaders only care as far as what entertainment they can get before you die. nor does any of this care if your ugly as sin or as pretty as an angel. suffering is suffering, and everyone is deserving of being saved- but everyone also has the potential to be the savior, and why limit your chances by arbitrarily cutting potential saviors in half? "only the women are in danger, men are safe to risk their lives!" said no one ever. "only the pretty women you know are worth protecting, forget everyone else!" said no one ever.

To expand on this...

The problem isn't the "in distress" part, it's the "damsel" part. Sometimes a person is in distress, and another person can step up to help them.

When the stories almost always made the person in distress a young attractive helpless female, and the rescuer a virile assertive powerful competent male... one starts to get the impression that the story isn't really about the distress.

[Ashiel]

If one's compassion stops at a pretty face intimacy and a flowing dress, one is not caring at all.

Why would it?

You seem to be fond of art, let me show you mine, the things that real heroes fight to save rather than some damsel:

The poor, the downtrodden

the sick

the defenseless

In these three pictures are things more worth caring for than all the scantily clad sexiness or princesses in the world: common people suffering at the hands of violent death and destruction or being worn down by the horrible environment around them, regardless of gender. regardless of age. the plague does not know your private parts. poverty does not care whether your voice sounds deeper. invaders only care as far as what entertainment they can get before you die.

Incidentally, most of these things aren't things heroes can go fight in the traditional sense. You do not fight a plague, you at best try to cure it. Similarly, poverty and disease are unlikely to spur people to action in the same way that the loss of an individual does, unless you can pin the cause on someone. While surely trying to put an end to these things is compassionate, it's not compassionate at the same raw level. It doesn't evoke the same emotions.

It's like watching a dog jump in to protect their human from a bear or some other beast much larger, much stronger. It's that raw passion and willingness to die for that person. It's the braveness in the face of danger. And it's not against some abstract ideal such as "put an end to sickness" or "end poverty".

I'm not really going to touch much on the roving invaders thing because that gets into the grim realities of what is likely to happen to captured prisoners of an invading force. If the force is malign, then they probably do treat women as property and spoils of conquest, but the males are probably murdered. Suffice to say that all this does is extend the trope out to a bigger threat.

nor does any of this care if your ugly as sin or as pretty as an angel. suffering is suffering, and everyone is deserving of being saved- but everyone also has the potential to be the savior, and why limit your chances by arbitrarily cutting potential saviors in half?

You're preaching to the choir. I never suggested otherwise. I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with the damsel in distress trope because it resonates with people for very real reasons. Nothing about it is diminishing. Nor does it specifically require a male protagonist. I'd even say that it doesn't require a female in the damsel role. This hatred of the trope is silly at best, IMO.

"only the women are in danger, men are safe to risk their lives!" said no one ever.

Well, unless lifeboats were involved.

"only the pretty women you know are worth protecting, forget everyone else!" said no one ever.

Nothing about the trope requires it to be a pretty woman. That said, Cloud Strife is definitely pretty so I'm game.

[Ashiel]

To expand on this...

The problem isn't the "in distress" part, it's the "damsel" part. Sometimes a person is in distress, and another person can step up to help them.

When the stories almost always made the person in distress a young attractive helpless female, and the rescuer a virile assertive powerful competent male... one starts to get the impression that the story isn't really about the distress.

Worth noting that the trope is heavily associated with chivalry and the desire to be worth something as a protagonist. There is a sort of personal and social value in bravery. Further, the idea of having someone willing to brave terrible hazards like a dragon for you is quite appealing. Most people aren't attracted to cowards.

I have to admit that I wouldn't mind being rescued by a fine young knight.

[SaurOps]

Part of that's ingrained in our biology,

Son, don't try to sell that to me. I am a biologist.

because while there's no mechanical limitation to our games, there are certain facts concerning the physical strength and power of men and women on the average. In fantasy it largely doesn't matter since you can have female barbarians suplexing ogres, or throwing fireballs, and so forth. However, it's very ingrained in the collective consciousness of humanity that women are both worth protecting and more likely to need protecting.

It also doesn't matter on the scale of the game's granularity, or

And before anyone flips out, the same is true for men who are venturing further into feminine biology. Male to female transexuals regularly have to deal with the loss of muscle and physical strength as the amount of testosterone in their bodies declines and estrogen escalates. EDIT: The reverse is also true. FtM transexuals who get more testosterone tend to have an easier time building physical strength as well.

This isn't the same thing as endogenous hormone production or response. I can't really talk for trans people, but I will note that taking thyroid pills every day doesn't seem to bring me very near where having an actual thyroid gland would. I can't really say, because I've never had a thyroid gland, but it was a total pain to deal with inflexible responses of physicians sticking to standard dose response curves of people with proper endocrine systems.

Ultimately, culture and individual activity plays a major part here, and the former often ends up substantially encouraging or discouraging the latter. You know what men who step up to physical training get? Nothing but enthusiastic encouragement; when you get swole and pass another threshold of maxing out, people are happy. Judging by what I've heard, it's the exact opposite when a woman does it, and no small number of people will look at a woman with the slightest extra bit of muscle mass and judge her to be "manlike". This is ridiculous; even if one sex has any advantage in hormones (variance says it's not often nearly so clear cut), adding extra muscle mass doesn't make a woman manlike. It makes her a woman with additional muscle mass.

So no, they weren't capable of it on a wide scale. Sometimes you find women who are really strong and are ready to kick all manner of ass and might not have gotten kidnapped to begin with, but not only are those women a minority among women but it's largely irrelevant to story telling since the characters in the stories are of some importance outside of being heroes. They're loved ones, or are of some higher purpose than the hero themselves (such as the classic saving the princess, since the princess is traditionally more important than the hero rescuing them, hence putting oneself into danger for the greater good).

EDIT: Also, have some art.

You know what's more important than muscle mass as such? Being active and developing fighting skills and teamwork. Strong individuals, by and large, do not dissuade attacks. Earlier hunter-gatherers had much more capable individuals, but they lost out to large amounts of agrarian folk. Slings hit harder than swords, and don't care about plate armor, and you really only need practice to use them. You just need a coordinated line with spears, knives, and the willingness to stick anyone who gets near them, and eventually, firearms and explosives take self defense to a dimension way closer to fireballs and magic missiles. But the beliefs of some people that women shouldn't be in combat, justified by tautologies, hold back a lot of people who could probably fight back.

[Deophaun]

If you think that would solve anything your sadly mistaken.

I actually thought you were a Poe.

[scalyfreak]

Ultimately, culture and individual activity plays a major part here, and the former often ends up substantially encouraging or discouraging the latter. You know what men who step up to physical training get? Nothing but enthusiastic encouragement; when you get swole and pass another threshold of maxing out, people are happy. Judging by what I've heard, it's the exact opposite when a woman does it, and no small number of people will look at a woman with the slightest extra bit of muscle mass and judge her to be "manlike". This is ridiculous; even if one sex has any advantage in hormones (variance says it's not often nearly so clear cut), adding extra muscle mass doesn't make a woman manlike. It makes her a woman with additional muscle mass.

I know it's off topic to the thread, but I had to comment on this: It's a lot better than it was. At least if you talk to the guys who actually are there at the gym lifting along side with us, and who know the basics or more about fitness and the rudimentary science behind building muscle. The attitude you describe seems more and more confined to a certain type of opinionated man who often doesn't frequent the gym himself, and who knows nothing about lifting or how to build strength by building muscle.

But most of the guys at my gym, and the male friends and acquaintances of mine who lift regularly, are more than supportive of any woman who wants to learn about lifting, and will happily help her educate herself on the benefits, and help her get started. And we will all fist bump and congratulate her the first time she is increases the max weight on her squats. Every ability score bump is to be celebrated, after all.

Note that I'm speaking from my own personal experience and that the experiences of other female gym rats may very.

Back on topic.

[Lord Raziere]

Worth noting that the trope is heavily associated with chivalry and the desire to be worth something as a protagonist. There is a sort of personal and social value in bravery. Further, the idea of having someone willing to brave terrible hazards like a dragon for you is quite appealing. Most people aren't attracted to cowards.

I have to admit that I wouldn't mind being rescued by a fine young knight.

First Chivalry actually just means "horsemanship". as in "I'm skilled a fighting on a horse." and the stratified codes of chivalry only came to be after knights were no longer a thing. when chivalry was actually bandied about as a social expectation, it changed completely depending on the situation and the person defining chivalry to the knight, and basically could be defined as "whatever my lord wants me to do so I don't get kicked out of the castle."

Second its not a valid trope. your personal preferences have nothing to do with this. personally I wouldn't care if I was rescued by an ugly rogue wielding a rusty sword and he found me unattractive as a donkey as long as he saves my life and fights evil for the right reasons. I wouldn't care if nothing came of it, because I don't expect soldiers or police men or firefighters to fall in love with people they rescue. I expect them to rescue people, to do their job, regardless of what it gets them.

Third, true compassion is not for the shallow. fights are more than just what you think them to be, and suffering is more than what you define it as. a dragon has no reason to kidnap anyone- it just burns and eats people alive. a princess is nothing but a morsel with shiny wrapping to them. if you only help because of a pretty face and not the mind underneath- thats not compassion.

Fourth, it resonates no more. Princess Peach, to my knowledge can participate in mario's adventures as a playable character in at least three games to my knowledge for years now, and kick just as much ass. there is no sign of her stopping this any time soon. Zelda is playable in Smash Bros, and was Sheik before then. if you have a character, they should do things. think of the world as a fairy tale, and all you get is Sansa Stark. there she waited in King's Landing, waiting for her knight save her from the evil Joffrey, from wicked Cersei, no knight came, her brother Robb died before he could get there because he was an idiot, then she was snatched away by Littlefinger. nothing but a pawn, a small thing holding onto internal power, to each existential victory against the surrounding events, for no strong knight is going to save her, so she must save herself from despair. there is nothing glamorous about nobility and knights, kings and queens. there is only power, and everyone's attempts to get it.

[Ashiel]

Son, don't try to sell that to me. I am a biologist.

Then you should know that humans are a sexually dimorphic species where males and females have not only different appearances but different size and strength norms as well.

This isn't the same thing as endogenous hormone production or response. I can't really talk for trans people, but I will note that taking thyroid pills every day doesn't seem to bring me very near where having an actual thyroid gland would. I can't really say, because I've never had a thyroid gland, but it was a total pain to deal with inflexible responses of physicians sticking to standard dose response curves of people with proper endocrine systems.

It's a pretty huge difference.

You know what's more important than muscle mass as such? Being active and developing fighting skills and teamwork. Strong individuals, by and large, do not dissuade attacks. Earlier hunter-gatherers had much more capable individuals, but they lost out to large amounts of agrarian folk. Slings hit harder than swords, and don't care about plate armor, and you really only need practice to use them. You just need a coordinated line with spears, knives, and the willingness to stick anyone who gets near them, and eventually, firearms and explosives take self defense to a dimension way closer to fireballs and magic missiles. But the beliefs of some people that women shouldn't be in combat, justified by tautologies, hold back a lot of people who could probably fight back.

Presumably those would be the protagonists.

[Lord Raziere]

Then you should know that humans are a sexually dimorphic species where males and females have not only different appearances but different size and strength norms as well.

We also have different brains on mental spectrums and skin colors from various different environments and climates. Some of us like the same sex. So what? Still human above all. and thats more important than the dimorphism, just as how we're human is more important than whether or not we're light or dark skinned or whether we have blue veins, or this or that. what unites us is always more important than what divides.

[Max_Killjoy]

First Chivalry actually just means "horsemanship". as in "I'm skilled a fighting on a horse." and the stratified codes of chivalry only came to be after knights were no longer a thing. when chivalry was actually bandied about as a social expectation, it changed completely depending on the situation and the person defining chivalry to the knight, and basically could be defined as "whatever my lord wants me to do so I don't get kicked out of the castle."

Much like the "Samurai ideal" (and the role of the ideal Japanese wife as housemaid and mother only) post-dates the era of Samurai seeing regular battlefield action. So much of what the Japanese of the 1800s believed to be true of those who came before them, was a pure fiction of the 1800s. (Simplifying the dates here a bit to avoid a long tangent.)

Second its not a valid trope. your personal preferences have nothing to do with this. personally I wouldn't care if I was rescued by an ugly rogue wielding a rusty sword and he found me unattractive as a donkey as long as he saves my life and fights evil for the right reasons. I wouldn't care if nothing came of it, because I don't expect soldiers or police men or firefighters to fall in love with people they rescue. I expect them to rescue people, to do their job, regardless of what it gets them.

Yeah... the concept of "the knight in shining armor winning fair maiden's hand" has actually become a bit toxic in some ways, as well. You end up with some men who think that if they can just "save" a woman, they've "earned" her... and some women who expect to be "saved" and end up waiting forever or stuck with the first creep who "saves" them from something.


~~~~

As for storytelling stuff... I don't care about what trope or role or archetype the character supposedly fulfills, I care about what that character thinks and feels and does as a "person", and how the interactions of the characters and their world makes the story happen.

[Max_Killjoy]

We also have different brains on mental spectrums and skin colors from various different environments and climates. Some of us like the same sex. So what? Still human above all. and thats more important than the dimorphism, just as how we're human is more important than whether or not we're light or dark skinned or whether we have blue veins, or this or that. what unites us is always more important than what divides.

Agreed.

And... it's kinda interesting that we're starting to see some of the tropes of "traditional male and female roles" poke out from behind the curtain of "you prudish hypocrites, how dare you judge other people's tastes!" and "it's all subjective, how dare you pretend otherwise!"

Not surprising given past experience with these discussions... but interesting.

[Lord Raziere]

Much like the "Samurai ideal" (and the role of the ideal Japanese wife as housemaid and mother only) post-dates the era of Samurai seeing regular battlefield action. So much of what the Japanese of the 1800s believed to be true of those who came before them, was a pure fiction of the 1800s. (Simplifying the dates here a bit to avoid a long tangent.)

Yeah... the concept of "the knight in shining armor winning fair maiden's hand" has actually become a bit toxic in some ways, as well. You end up with some men who think that if they can just "save" a woman, they've "earned" her... and some women who expect to be "saved" and end up waiting forever or stuck with the first creep who "saves" them from something.

1. Aye. and guess what? cowboys follow a similar pattern. the cowboy ideal and the stories of the wild wild west probably only came about after it ended, with wild west films coming out decades after the wild west stopped being a thing. so Cowboys, knights and samurai are just three variants of the same romanticized masculine knight errant. they even all have their own version of iaijutsu (the cowboy equivalent is quick draw showdown at high noon) (jousting for the knight version) if you compare them.

2. Aye, there is a reason why there is a term called "white knighting." I've also heard of a tactic where a scumbag intentionally has their wingman be a "monster" so that the guy can "swoop in" and "save" the woman from the wingman, essentially the pick up artist version of a two man con.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think we have a bit of disconnect or comparing different things here.

As I see it, there a re a few useful categories that will help keep us on the same page.

1. Practical armor. Includes plate, mail, heavy leather or gambeson. Stuff that is designed and intended to protect you from weapons in combat. Generally covers at least the important bits, was often heavy or tiring or uncomfortable, so was usually not worn to dinner, the tavern, out shopping, on the march unless you really really expected to fight. Nobody thinks this is silly, but it might not be "attractive," and often a helmet hinders artistic intent to show the character.

2. Practical clothing. Stuff that would be easy to get around/do your job in, but would protect you from the sun, the cold, thorns, brush, etc, depending on what exactly you are doing. Less protective than armor, but a lot easier to move, climb, swim, etc in.

This would include the outfits of Aragorn or Legolas or Lidda the rogue or Jack Sparrow.

3. Impractical Clothing. Clothing that would interfere with travel or doing your job. It might look sexy or fancy, but it's the kind of thing you wear to be seen in, not to do manual labor in. Generally no or inadequate protection from elements, incidental hazards like thornbushes, and definitely no protection from arrows.

This is the sexy sorceress outfit or the over the top ceremonial garb that would get in the way if you fought in it. It can work for court situations where you want to look good and don't expect to dig any ditches or dodge any arrows. It also works for mages who don't want to wear heavy armor and can be assumed to use magic for protection from cold, heat and stabby devices. Some people consider it silly, but it's easy to explain silly.

4. Impractical armor. Stuff that clearly intends to be armor. Usually made of metal and leather. But it has huge areas of unprotected skin, usually over the heart, the abdominal organs, etc, or has big, awkward pauldrons that would whack you in the head when you moved or that would deflect blows toward your important bits, not away from them.

This is what people think is really silly/would get you killed because while it may not be less protection that the traveling clothes, it's clearly intended for wearing into battle. It would be lousy at keeping swords out of your organs, and lousy for preventing hypothermia/heatstroke/drowning, and would be awkward for sneaking/climbing/etc.

5. Impractical Nudity. The Frazetta style of art where you can wade into the arctic tundra or a rain or arrows wearing furry boots, a leather jockstrap and maybe a steel skullcap.

It is silly, but it's a well established, iconic silly. When the men are all in category 1 and the women in category 5, then it's hard not to admit it's a bit sexist


So I think that's the "apples to lugnuts" disconnect. Max hates the impractical armor but not the practical clothing in Ashiel's example. Because Robin Hood doesn't look silly in a green tunic and hood while hiding in the forest, even if it won't save him from the Sheriff's sword, because it's a practical outfit for hiding in the bushes and sniping Normans.

If he wore a furry speedo and two huge, spiked pauldrons that would be silly. The bushes would scratch his bare skin, the spikes would catch on everything and he wouldn't blend into the woods.

Wanted to come back and note that this is very well said.

And it also relates to a point I wanted to make and got distracted from -- whether or not armor is functional, or clothing is practical for a situation, isn't really a subjective standard. One could make a case that whether a person is concerned about the functionality or practicality of a character's attire as depicted in the artwork is a subjective issue, yes. But the actual functionality and practicality? That's pretty darn objective.

What really set me off at one point was the blinkered assertion that functionality and practicality are just as subjective in and of themselves, as whether the viewer is concerned about them -- and that real people making real choices about armor did so more for concerns of fashion than whether it was useful and practical and functional.

[Ashiel]

First Chivalry actually just means "horsemanship". as in "I'm skilled a fighting on a horse." and the stratified codes of chivalry only came to be after knights were no longer a thing. when chivalry was actually bandied about as a social expectation, it changed completely depending on the situation and the person defining chivalry to the knight, and basically could be defined as "whatever my lord wants me to do so I don't get kicked out of the castle."

Am aware of the root of chivalry. However, you and everyone else knows that the common usage of the term describes a sort of character.

Second its not a valid trope.

What is an invalid trope?

your personal preferences have nothing to do with this.

I think it has everything to do with enjoying stories.

personally I wouldn't care if I was rescued by an ugly rogue wielding a rusty sword and he found me unattractive as a donkey as long as he saves my life and fights evil for the right reasons.

Nothing about being amused by the thought of being rescued by your knight in shining armor (of varying degrees of practicality) means that you can't appreciate good gestures in general. Being rescued because it's their job doesn't quite have the same romantic appeal as being rescued because you were the inspiration for their heroism.

I wouldn't care if nothing came of it, because I don't expect soldiers or police men or firefighters to fall in love with people they rescue. I expect them to rescue people, to do their job, regardless of what it gets them.

Maybe it's because I'm a bit of a romantic.

Third, true compassion is not for the shallow. fights are more than just what you think them to be, and suffering is more than what you define it as. a dragon has no reason to kidnap anyone- it just burns and eats people alive. a princess is nothing but a morsel with shiny wrapping to them. if you only help because of a pretty face and not the mind underneath- thats not compassion.

Depends on the dragon, I'd imagine. If the daughter of the king is more precious to him than all the gold in the land, a dragon might take her just for the sport of it, or perhaps to put that love to the test (which would suck for pretty much everybody in a kingdom). You're also very caught up on this pretty thing aren't you? I never mentioned anything ugly or pretty.

Fourth, it resonates no more. Princess Peach, to my knowledge can participate in mario's adventures as a playable character in at least three games to my knowledge for years now, and kick just as much ass. there is no sign of her stopping this any time soon. Zelda is playable in Smash Bros, and was Sheik before then. if you have a character, they should do things.

What's your point? Mario's been the damsel before. Cloud Strife has been the damsel. Hal Emmerich has been the damsel. This idea that being rescued means you're not important is not only a stretch but it's actually pretty off the trope. Generally the folks who end up in a DiD situation are actually very important for one reason or another. Having everyone who is captured be a badass superhero isn't particularly appealing either.

Likewise, nothing about being the damsel implies you can't do things. That's adding to the base concept in a different direction.

think of the world as a fairy tale, and all you get is Sansa Stark. there she waited in King's Landing, waiting for her knight save her from the evil Joffrey, from wicked Cersei, no knight came, her brother Robb died before he could get there because he was an idiot, then she was snatched away by Littlefinger. nothing but a pawn, a small thing holding onto internal power, to each existential victory against the surrounding events, for no strong knight is going to save her, so she must save herself from despair. there is nothing glamorous about nobility and knights, kings and queens. there is only power, and everyone's attempts to get it.

I don't have HBO and I don't read a Song of Ice and Fire, so I've no frame of reference to address this.

That Aside: You asked some posts back what problem people had with you. I asked what you meant, you never responded, but I'm noticing a pattern to your posts. They're negative. Indignant. Outraged. Judgmental. Utterly humorless. I said that the notion of a handsome knight coming to rescue me was appealing. You try to ruin the good time by insisting that you would feel no amusement at the notion, better to be rescued by someone simply because it was their job or that they were inclined to do so. You aren't the judge, jury, and executioner of people's fun and fancies, but you do project the intention well enough.

I've no problem with you. I really don't. But I'm left wondering how often you smile. Your posts evoke an image of someone who rarely smiles. Who gets angry over things that don't matter. Maybe that's not you, but since you asked, I'm telling you what I see. Maybe it's just concern. In any case, here's some more topic art.

Image #1
Image #2
Image #3

[Ashiel]

We also have different brains on mental spectrums and skin colors from various different environments and climates. Some of us like the same sex. So what? Still human above all. and thats more important than the dimorphism, just as how we're human is more important than whether or not we're light or dark skinned or whether we have blue veins, or this or that. what unites us is always more important than what divides.

Why do you think our dimorphism should divide us?

[Ashiel]

Agreed.

And... it's kinda interesting that we're starting to see some of the tropes of "traditional male and female roles" poke out from behind the curtain of "you prudish hypocrites, how dare you judge other people's tastes!" and "it's all subjective, how dare you pretend otherwise!"

Not surprising given past experience with these discussions... but interesting.

It's all art. It would be more concerning if I stand up for one but not the other.

[SaurOps]

Then you should know that humans are a sexually dimorphic species where males and females have not only different appearances but different size and strength norms as well.

Sexual dimorphism in humans is actually pretty low. There is a pronounced neoteny in humans that keeps us pretty close together in most respects, most notably in height and weight. So close that without environmental factors, there's not nearly so much of a difference, and much as with most purported in-born differences between populations, they are the true drivers, here.

It's a pretty huge difference.

I can attribute way more to cultural differences as a subsection of environmental influence on a complex trait. Specifically, women are often encouraged to eat less, stay thin, and, as noted, not engage in activity that would result in hypertrophy, coordination, or most forms of independent action. Moreover, in the past, women were also the first to be denied food and resources, and more likely to be victims of infanticide. The veneer that you take for granted as a "rule of nature" was manufactured by a long sequence of cultural drives, and you seem hell bent on not questioning it.

Presumably those would be the protagonists.

Nope. The inhabitants of Tatara/Iron Town and their like. Crowds of people could do this, without social pressures moving against them.

[Lord Raziere]

Why do you think our dimorphism should divide us?

I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. With this single post I'm highly doubting your honesty in this discussion. I made a post talking about the value of one thing and you ask why I believe that opposite when thats clearly not the case. That is not something some one does debating in good faith.

My emotional makeup has nothing to do with this discussion. Again you make me suspicious of whether or not your engaging me honestly with this discussion by attempting emotional manipulation. I do not appreciate this and I have seen someone try this on me in the past, mentioning various traits as if they are faults, trying to get me to focus on myself, perhaps react in a way they desire to be beneficial to their side of the argument, I am not falling for it.

I suggest you don't continue this line of discussion.

[1337 b4k4]

OK, now I'm annoyed.

I think I've been a voice of moderation in this increasingly heated thread. My point has been "Art is subjective. Like what you want, but understand some people think the unrealistic armor is silly, breaks immersion and can be sexist."

I'll be honest I'm quite confused why you're annoyed at me, given that we're about 90-95% in agreement.

So then I was asked, where, pray tell, is this sexist art? Like it was hard to find.

So I presented the COVER of the first edition CORE RULEBOOK of the MOST POULAR fantasy RPG. I didn't find a picture scribbled in the margin of a third party supplement for FATAL. I figured this was a prominent example which was both silly and impractical and sexist.

And as I clarified, in the very post you quoted, my objection was never that bad fantasy art existed. My objection was this idea that has been floated that it comprised the majority of the artwork for a game. I also made it clear that our dispute over this point appeared to stem from my failure to separate your specific argument from the similar but broader arguments made by other posters, and apologized for that confusion and the lack of clarity in my own posts. So again, I'm not sure why you're annoyed at me.

To be clear, we agree on the following:

1) Art and the quality thereof is subjective
2) People can like different things, and that's ok
3) Bad fantasy art depictions of women does and did exist, both in early D&D and many other TTRPGs

What my point of contention is, and what I was originally arguing:

4) That when a minority of artwork in a product is bad with representing a group, that the product as a whole should be considered hostile to that group.

Or put simpler, I contend: TTRPGs with bad depictions of women in fantasy art exist. TTRPGs with a majority of bad depictions of women in fantasy art are either non existent or extremely rare and rightfully panned by the community at large. Acting as if our industry is (or was) dominated (either in volume or popularity) by TTRPGs with a majority of bad depictions of women in fantasy art is damaging not only to the valid discussions to be had about TTRPG art, but also to the entire hobby as a whole.

Now, I never said that means you shouldn't like it. Just that it's a good example of what I don't like, and what people seem to be denying exists.

If people are denying that art exists, it's people other than me. I have repeatedly acknowledged its existence since my very first post on the second page of this thread.

Liking it is fine. That's a matter of preference. But the defense of it is ridiculous.

Now here we disagree. If it is "fine" to like something, then by definition it is defensible. If something is not defensible then I can not think of any scenario where it would be "fine" to like it.

"this woman I know is OK with it" which is the "I'm not a racist; some of my best friends are black" defense.

You asked me how I would feel as a women viewing the AD&D 1e cover. As I am not a woman, I could not realistically give an answer, so I gave you the answers I got from the real women I game with, it seemed relevant. I also acknowledged that their experiences were not necessarily universal. If you didn't want actual women's experiences, that's fine, but then you shouldn't have asked the question.

Art is subjective. Like what you want. But impractical clothing or armor can look silly, break immersion and can be sexist.

I never disputed otherwise. Just that "silly", "immersion breaking" and "sexist" are also subjective to the viewer.

All of this is incredibly true, and this is indeed a problem of the people, not the art... But. One thing I feel should be added to this is that if there is anything that might encourage these people to seek out roleplaying communities, and to make them think their views are in any way acceptable there, that is an issue that might deserve a look.
And if the art we use for our games does, in the eyes of those creeps and predators, reinforce their worldviews, by stating sexy as an important aspect of quite a lot of female characters, going so far as to impede on logic/versimilitude for a lot of people, in a way that the male counterparts don't do nearly so frequent - then changing the artwork won't make these guys any less creepy or predatorial (Nor keeping the artwork perfectly nice guys into creeps). But the change might just make it so that they don't feel like "this is the community for me".
Creeps getting the wrong message about their behaviour is a sideeffect of cheesecake pictures, not the main intention, obviously. Not a very strong one, probably. You can try to argue that the benefit of cheesecake pics is larger than the negative sideeffects (Probably would need studies that don't exist to corroborate either side. Or a way to weigh the two against each other). I will side-eye you if you do that, but that is rooted in the way I weigh these things.

I'll be honest, this reads to me like "Satanic Panic" dressed up in new clothes and with a different target. And frankly making decisions about how your game will be put together because of the possibilities that some bad people might do bad things with that game is no way to make a game. If these creeps and predators are feeling that the TTRPG community is welcoming to them, that's a failure of the community to enforce basic human decency standards. And TTRPGs should not feel hamstrung in their artistic endeavors just because some terrible person might take it the wrong way.

(Another thing is, a handful of examples of Armor more suited to a catwalk than a fight might just be enough to make a person that wants realistic armor roll their eyes, groan, and be turned off. A handful of examples of functional, realistic armor are, I think, very unlikely to have the same effect on people that enjoy the sexy ones.
With the forseeable result that, no, people who want functional armor do not have all of the opportunity to look at their stuff, when even the stuff that is generally good about these things insists on throwing in a handful of cheesecake pictures. RPG illustrations generally don't come in packs of one inside the books.)

And this reads like an argument that the only viable option is to not have cheese/beefcake picture at all. Either everyone is welcome at the table of TTRPGs or no one is. Any individual game is of course free to make whatever decisions they want to make, and any individual gamer, group and table are free to make their own decisions about what they will or won't buy or tolerate. But the argument that we should reduce the range of artwork in TTRPGs because some people might not like it is a non-starter for me. Pick your favorite and least offensive fantasy artwork you can think of and I bet you you could find someone who takes issue with it. There is ALWAYS someone who can get more offended or turned off, and trying to avoid offending anyone is a road that leads to madness.

Which isn't to say we should be going out of our way to offend either. To quote myself from page 2: "Like most things in life, the key is moderation."

[Max_Killjoy]

Here's an example of something that objectively just serves no purpose, and detracts from the depiction.

Spoiler

Show

What actual purpose does that gap serve?

And the saddest part is that she'd be JUST as attractive without it, and JUST as intriguing as a character / "fictional person".

[Donnadogsoth]

your spewing bull on how we're making "war" on male stuff, yeah thats says more about you, that you hurl the accusation than it does about me. and as well as bull about "how we're saying women don't protecting." and men do not need protecting? that somehow all men are born warriors? do you know that its ok for men to not be strong all the time? that its ok that a man is not a warrior, that they don't fight? there are many men that don't ever fight anyone, and I imagine they live happy lives not being strong or a warrior. fighting is for the trained, not for people with penises. a penis does not inherently mean your fit for the training or for going into combat. there are men who are pacifists, who genuinely stand by their code to never harm another, are they denying their "rightful role"?

and what "monsters" do you speak of? other men? what separates one from the other? how can anyone tell what is "good" or "bad" "male energy"? everyone makes decisions, and the thing separating a good person from a bad person is their decisions not some imaginary energy. its more bull to cover up your own issues. get over it. there is more to your identity than how strong you are, more to men than what you romanticize them to be, and more to women than your worries for them.

Because men ain't all macho badasses who protect everyone ever.

Men being the disposable sex are more suited to combat than women. Lose 90% of the men in a tribe, the tribe can replenish itself relatively soon. Lose 90% of the women, and the tribe is crippled for generations.

Men are also usually more aggressive than women due to higher testosterone levels, and naturally tend toward gang structures that value warrior virtues, viz., strength, courage, honour, mastery. Women tend to be less aggressive and to be hangers-on to a gang rather than form gangs themselves. And given their dithers far fewer women will enter jobs that are brutal, dirty, and nasty than will men.

I don't recall saying all men are suited to combat, nor that no women are so suited. But, overall, historically and at present, armies are largely male provinces, and the prize they are fighting for is territory and the women that come with that territory. Expanding on that into the modern era with specifics would lock the thread, so I'll leave it to your imagination.

[1337 b4k4]

I'll be honest, that entire image is a hot mess of artistically questionable choices.

In addition to the gap you pointed out (hereafter referred to as "The Crushinator", with apologies to the female readers who just winced at that mental image)

1) Why are her legs at completely opposite angles from each other, and from her body as a whole?
2) How are her legs twisting the clearly solid steel framing of the exo-suit that way?
3) What's the deal with the drool catcher?
4) How is a tool belt that loose being supported by hips that thin?
5) Why a hard steel plate over her abdomen completely eliminating any forward flex she might need?
6) Why is one hip plat on the exo-suit higher than the other?

I'm sure there's more, but that image is one of those ones that just gets worse the longer you stare at it.

Edit:
--------

All that said, I would have no problem with that image in a TTRPG book, faults and all. Not everyone is a master artist, and bad art or not, it's not offensive (to me). Silly, yes. Questionable, absolutely. But nothing that would turn me off of a game it was included in.

[Ashiel]

I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. With this single post I'm highly doubting your honesty in this discussion. I made a post talking about the value of one thing and you ask why I believe that opposite when thats clearly not the case. That is not something some one does debating in good faith.

Perhaps there's some confusion. I don't get why you mentioned lots of things that are irrelevant to the sexual dimorphism of humans and one sex's predisposition towards physical strength in relation to the other. You said what unites us is more important than what divides us, but I don't see why it would divide us. If anything it seems contrary to the notion of division.

My emotional makeup has nothing to do with this discussion. Again you make me suspicious of whether or not your engaging me honestly with this discussion by attempting emotional manipulation.

I don't know what your emotional makeup is. People are often seen differently in these settings than they are in a face to face setting. I was noting the appearance as I saw it, not making a comment on your emotional state. Rather, you seemed to think there was some sort of animosity between you and others, and I'm pointing out the only thing I can see that makes it so.

(People have animosity towards me because I'm a jerk.)

As to being suspicious, good. I dislike dishonesty but I don't expect you to take my word for it. Life's filled with people who will try to use you for their own ends, or pretend to care to get something. You don't know me from Eve, so it won't hurt my feelings if you're cautious. EDIT: And if it did, I'd get over it.

I do not appreciate this and I have seen someone try this on me in the past, mentioning various traits as if they are faults, trying to get me to focus on myself, perhaps react in a way they desire to be beneficial to their side of the argument, I am not falling for it.

I'd advise not projecting your insecurities. Be on guard. If it makes you feel any better, I don't have a "side" of the argument. I'm just some jerk that thinks people should be able to like what they like without people dogging them for it. Am I a snide jackass? Yeah, I can be. The more zealous someone gets, the less I take them seriously. Side effects of being involved in these things too long.

I just don't care much for the authoritative overtones. The harder anyone presses, the harder I'll press back. Soft presses make for soft pushes.

I suggest you don't continue this line of discussion.

It doesn't really matter to me beyond getting an idea as to try to relate to the person I'm responding to, as opposed to seeing you as whatever you happen to be projecting right now. It's worked in a sense. I know a little more about you now, and that suffices for the time being. In any case, best wishes.

[scalyfreak]

Men are also usually more aggressive than women due to higher testosterone levels, and naturally tend toward gang structures that value warrior virtues, viz., strength, courage, honour, mastery. Women tend to be less aggressive and to be hangers-on to a gang rather than form gangs themselves. And given their dithers far fewer women will enter jobs that are brutal, dirty, and nasty than will men.

...

That description doesn't really fit the world around us. In anyway.

[Max_Killjoy]

I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. With this single post I'm highly doubting your honesty in this discussion. I made a post talking about the value of one thing and you ask why I believe that opposite when thats clearly not the case. That is not something some one does debating in good faith.

My emotional makeup has nothing to do with this discussion. Again you make me suspicious of whether or not your engaging me honestly with this discussion by attempting emotional manipulation. I do not appreciate this and I have seen someone try this on me in the past, mentioning various traits as if they are faults, trying to get me to focus on myself, perhaps react in a way they desire to be beneficial to their side of the argument, I am not falling for it.

I suggest you don't continue this line of discussion.

Ah, you're starting to see the same pattern I picked up on, there.

[Max_Killjoy]

Men being the disposable sex are more suited to combat than women. Lose 90% of the men in a tribe, the tribe can replenish itself relatively soon. Lose 90% of the women, and the tribe is crippled for generations.

Men are also usually more aggressive than women due to higher testosterone levels, and naturally tend toward gang structures that value warrior virtues, viz., strength, courage, honour, mastery. Women tend to be less aggressive and to be hangers-on to a gang rather than form gangs themselves. And given their dithers far fewer women will enter jobs that are brutal, dirty, and nasty than will men.

I don't recall saying all men are suited to combat, nor that no women are so suited. But, overall, historically and at present, armies are largely male provinces, and the prize they are fighting for is territory and the women that come with that territory. Expanding on that into the modern era with specifics would lock the thread, so I'll leave it to your imagination.

Wow.

That is a very interesting neo-Victorian just-so view of the subject.

[Max_Killjoy]

Scalyfreak -- I apologize for trying to bite your head off last night... I was in full defense mode at that point, due to being deliberately misread and misrepresented, and frankly insulted, by multiple other parties.

[Donnadogsoth]

...

That description doesn't really fit the world around us. In anyway.

Boys aren't aggressive? Feral boys (inner city youth) don't form gangs? What parents are there that complain of how aggressive their girls are compared with the boys, how much they roughhouse, how interested they are in tackle football (does such a thing still exist?)? I know a man who as a child stuffed his sister's doll full of firecrackers and lit them. A girl would do such a thing? Girls play war? Perhaps you have answers to some of these questions but guaranteed your answers are not par.

[scalyfreak]

Scalyfreak -- I apologize for trying to bite your head off last night... I was in full defense mode at that point, due to being deliberately misread and misrepresented, and frankly insulted, by multiple other parties.

Tempers flare all the time online, particularly in discussions about controversial topics. No harm done, let's move on.

Besides, you missed.