Armor designs for females?

[Floret]

Especially if it's a bra that is easy to remove when you need an effective distraction on short notice.

Why do people assume breasts are magic like that? Just having a bare chest in front of you, especially in a life-or-death situation really isn't particularly distracting. Especially when this bare chest belongs to someone currently trying to kill or injure you. (And thanks to larping, I can even say that with experience... And even the straight men who were with us had no problems pushing the "oh, breasts!" reflex aside for combat situations.)

Are you all saying I'm weird for finding small, geeky women with flat chests and relatively masculine faces incredibly sexy? Because you wouldn't be the first, I'm just trying to be clear about all this.

On the record for the bra discussion, I'll concede to the experts in this field, but I don't see warrior women wearing a faux sports bra as stupid or anyway. I just think they want support and to be cool (as in not overheating).

You're bi, so a bit of attraction to androgyny might be par for the course. (Works this way for me, at least...)
...To be fair, I'd need to know more about your taste in men to actually qualify this.

While I do understand the wish for chest support, Modern-style bras just kinda tend to seem strange to me in medieval-style settings. Because of the need for elastic materials, which are at least a good bit anachronistic, mostly. Though I will accept things that basically look like a string of cloth pulled more or less tightly around the chest - since that is perfectly possible with even antique technology, and there is historical precedent for that being used.
Anything that looks just... loosely put there or forming distinct cups though tends to break my immersion at least a bit.

[Anonymouswizard]

You're bi, so a bit of attraction to androgyny might be par for the course. (Works this way for me, at least...)
...To be fair, I'd need to know more about your taste in men to actually qualify this.

Yeah, I do actually have an attraction to androgyny, I like pretty men and handsome women, it's just more pronounced one way (with women over men). It's also round faces that do it for me for both genders.

On the other hand, I know people who just couldn't care about gender when it comes to attraction, and are attracted to people all across the masculine/feminine spectrum. I've just come to view human attraction as a great big ball of confusing.

While I do understand the wish for chest support, Modern-style bras just kinda tend to seem strange to me in medieval-style settings. Because of the need for elastic materials, which are at least a good bit anachronistic, mostly. Though I will accept things that basically look like a string of cloth pulled more or less tightly around the chest - since that is perfectly possible with even antique technology, and there is historical precedent for that being used.
Anything that looks just... loosely put there or forming distinct cups though tends to break my immersion at least a bit.

I mean, when I say a faux sports bra I'm thinking a tight(ish) piece of cloth, maybe with straps to help keep it in place (depending on exact degree of tightness). I essentially agree with you, although I think due to not having experience or done much research I'm a bit more willing to stretch things.

[scalyfreak]

Why do people assume breasts are magic like that? Just having a bare chest in front of you, especially in a life-or-death situation really isn't particularly distracting. Especially when this bare chest belongs to someone currently trying to kill or injure you.

Because typically the sight of something completely unexpected and out of place throws someone off for a moment, regardless of what it is. In my old group we used to bring the halfling's mastiff into all sorts of social situations where a dog was completely out of place, for the same reason. It worked surprisingly often, especially if we used illusions to turn him into a weird color.

Though I'm mainly humoring you at this point, since it seems I failed at conveying that initial comment was intended to be a joke.

[Kardwill]

pressure is only 1 atm difference. Skin can hold that fine. you don't really explode in space. It is actually far more important to maintain oxygen supply and to prevent use of body fluids. So the depicted variant actually does protect the more important areas better.

It is still an utterly stupid idea for way to many reasons. Just not as instantly deadly as one might think.

Oh, I know people don't "pop" in vacuum (that's a fact I love to teach to my DMs when they go crazy about the dangers of space-that-will-kill-you-instantly^tm), but I thought a low pressure over the chest and abdominal cavities (and especially around the lungs) for extended periods of time were still bad ideas. I'm no specialist, so I'm probably wrong, though. :)

[Calthropstu]

For the ridiculous space suits, it could be hand waived as being forcefield reinforced.
But the old adage "sex sells" is quite correct. Especially true for the audience trpg's generally tends to attract. So it's stupid silly, yes, but if an image of unrealistic sexy silly space suit girls increases my bottom line, I would include it.

[Max_Killjoy]

OTOH, short of using something like wraps/binding (which then get into restriction of movement / heat issues), it's difficult to build a "sports bra" (which relies on modern elastics) out of primitive materials.

Also, I would venture that given the gender marker of the person you're replying to, they may have a bit more hands on experience vis-a-vis the effectiveness and tradeoffs of various bra types than you're giving her credit for.

I'm not in the habit of looking at those markers, it's very rarely relevant to the points being discussed.

My point was that going into a melee in something like a "sports bra"-like-thing is a very different thing in all sorts of ways than going into combat in a bikini top.

While considering this today, an idea crossed my mind, inspired by Talakeal's assertion that some of this may be a result of trying to mash anachronistic modern styles with an earlier period look. With respect to the bared midriff armor (and not the boob window/plate thing), it seems to me in digging through mounds of artwork for this thread, that the armor that doesn't cover your midriff is a trend of the mid 90's - early 2000's fantasy artwork. Coincidentally, that same time period is really peak bared midriff shirts and spaghetti strap tops for women's fashion. Likewise in this period you see a reduction in the number of armor skirts that were popular in 80's fantasy art (a time of mini skirts and such in women's fashion). I think it's very possible that Talakeal is on to something here that at least some of this is meshing modern fashion with old materials. For the folks with 5e D&D and recently (say the last 7 years) published TTRPGs, are there any trends in the fantasy artwork that are more or less armored versions of modern fashion?

That's an interesting observation.

In examining this, I'd want to try to distinguish between authentic elements of armor, and stylistic anachronisms -- armor "skirts" of some sorts are certainly authentic period design elements for reasons of function and/or form.

[ellindsey]

Oh, I know people don't "pop" in vacuum (that's a fact I love to teach to my DMs when they go crazy about the dangers of space-that-will-kill-you-instantly^tm), but I thought a low pressure over the chest and abdominal cavities (and especially around the lungs) for extended periods of time were still bad ideas. I'm no specialist, so I'm probably wrong, though. :)

Low pressure over your chest and abdomen are very bad ideas, because while your skin can handle the pressure fine, your lungs can't. Human lungs have a low ability to handle greater interior than exterior pressure, so if your chest and abdomen is exposed to vacuum while your life-support system is still providing pressurized air to your lungs, your lungs will over-inflate and then rupture. This is why those spacesuit designs which rely on your skin to hold pressure against the vacuum still need to provide positive mechanical pressure over your chest and abdomen, to keep your body cavities properly pressurized and your lungs intact. So a spacesuit with a bare midriff is just never going to work.

[Arbane]

While I do understand the wish for chest support, Modern-style bras just kinda tend to seem strange to me in medieval-style settings. Because of the need for elastic materials, which are at least a good bit anachronistic, mostly. Though I will accept things that basically look like a string of cloth pulled more or less tightly around the chest - since that is perfectly possible with even antique technology, and there is historical precedent for that being used.
Anything that looks just... loosely put there or forming distinct cups though tends to break my immersion at least a bit.

You know how in most D&Dish worlds, dwarves are several hundred years ahead of everyone else in metallurgy and machinery? Drow are like that with underwear design.

[2D8HP]

You know how in most D&Dish worlds, dwarves are several hundred years ahead of everyone else in metallurgy and machinery? Drow are like that with underwear design.

Hence the common saying:

* If the monk brings a 9-year old kid on a dangerous job to slay a gang, and the bard threatens to leave the party if the kid dies, and the monk counter-threatens that he'll plan to leave first if the kid dies, then both PCs should really listen to the ranger when he asks why for the love of Lolth's blue panties did you bother bringing a nine year old kid to a gang fight?! Your babysitting privileges are hereby revoked! ....

The Ranger does gain bonus points from swearing by Lolth's blue panties....

...look forward to me selling genuine Lolth Brand Underdark Made^TM silk undergarments and nightwear at regular prices (the demand is too high at the moment for discounts).


* Just because I have 21st century knowledge when I got transported to the Xanth-esque world, it doesn't give me free reign to "invent" all the modern world conveniences here and start a consumer goods empire.

[Floret]

Because typically the sight of something completely unexpected and out of place throws someone off for a moment, regardless of what it is. In my old group we used to bring the halfling's mastiff into all sorts of social situations where a dog was completely out of place, for the same reason. It worked surprisingly often, especially if we used illusions to turn him into a weird color.

Though I'm mainly humoring you at this point, since it seems I failed at conveying that initial comment was intended to be a joke.

I would argue not long enough to compensate your for your distraction - even throwing my cape at opponents usually only worked when it hit them square in the face and took their sight ;)
But, okay - yeah, I have seen this argument made in earnest one too many time to be able to just assume it a joke when there is no indicator^^

Yeah, I do actually have an attraction to androgyny, I like pretty men and handsome women, it's just more pronounced one way (with women over men). It's also round faces that do it for me for both genders.

On the other hand, I know people who just couldn't care about gender when it comes to attraction, and are attracted to people all across the masculine/feminine spectrum. I've just come to view human attraction as a great big ball of confusing.

(Yeah, human attraction is just... Something. Beyond the joke I do know enough bi people for having known someone into pretty much every distribution imaginable. My comment was rather tongue-in cheek.)

I mean, when I say a faux sports bra I'm thinking a tight(ish) piece of cloth, maybe with straps to help keep it in place (depending on exact degree of tightness). I essentially agree with you, although I think due to not having experience or done much research I'm a bit more willing to stretch things.

Oh, this has less to do with reasearch and more to do with what "feels" right. I am sure research would go some way to destroy even my misconceptions - I for one know that I am dubious about accepting straps as a thing for these, but know that those date back to at least the 15th century. (Still would be wrong on barbarians, though)

And (not responding to the quoted parts anymore), sure, certain elements in Fantasy settings can explain more modern styles. But the fact that you can explain something doesn't take away the initial impulse of "uhm, what's that doing here", and that, for me is the problem. No matter how well something might be explained, if the first impulse is that it doesn't fit the rest of the setting, that will be the general impression.

[scalyfreak]

I would argue not long enough to compensate your for your distraction - even throwing my cape at opponents usually only worked when it hit them square in the face and took their sight ;)
But, okay - yeah, I have seen this argument made in earnest one too many time to be able to just assume it a joke when there is no indicator^^

That's... disturbing and sad.

And (not responding to the quoted parts anymore), sure, certain elements in Fantasy settings can explain more modern styles. But the fact that you can explain something doesn't take away the initial impulse of "uhm, what's that doing here", and that, for me is the problem. No matter how well something might be explained, if the first impulse is that it doesn't fit the rest of the setting, that will be the general impression.

A large part of the problem is most likely that different people have such different triggers for that impulse, that it's practically impossible to create fantasy art that is guaranteed not to trigger it in anyone.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A large part of the problem is most likely that different people have such different triggers for that impulse, that it's practically impossible to create fantasy art that is guaranteed not to trigger it in anyone.

I agree.

I've found myself that if I try to analyze any piece of media (art/movie/book/etc) with that attitude ("why is that there? How does that even work?") I've lost the suspension of disbelief and lose interest. It means that I have a much better time with things that conspicuously don't take themselves seriously. If you try to tell me that it's a period-accurate artwork and make stupid mistakes, I'm out. On the other hand, if it's clear the art is a pastiche and not designed to be taken literally, I'm fine with it. For me, most "bad" fantasy art sends the message of "look how powerful/amazing/sexy/exotic I am" rather than "this is what I actually fight in." It's stylized with a particular (era-dependent) style. And I'm (mostly) fine with that. I'm not fond of the focus on the erotic that often occurs, but that's not for verisimilitude reasons but for personal moral reasons.

[Max_Killjoy]

I agree.

I've found myself that if I try to analyze any piece of media (art/movie/book/etc) with that attitude ("why is that there? How does that even work?") I've lost the suspension of disbelief and lose interest. It means that I have a much better time with things that conspicuously don't take themselves seriously. If you try to tell me that it's a period-accurate artwork and make stupid mistakes, I'm out. On the other hand, if it's clear the art is a pastiche and not designed to be taken literally, I'm fine with it. For me, most "bad" fantasy art sends the message of "look how powerful/amazing/sexy/exotic I am" rather than "this is what I actually fight in." It's stylized with a particular (era-dependent) style. And I'm (mostly) fine with that. I'm not fond of the focus on the erotic that often occurs, but that's not for verisimilitude reasons but for personal moral reasons.

I find that I'm kinda the opposite. I'd rather they at least try to be accurate and functional. And I really hate symbolism of the "look how powerful/amazing/sexy/exotic I am" sort -- especially as it gets sillier and less functional or just plan ignorant/idiotic.

If they really want to convey something about a character as a sexual being, they should just show them out of armor at some point in a scene where it makes sense for them to be out of armor and that fits in the story (rather than being gratuitous). If they can't fit it in to a natural point in the story and can't do it out of combat, I'd suggest that it's just not that important to the story and they should move on without it.

[Talakeal]

I find that I'm kinda the opposite. I'd rather they at least try to be accurate and functional. And I really hate symbolism of the "look how powerful/amazing/sexy/exotic I am" sort -- especially as it gets sillier and less functional or just plan ignorant/idiotic.

If they really want to convey something about a character as a sexual being, they should just show them out of armor at some point in a scene where it makes sense for them to be out of armor and that fits in the story (rather than being gratuitous). If they can't fit it in to a natural point in the story and can't do it out of combat, I'd suggest that it's just not that important to the story and they should move on without it.

Ok, well what if we have a character who has only two important character traits: Badass warrior & incredibly sexy.

Now, we are doing an illustration of that character for an RPG supplement, and we only have the space and the budget to dedicate a single image to any given character.

Wouldn't trying to somehow depict both facets of the character in the same image work better than completely indulging in one at the expense of the other?

[Max_Killjoy]

Ok, well what if we have a character who has only two important character traits: Badass warrior & incredibly sexy.

Then I think you've got a 2d character who needs some work.

Now, we are doing an illustration of that character for an RPG supplement, and we only have the space and the budget to dedicate a single image to any given character.

Wouldn't trying to somehow depict both facets of the character in the same image work better than completely indulging in one at the expense of the other?

1) Don't do either at the expense of faithfulness to the setting.
2) Find a way to convey both that works them in together, and doesn't violate #1, and doesn't rely on cheap visual shorthand.

[Deophaun]

Low pressure over your chest and abdomen are very bad ideas, because while your skin can handle the pressure fine, your lungs can't. Human lungs have a low ability to handle greater interior than exterior pressure, so if your chest and abdomen is exposed to vacuum while your life-support system is still providing pressurized air to your lungs, your lungs will over-inflate and then rupture. This is why those spacesuit designs which rely on your skin to hold pressure against the vacuum still need to provide positive mechanical pressure over your chest and abdomen, to keep your body cavities properly pressurized and your lungs intact. So a spacesuit with a bare midriff is just never going to work.

Not never. It works for as long as you remember to not hold your breath. It's a spacesuit with a bare midriff and a helmet that is never going to work.

[goto124]

Talakeal: Use (semi-)realistic armor that also hints at sexiness. What sort of warrior is she? A pirate can show her shoulders, bare her midriff, wear tight pants, or have a shirt with a neckline just low enough to show a bit of her cleavage without being unfunctional. Not all armor is full plate.

You could also show her flirting with someone else, or otherwise showing that she acts with sexiness instead of just looking sexy. Any character can show charisma by offering a rose to the audience and winking, whether in a chainmail bikini or in full plate.

[scalyfreak]

I feel a need to interrupt the current tangential debate to point out that wearing something sexy does not automatically mean wearing something that bares a lot of skin.

That kind of cliche is just lazy.

[Max_Killjoy]

I feel a need to interrupt the current tangential debate to point out that wearing something sexy does not automatically mean wearing something that bares a lot of skin.

That kind of cliche is just lazy.

Agreed -- "show skin to convey sexy character" would be the sort of cheap visual shorthand that I cautioned against a few post ago.

[Ashiel]

Talakeal: Use (semi-)realistic armor that also hints at sexiness. What sort of warrior is she? A pirate can show her shoulders, bare her midriff, wear tight pants, or have a shirt with a neckline just low enough to show a bit of her cleavage without being unfunctional. Not all armor is full plate.

But as long as it isn't, people will still complain about it. And when it is, they'll complain some more.

Despite the fact that there is literally mountains of fantasy artwork that depicts characters modestly, both in and out of D&D, often in the same books (compare Mialee the Wizard's dress to Lidda the Rogue's outfit and Gimble's robes to Hennet's), people will always complain about whichever art grinds against their personal sensibilities and morals. Doesn't matter if those morals are based in some puritan religious belief, being religiously politically correct, or simply a personal quirk that drives them to piss in everyone else's cheerios.

You usually see the same tired reasons. It usually begins with some variation of "think of the children women!", and then when lots of people rightfully note that lots of women eat it up as much or more than the dudes do, then it switches to "but historical accuracy / realism!" in a game where you have fantasy barbarians that can skydive onto asphalt and come away with a bruise, and fighting giant godlike super lizards who spit fire so hot that it can slag a suit of full plate in three seconds flat, where heroes wear armors that never existed in the first place (like studded leather), and being a higher level makes your skin more resistant to swords.

IMHO, consume the art you like, ignore the art you don't, and let others do the same. Or don't. At least as long as people are fighting about it, I get to loot kickass art from the crossfire. I found so many amazing Larry Elmdore pictures in this thread, lots of classic D&D stuff, and various sexy fantasy pinups that it would have rivaled an afternoon of pinterest searches.

[Recherché]

While I do understand the wish for chest support, Modern-style bras just kinda tend to seem strange to me in medieval-style settings. Because of the need for elastic materials, which are at least a good bit anachronistic, mostly. Though I will accept things that basically look like a string of cloth pulled more or less tightly around the chest - since that is perfectly possible with even antique technology, and there is historical precedent for that being used.
Anything that looks just... loosely put there or forming distinct cups though tends to break my immersion at least a bit.

Eh while you couldn't make a modern sports bra without elastic, leather (especially certain types) has enough elasticity that you could use it to make a pretty decent bra. Nalebinding (kinda similar to crochet but much older) is older than the vikings and you could use that to make pseudo-knitted fabric with a certain amount of stretch. Underwires and cups are also possible using medieval sewing tech and we actually have evidence of female undergarments with cups by the 15th century. Heck you could even make underwires and install them without too much issue. All in all the equivalent to a sports bra is possible using medieval tech and materials, but it would not look like a bikini top exactly. Alternatively a laced up leather bodice, possibly with cups and underwires would be a pretty decent way to keep the bust from jiggling while adventuring and look sexy at the same time. Armor on top would help with the not dying from being stabbed part though.

[Max_Killjoy]

But as long as it isn't, people will still complain about it. And when it is, they'll complain some more.

Despite the fact that there is literally mountains of fantasy artwork that depicts characters modestly, both in and out of D&D, often in the same books (compare Mialee the Wizard's dress to Lidda the Rogue's outfit and Gimble's robes to Hennet's), people will always complain about whichever art grinds against their personal sensibilities and morals. Doesn't matter if those morals are based in some puritan religious belief, being religiously politically correct, or simply a personal quirk that drives them to piss in everyone else's cheerios.

You usually see the same tired reasons. It usually begins with some variation of "think of the children women!", and then when lots of people rightfully note that lots of women eat it up as much or more than the dudes do, then it switches to "but historical accuracy / realism!" in a game where you have fantasy barbarians that can skydive onto asphalt and come away with a bruise, and fighting giant godlike super lizards who spit fire so hot that it can slag a suit of full plate in three seconds flat, where heroes wear armors that never existed in the first place (like studded leather), and being a higher level makes your skin more resistant to swords.

So you've decided to combine a really distorted representation of others' positions, with the "But Dragons!" fallacy...

[Ashiel]

So you've decided to combine a really distorted representation of others' positions, with the "But Dragons!" fallacy...

Far from it. I'm calling them as I've seen 'em, time and time again, on this forum and others. It always comes down to the same things.

1. Someone bemoans that it's dude-centric.
A. People point out that girls like sexy girls too. Go figure.

2. So then it's all about historically accurate realism!
A. Except, that's a load of crap because nothing is historically accurate or realistic.

3. You think it looks ridiculous or it's stupid design (like with that goofy "space suit").
A. Cool, I agree with you. 100%. Someone else might like it though. It's not your aesthetic and that's cool.

It's demonstrably a load of crap. Time and time again. So then we come down to what's more likely and that's aesthetic appeal. Either due to personal, moral, or ethical quirk, you prefer X style are over Y style art. So far so peachy. But then, someone goes and tries to hoist that off onto other people, usually through some sort of appeal to emotion or morality.

I actually have the utmost respect for people that are honest and either admit that it's because of their personal views on morality, or a simple desire for a particular style. If you just don't want to see adventurers dressed like Conan or Sonya (D3 barbarian), that's cool. There's tons and I mean tons more art out there. If you don't want cutesy, or sexual, or grim, or high fantasy, or steampunk, or whatever, that's cool too. Just say so.

But lots of people do like those things and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.

[Max_Killjoy]

Far from it. I'm calling them as I've seen 'em, time and time again, on this forum and others. It always comes down to the same things.

1. Someone bemoans that it's dude-centric.
A. People point out that girls like sexy girls too. Go figure.

2. So then it's all about historically accurate realism!
A. Except, that's a load of crap because nothing is historically accurate or realistic.

3. You think it looks ridiculous or it's stupid design (like with that goofy "space suit").
A. Cool, I agree with you. 100%. Someone else might like it though. It's not your aesthetic and that's cool.

It's demonstrably a load of crap. Time and time again. So then we come down to what's more likely and that's aesthetic appeal. Either due to personal, moral, or ethical quirk, you prefer X style are over Y style art. So far so peachy. But then, someone goes and tries to hoist that off onto other people, usually through some sort of appeal to emotion or morality.

I actually have the utmost respect for people that are honest and either admit that it's because of their personal views on morality, or a simple desire for a particular style. If you just don't want to see adventurers dressed like Conan or Sonya (D3 barbarian), that's cool. There's tons and I mean tons more art out there. If you don't want cutesy, or sexual, or grim, or high fantasy, or steampunk, or whatever, that's cool too. Just say so.

But lots of people do like those things and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.

So like I said, you're going to present the most slanted and insulting version of what people have actually said to you, and then pretend to know their motives better than they do.

You're treating everyone who disagrees with you as a single person, or as if they all speak with a single voice. Just because one person disagrees on objectification grounds, and someone else objects on practicality grounds, and someone else objects on historical grounds, and someone else objects on aesthetic grounds, and maybe those objections came in a certain order, doesn't mean it plays out in the manner you're asserting here.

[Deophaun]

Just because one person disagrees on objectification grounds, and someone else objects on practicality grounds, and someone else objects on aesthetic grounds, and maybe those objections came in a certain order, doesn't mean it plays you in the manner you're asserting here.

No, but that happening once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.

[CharonsHelper]

No, but that happening once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.

It's the Illuminati!!!

[Anonymouswizard]

A. Cool, I agree with you. 100%. Someone else might like it though. It's not your aesthetic and that's cool.

I think this is the key thing.

I'll cop to it, I don't actually mind chainmail bikinis as such. I mind when it's one aesthetic for men and another for women, and this is normally fully clothed men with skin showing women.

Now there are some aesthetics I prefer, in my science fiction settings you're more likely to see shirts and trousers (for bother genders) over jumpsuits or spaceswimsuits. My spacesuits are also almost always tight padded affairs with helmets or fully enclosed powered armour. Heck, my universes tend to feature spaceships which are sleek but dull and slightly battered, not boxy.

If you don't like that you don't have to play in my science fiction universe, like I don't play in ones with overly stripperific aesthetics (barring obviously parodic ones).

[Ashiel]

So like I said, you're going to present the most slanted and insulting version of what people have actually said to you, and then pretend to know their motives better than they do.

Whose motives am I pretending to know? Hm?

Did I call anyone out? Did I do other than to say that, like many times before, I see the same ol' same ol' hashed out?

Tell me how it doesn't come down to simple stylistic preference if it is not predicated by some sense of moral principles. If I'm so wrong, why not tell me why I'm wrong, rather than being indignant and insulted on behalf of nobody.

You're treating everyone who disagrees with you as a single person, or as if they all speak with a single voice.

Who am I disagreeing with?

And who are the imaginary people that are being condensed into a single imaginary person, with one voice shouting many different things? Reveal this ghostly specter! Reveal it, that it might deliver the utmost highest truth, to cast down the one who disagrees with the non-existent.

Just because one person disagrees on objectification grounds, and someone else objects on practicality grounds, and someone else objects on historical grounds, and someone else objects on aesthetic grounds, and maybe those objections came in a certain order, doesn't mean it plays out in the manner you're asserting here.

Your point being? You've basically complained about what I've said but haven't really even brushed against any reason as to why it's wrong.

Anonymouswizard

Re: Armor designs for females?

A. Cool, I agree with you. 100%. Someone else might like it though. It's not your aesthetic and that's cool.

I think this is the key thing.

I'll cop to it, I don't actually mind chainmail bikinis as such. I mind when it's one aesthetic for men and another for women, and this is normally fully clothed men with skin showing women.

Now there are some aesthetics I prefer, in my science fiction settings you're more likely to see shirts and trousers (for bother genders) over jumpsuits or spaceswimsuits. My spacesuits are also almost always tight padded affairs with helmets or fully enclosed powered armour. Heck, my universes tend to feature spaceships which are sleek but dull and slightly battered, not boxy.

If you don't like that you don't have to play in my science fiction universe, like I don't play in ones with overly stripperific aesthetics (barring obviously parodic ones).

See, this wizard gets it.

EDIT:

No, but that happening once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.

I lol'd.

[Talakeal]

Then I think you've got a 2d character who needs some work.




1) Don't do either at the expense of faithfulness to the setting.
2) Find a way to convey both that works them in together, and doesn't violate #1, and doesn't rely on cheap visual shorthand.

Obviously its a 2d character, I stripped it down to bare-bones for the example.
For #1 what do you mean by faithfulness to the setting? In most fantasy settings impractical armor is a part of the setting, so are you saying to make sure to go with the same aestetic, or are you saying the entire setting is cheapened by having impractical armor?
#2 Is ideal, but my point was that it is a lot easier said than done.

Talakeal: Use (semi-)realistic armor that also hints at sexiness. What sort of warrior is she? A pirate can show her shoulders, bare her midriff, wear tight pants, or have a shirt with a neckline just low enough to show a bit of her cleavage without being unfunctional. Not all armor is full plate.

You could also show her flirting with someone else, or otherwise showing that she acts with sexiness instead of just looking sexy. Any character can show charisma by offering a rose to the audience and winking, whether in a chainmail bikini or in full plate.

Sexiness is not sexuality. While it is obviously in the eye of the beholder, seeing someone flirting with people and offering them flowers is, to me, going to greatly diminish how sexy someone is.

Far from it. I'm calling them as I've seen 'em, time and time again, on this forum and others. It always comes down to the same things.

1. Someone bemoans that it's dude-centric.
A. People point out that girls like sexy girls too. Go figure.

2. So then it's all about historically accurate realism!
A. Except, that's a load of crap because nothing is historically accurate or realistic.

3. You think it looks ridiculous or it's stupid design (like with that goofy "space suit").
A. Cool, I agree with you. 100%. Someone else might like it though. It's not your aesthetic and that's cool.

It's demonstrably a load of crap. Time and time again. So then we come down to what's more likely and that's aesthetic appeal. Either due to personal, moral, or ethical quirk, you prefer X style are over Y style art. So far so peachy. But then, someone goes and tries to hoist that off onto other people, usually through some sort of appeal to emotion or morality.

I actually have the utmost respect for people that are honest and either admit that it's because of their personal views on morality, or a simple desire for a particular style. If you just don't want to see adventurers dressed like Conan or Sonya (D3 barbarian), that's cool. There's tons and I mean tons more art out there. If you don't want cutesy, or sexual, or grim, or high fantasy, or steampunk, or whatever, that's cool too. Just say so.

But lots of people do like those things and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.

The problem is that people object to armor designs for so many different reasons, and the people doing the objecting are not unified in their views. Thus every discussion about this topic tends to go in a circle with the goalposts constantly shifting from one topic to another before they can really be analyzed.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's the thing -- when someone is going into a situation wearing an outfit that will get them killed, simply because said outfit is supposedly "sexy", then objectively, there's an issue.

Going into hard vacuum in a getup that offers no protection is stupid... objectively stupid.

Going into combat wearing a "sexy" getup that offers no protection from the weapons being used, no camouflage, no utility, nothing useful at all... objectively stupid.

When an artist show me a character who's doing objectively stupid things, they're not telling me the character sexy or confident or whatever... they're telling me that the character is an idiot, or ignorant, or insane, or has a death wish.

I honestly don't understand how "this character is going to die" is sexy to begin with.