Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3 armour appearance

I think the armor is fine as is. It *should* look different male v female - If a man wears a skirt irl doesn’t it look different if a woman wears the same skirt?

I actually like that it looks different. Same-y armors are not interesting.

The issue about revealing armors is an old one going back years and not just for RPGs. I think these armors are less revealing than others, more than some others. With that said I am most certainly NOT voting to get rid of pants. That is silly.

Honestly the outfit that bugs me the most is the one the dream person wears, male or female. Really? A sparkly toga. Not slightly attractive or alluring. 🤢 I would be 100% behind changing that.

Sure, what do you think of Hector / Eric Bana's skirt? Doesn't look bad to me.

The issue for me is whether one gender is sexualized and the other is not. Either sexualize both or neither.

wow, I am positively impressed and quite cool . In the other thread about "engaging party member" I'll chose you .. Let me correct that.


First, I'm glad you didn't walk away from this thread, I may pop few jokes or outrageous comments to keep you around.

Your comments here are a bit over the top, don't you think? You are now worrying that I take men's pants away ?! Seriously ? You already took my pants away ! And you know what? Take it ! But please don't start whining if I take yours away.
Throughout this thread, that's all we're saying. The thread is "Let's talk about armor sexual demorphism."

I don't know, you tell me:


I think the person themselves looks different, the clothes look the same.


Fair.


Aww, so kind.

Thank you !

I disagree. The armor should look the same (except of course when the body form is different with flexible armor).
See Kingmaker (artistic license, not technically the same armor)

@Ixal Actually certain swords were specifically designed to engage against plate armor. Like the estoc. In addition blunt weapons, polearms, halberds, etc. Entire combat styles were developed as well to focus on weakpoints. The actual full plate was more common for jousting than in war. Many troops were partial. Mostly removing legs etc. The ones that did keep the gear were things like heavy cavalry more than anything. Plate armor was not bulletproof. In fact, without assistance, they would knock you with the force alone. Not kill but knock out at which you might as well be dead. It's why plate armor fell out of use in the first place. The point of fighting a full plate on the ground was to take advantage of the poor breathing, poor visibility, and bulk. You don't need to pierce flesh son. If you tank a blow from someone trying to kill you, your stamina will suffer without fail. Your bruises will pile, you will make openings, and you WILL go down. It's not a guaranteed win if you are in full plate. Yes, you can tank a blow but for what purpose? I don't know what kind of training you have had in your life. You need combat experience.

@Kadajko No, not just in reproduction. What do you mean sex? You mean gender? A man and a women? You won't get anywhere if you keep trying to imbalance or mix them. That's your wall to climb. Within everyone Masculine and feminine exists. Within men, masculinity is in abundance. Within women, feminity is in abundance. What do you think attraction is? You look for what you lack to feel whole. Now if you tried to chemically imbalance yourself by manipulating your hormones, that's all you. You are in charge of yourself. Most activities and choices in life cause chemical reactions. All affect the being. I listed the forms separately on purpose. I won't just say "cause science". You listed social constructs. What does that have to do with the fundaments of being?

@Starlights I was in a joking mood then and didn't finish what I was going to say. You misunderstood my tone. I was actually going in a more joking direction before the interrogation began. My point in a more serious manner is that when given the choice to simply request what some have claimed to be wronged, some of you instead went to change something that was not in question in the first place. Essentially you are not righting a wrong you are causing a revenge tactic to claim fair game which of course means you at least subconsciously know what's going on. That's not justice, that's revenge. Which is close but not the same. Your claim was that the armor for women does not please you, therefore the armor for men must change. That is sexist and does not even solve the problem you complained about in the first place.

Okay Aishaddi I think I've mostly got your perspective. Anima / Animus is testosterone / estrogen and presumably love between two women is really based upon testosterone / estrogen coming together. Probably some chain of life back even to lobsters things happening as well. Obviously, I don't agree but I want to get this down.

Where does the subjugation come in? If men and women wear the same armors this advances some agenda where women will take men's place? Men who like looking at sexy armor will be denied opportunities to look at sexy armor? Or only able to look under oppressive conditions? Or is a concern that men will be sexually objectified and that is oppressive? Do you see the gender dichotomy as a firewall against other forms of oppression? Once that goes we further slouch towards Gomorrah? Don't get it. What is the agenda that I must know about -- if even on an unconscious level? [ I missed a few club meetings when the secret agenda was discussed ]

Please keep the tone of this thread civil, everyone.

Exactly. As I said before, it sets a precedent to sexualize one but not the other.


We can't right a wrong that goes beyond the scope of fictional video games. The game could give the female half-plate pants or even erase visual dimorphic differences in armor entirely and some people will still mod it back in, complaining on the forums about prudes and politics, and feel like they have a right to do so.

Yes, it is a false equivalence - skimpy male armor does not have the same implications as skimpy female armor. It's not true equality, but it will never be revenge because they appeal differently to who they appeal to. Sexualized clothes to some are an invitation (deserving of whatever it provokes) rather than it being an advertisement, which echoes longstanding real world issues I will not elaborate on in this forum. You call it hypocritical revenge because you think we're just trying to flip the script.

We have Drow for that. This is about putting a bare minimum of static noise over something otherwise blaringly obvious. When it's just females sexualized, there is the implication of "deserving whatever they provoke", there to be feasted upon by the eyes and not a serious, capable character. Compared to a male that is not given a compromising implication. When its both males and females sexualized, I can say it's not targeted to one sex. It's "equal".

If sexualization of armor potentially creates an "invitation" of something bad, shouldn't we remove it completely, male or female? If that's the case, it seems the best solution is to remove it completely.

Banning things is just a bandaid for deeper issues. If a game wants to have it, it's my choice whether I want to deal with it or not. And in weighing whether I am interested in a game or not, that can play a part. It's easier for me to ignore the prevalent perception of skimpy female armor when there is skimpy male armor to match.

But you were the one who implied sexualized armor potentially creates harm. Band aid or not, shouldn’t it be removed even at the expense of some artistic creativity if it will prevent some future violence?

You may ignore it but others may not.

Now, wait a minute armor is worn to protect a person from hits correct? Then why should regular plate mail armor give you the same protection as a sexy set of plate armor that makes a person half-naked? Even me as a male I might like seeing women in skimpy outfits but in the overall scheme of things I prefer the personality first.

Here's what I've learned..."Let's Talk about armor sexual dimorphism"...

...Let's not.

Less flippant; though I don't think the arguments for, or against practicality, hold water in a game that isn't trying to be a realistic simulation of medieval/renaissance warcraft, I think all the views on the representation of armor in games above are valid. Which makes the real problem that there aren't more than two skins for ever piece of armor, no character can personalize the way they want to be viewed, either NPCs by the world/PC (narratively) or the players by themselves (meta-narratively).

Something that happens pretty often to me in games, I'll decline to use the statistically superior equipment because I don't like the way it looks. A transmogrification system is a quick fix for this but it's pretty gamey (not that armor systems aren't) but as it is right now there isn't really enough diversity of styles (and yes, aesthetics) to really merit even this.

That is simply wrong.
Full plate was frequently used in war. What you mean is jousting armor which is a different variant of armor used in tourneys. Also the one with the removed legs is half plate of field plate which indeed exist as budget version of plate armor used to equip large formation of foot soldiers, but the nobility used higher quality armor when they could afford it.
Those armor was often shot at close range with a pistol as a proof of quality. Thats why you often see a single dent on plate armors (armour of proof). Breathing was indeed a problem, but a much more minor one than what you suggest. In the end, wearing plate armor was a huge advantage. Did it guarantee victory? No, but nothing does. Luck is always part of a combat, but it made a victory much more likely. The idea that agile, unarmored swordman have an advantage over fighters in plate armor is a hollywood invention, as is that plate armor makes you slow or that being hit with a firearm tends to knock you over.

You keep talking about git armor. So I will say again, Lae's open legs look good, in a way it (maybe) sexualizes her. But the skirt on men looks silly, to sexualize their you need to remove the upper part of the armor and open the chest, not the legs. In fact, if you left legs open, it wouldn't be the same. Women will look sexy in this, and men will look stupid, for most people. So if you want to sexualize both types of armor, you need to make them DIFFERENT. The effect will be completely different for different genders..

Fun fact, I'm pretty sure gits themselves have their legs open in that armor right now. Why do you think not? Did you meet them at the bridge?

No, I mean biological sex. A male and a female. I don't want to use the word gender because it means a lot of completely different things to different people or means nothing at all.


You don't have to try, mixing just naturally happens and it doesn't lead to any imbalances.


Tend to, but not necessarily. There are plenty of real life examples to debunk that statement.


It's subjective personal taste.


Not necessarily, you look for what you like, whether you have it or lack it yourself is a seperate question. Also I personally think that everyone should feel whole on their own first, before getting into a relationship, not looking for someone to fix you.


Your body is adaptable to your needs, yes. It does not however cause an imbalance as a reaction. Body produces hormones within norms.


There are a lot of things on that list that are completely irrelevant to the question or have zero credibility. The one credible science you've mentioned is biology.

And I will also reply to this:


No, YOU subconciously think it's wrong and are projecting. lol

Me and some other people NEVER said that there is something wrong with female armor being sexy, we only didn't like that it is not the same for males. I said in the original post that I PREFER practical armor for immersion reasons, but if we are going the route of ''it's just a game'' for aesthetics, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having sexy revealing armor, it's not evil.

PS:


I hope that this discussion is deemed civil.

About Laes armor: I don't like it, as it is now, I want pants. That's why I advocated to give us different versions of the armor sets for different tastes. I don't want my armor sexualized, but I'm ok when someone else wants that. I always gave Morrigan a more sensible outfit and Isabela pants, but others use nude mods for the same characters. That's fine with me, as long as I can wear what I want.

Jk (but i looked on nexus and them pants man)