Mod edit: title changed for merge into Megathread. Previous title; "I think armor (and weapon) designs look atrocious"


I don't know if I'm the only one that thinks this, but recently I came across a post on reddit with datamined images of all equipment that is in the game, and I have some thoughts about them. Now, I understand that it's hard to make the models and designs, and I genuinely think that the models are of very high quality, my problem is with the designs itself.


Weapons: I don't have a problem with the weapon design, for the most part, there's some nitpicks I have with stuff like the length of the longsword's handle size, but nothing major. Except for the design for the +2 Greatsword, I don't know who thought that guard looked good, I'm all for outlandish designs in fantasy games that are impractical when they look good, but not only does this look impractical, it just doesn't look good, and it's not something I'd like to see my character wield.




Light Armor: it looks good for the most part, I think the designs are well done, my only "problem" is how regular leather armor looks so thin, kinda looks more like an apron, but it's nothing major that makes it look bad





Medium Armor: this is where I start having some thoughts, and I'll go through them one by one

-Hide armor: I think it looks good, you can't really go wrong with this

-Chain shirt: I wasn't sure how they could make a visual design for an improvement of chain armor, but I was pleasantly surprised, the designs are good and show how the armor progresses, except for the +2 female version, as it doesn't seem to have any chain for some weird reason?

-Scale mal: I have mixed feelings about this one because it's not really a bad design, but I just don't like it, if you're making scale armor, I want to see the metal scales all around the body, to me this looks like leather armor with some scales on it
-Breastplate: this armor looks fine, my only problem with it is that the base version looks just as fine and detailed as the upgraded versions, I think a more simplistic design, at least for the base version, would look a lot better, and maybe make the breastplate a bit larger

-Half plate: I'll be 100% honest, I absolutely hate this, and I can't even say it has a good design, at least for the female version. First off, I'll get the nitpicks out of the way, as I understand it, half plate is supposed to be just like full plate, but without the lower body, this just looks like a breastplate with kneepads. Now for the actual problems with this armor, the female version is literally just a metal bra; who in their right mind thought this was a good idea? There shouldn't be a change in design depending on gender, at least not one as big as this, and the worst part is that Larian didn't do this before, is DOS2 they had revealing armor, but it was the same for both genders, so it stayed consistent and made sense culturally, but here it doesn't make sense to have the male version be this badass looking guy that looks ready for battle, while the female version looks like a dress with a steel bra. This looks terrible and I hope they change it before early access ends.





Heavy Armor

-Ringmail: there's not much to say here, the armor looks great, the female +1 version doesn't have pants, but I'm guessing this is a bug of sorts so it's fine

-Chain mail: Again, I don't have any complaints about this one, the design is good and the progression between the different versions is done well

-Splint mail: Not how I would've imagined it, but this still looks good, my only "complaint" is the fact that the base armor is as detailed as its upgrades, a more simplistic version would do the trick

-Plate: Just like splint armor, I think this armor looks good and the designs are well done, I still think there should be a simpler version for the base armor, and the designs should be a bit more consistent between male and female versions.







So yeah, besides the few nitpicks I had, the two main problems these designs have is that some don't stay consistent for male and female versions, and some are ironically far too detailed, there's nothing wrong with simplicity, some people just want plain old plate armor, with no outlandish designs and engravings on it. I know it takes work to make designs of this quality, but better to get these complaints out of the way while the game is still in early access.

Padded and Leather Armor look great! What sucks is that the best and most used light armor, Studded Leather, doesn't look so great. Too many odd details, patches and color tones.

Hide and Chain Shirt are cool. Except you can't see any chain in the female version of chain shirt +2. Scale Mail suffers from the same thing as studded leather. Too many odd details, decorations, patches and layers of everything. Breastplate looks nice but really fancy and I'd like a more plain version. I can't imagine my stealthy Ranger wearing that in the wilderness. Female half plate has... boob plates and a skirt with no leg protection at all. I'm speechless. It looks more like a dress than plate armor. Change please.

Ring Mail looks really thin and light. Not heavy enough for heavy armor. Since it's made out of cheaper materials, it should be very bulky. Chain Mail is fine. Splint is very Samurai. Plate Armor looks really fancy again. I just want something less decorated.

Overall I think many armors look way too high fantasy and decorated. More like ceremonial armor for kings than actual armor for battle. In many cases I would prefer something more real and utilitarian. I'm not against decorations but these seem overdone for the most part. The better the armor gets, the less I like it. Should be the other way around.

The weapons seem all very elven style. Same thing again.. they look too fancy and decorated. I'd prefer more utilitarian looking weapons. Less gold, more steel. Unless these actually ARE elven designs and we get more normal stuff later.

Special mention for the Greatsword +2 which I probably can't use while it has the ridiculous morning star for a cross guard.

The low level sword, bow and spear looks good. I would want these in any game I play, instead what most other games have. The realistic weapon style is great but not every model it is like that: mace isn't like a real mace, and every shield is basic round so far. Staves are also very poor, I'd rather have a simple, empty stick than all that cloth and metal parts that makes no sense to be there, on the low level items.

The armor looks good on female characters, but not so much on male. The hidden paladin pink armor is bad. Wizards could use more variety, both traditional and a bit sexier clothing as well. So far there are no choices at all: it's all about stats, you pick which is better, not the one which looks good.

Would like to have a slot for looks (with no weight penalties, maybe transform the armor into a skin to use it here) and one for stats.

Could you please change your title? To use the word atrocious and then go on to say they are all good or ok except one reminds me of a line from the Princess Bride. Also, you include weapons in the title and then say nothing about weapons. Other than the title, I actually really like your post and agree with it.

I don't mind female specific designs. I prefer to not look frumpy.

If I want to look at frumpy, I'll look in a mirror.

Personally I think the half-plate armours are great designs for breastplates

Breastplates are probably my favourite armour from an aestethics viewpoint (especially the stereotypical wizard robe/long coat and breastplate looks) and to me the non-magical version look a bit too... fractured. I don't mind that so much for the magical versions because they can get away with being more "piecey" but I would like common breastplates to look more like they're a plate that goes over your breast.

I agree that some armours, like leather, could be bulkier. I also think hide should be bulky -- to me the difference between leather and hide is either using the skin of a thicker animal or more layering and fur. Magical hide (and leather) can be less bulky for obvious magical reasons.

I like very much that they've chosen to include the padded armour/gambeson look in all their armours. It's the foundation of every heavier armour, after all, and it delights the stickler for realism in me to see it.

Full Plate doesn't look platey enough. I think the upgraded Half-Plates look more like how a Full Plate should look. Which shouldn't be a surprise given that Half-Plate is supposed to be identical to Full-Plate except with many of the (half ) of the limb protection missing, as you mentioned. Once again the basic, unmagical armour itself looks more like what I could see magical Full-Plate looking like.

I too like the weapon design, including the morning star greatsword. Yes, I know it would be a really bad idea. But it would be a magnificently bad idea. It's ridiculous, but in a fun way.

However, last point. I'm not sure the linked pictures are the exhaustive list of armours. As far as I've seen there has been a few variants of all the armours in-game already, usually just details like shoulder pads or coat length, but still.

Armors, clothing, shields and weapons look very generic in the game. They would deserve more variants, especially shields. But as all types seem to be in there, I guess more variety will come later. It's just about making new assets and adding textures after all.

I kinda doubt that this is really "all" ...
Especialy since i cant find some armors, that are allready there. O_o

But except that, i can only agree.

I agree with some points you make, especially your critique.

I like armor design even less then you, overall. I see odd details, decorations and patches as absolutely unnecessary and taking away from the
main idea of the armor: it should protect and be comfortable. And if you are making a statement with your armor (as you should, because if you are a combat-oriented character, your life partially depends on it) - there is a stealth, shiny or intimidating approach. (To be undetected, to be detected and relied upon, to be afraid of). Form follows function.

Designers, you are making less of this statement by blurring the borders and having no single style approach in the most given armor. Please rely on realistic examples of armor - just look at the museum pieces, Royal Tower as an easy example. All you may need is between IX and XVI century. Sometimes no need to invent the wheel, when there are proven forms. Not everything needs to be creative.

As for Greatsword+2, I think they have just misnamed it. It's Loviathar greatsword, of course, sado-maso. Scare your enemy by inflicting pain on your own hands while swinging.

Why do people have to make these massive exaggerations lol.
How in the hell is the female half-plate a '' metal bra ''?
It just has leather around sorta simulating the appearance of a corset without being one ( which was an actual thing historically btw ).

It looks way better than the male version imo which just looks so.... Basic and dull.
The male version just lacks personality I think.

Scholargladiatoria made a video response to the whole thing with Sarkeesian freaking out about the female Mandalorians breastplates and he actually showcased real historical depictions of women wearing armor from the middle-ages.
Even back then people had the idea of armor specifically made for women being different and more feminine.
In a setting where women being soldiers and fighting is the norm I actually like seeing that, that women being a part of warfare has actually had an influence because it's VERY likely that this would've happened historically if women had worn armor enough that they'd even be taken into consideration at all.
And we have actual historical paintings depicting it from middle-age artists.
( And yes I am aware of Joan of Arc etc, we don't even know what armor she wore and even so women were so rare that they just slapped the developed standard on them and called it a day. Numerous of historians have covered this topic before. )

If people don't like it that's fine, but I'd really hate to see them get rid of it because of people who probably won't even play female characters to begin with.
And if you don't like it then it can be modded out later anyways, but I'd like to for once have something nice.
And the way they're doing it makes actual sense contextually and also even from a '' what if '' historical pov.

I mean it just sounds to me like you think that femininity isn't cool or badass.
I think that most women do, and you're severely overexaggerating about it too.

Edit: And why is it always that female gear needs to '' correct itself '' by male gear?
For once if you're gonna standardize things and make it all the same ( *yawn* ) then do it the other way around then.
I am so tired of people arguing about this as if the masculine is always the default that the feminine needs to be judged by.

That greatsword+2 is hideous. Not only does it look immensely impractical it also just looks plain gaudy. Who would use a morningstar as their handguard? I think I'd rather just use the greatsword+1 just to avoid using that thing.

Most everything else looks fine at least.

I actually like the lower tier versions of most of the armors, but most of them aren't glaringly bad at least. I do like studded leather+2 more than +1 though. Amusingly padded armor+2 looks way more protective than the leather and hide sets. I love it. Regal as Heck and very comfy looking.

I think my favorites by far are padded, hide, and chainmail. They all look good at all tiers and their top tiers all look fairly practical while still being stylish. Enjoying hide is especially good because I imagine my druids will be spending most of their time in that when they get introduced.

I would've liked more padded looking armor under the breastplate for the breastplate set instead of leather. It looks uncomfortable to me and breastplate tends to be the armor I go to when I want to look more stylish while still being protected.

Female halfplate looks disappointing compared to the male's. Why is their breastplate not visible aside from their boobs? Boobplate is one thing but this looks like she only has metal armor to cover her breasts specifically. That gets mostly fixed at halfplate+2 at least.

Not feeling the plate armor sets. Especially +2. Looks great if I wanted to be a paladin but if fighters and ranger-knights have to wear it too it is going to not mesh well with the class fantasy. At least for me.

Also just in general I think this really shows that we need some kind of basic dye system for the armor. Even if all we can change is the color of the fabric decorations that'd be a big deal. I really like the standard plate but once it upgrades I lose out on that nice green color that'd go great on a ranger-knight or Oath of the Ancients paladin. Same with chainmail+1 vs +2.

All in all I hope they give players some flexibility in how they look. It'd be less work in the long run than trying to design a dozen different variants of each armor type.

The funny thing about this is that you're literally asking them to make the breastplate LESS armored.
It's just leather meant to simulate a corset without being one, which again like I said above was an actual historical thing that even men did even with the actual shape of the breastplate itself.

It's for the same reason that men did wear breastplates shaped like corsets historically and why today male armor is usually emphasizing wide shoulders and wide torsos and chests ( wideness in general really ).
It's to emphasize femininity or masculinity.
But suddenly when it's femininity people act like it's wrong and a problem...

I think you misunderstood my complaint.

I don't care if the boobs are outlined in the armor or if the leather bits are modelled to look like a corset. What I find silly is that the lower tier versions of that armor have two metal boobs sticking out of what is otherwise visibly an all leather outfit.

It looks silly. Two big shiny boobs and no visible metal anywhere else on her body.

Edit: For the record I'd also think it would look silly if the fullplate sets had a phallic looking codpiece sticking out between the legs. This isn't a feminine vs masculine thing.

Most of it looks fine, but I wouldn’t say anything looks cool. I’d like my armours more gritty and functional looking than overly ornate. I hope Larian is having a good look at Demon’s Souls, that’s how I’d like my D&D characters to look.

I don't have a problem with that armor existing, what I have a problem with is that it doesn't stay consistent with both gendered versions. I think they should make it so the female version of half-plate armor looks like the male version, and a separate set of armor that looks like a corset for both genders, that way everyone's happy.

The only metal in the design is holding the breasts.

The Half-Plate is supposed to be a breastplate plus roughly half the additional protection of a Full Llate set. The design as is is less metal than the Breastplate.

The description of Half-Plate in the Player's Handbook is as follows:

So it should be "no cuisses" and "no sabatons". Poleyns (knee protection), however, should be included - it is the first thing to protect in any leg armor, even padded armor should have them.

Again, would be nice to get a developer comment on the designs.

If they came out and said that only the elven weapon designs and fancy armor designs are in the game currently, we wouldn't have to worry or discuss these at length.

They should at least provide a generic or utilitarian version of armor designs, because not all adventurers are pompous fools paladins of Sune or Lathander who want overly fancy decorated golden armor and weapons. Stealthy, woodsy and sinister characters wear armor, too.

I really don't see the current plate armor design as fit for a Lathander paladin at all. I can't imagine where this armor would look good at all; maybe with Solar or Planetar guys, because they have so unusual, bright skin and eye tones, so this armor would not look too weird on them. Why do you think of paladins so lowly? Most of them aren't vainglorious at all, by their code. You met some bad examples, it would seem.

Love the armors in the game, some that you have shown are from datamining I suppose, glad to see they aren't as fancy as they probably could be, great art style so far Larian! Agree with the female heavy armor needing a change, is there no armor that just fits both?

Why do these remind me of Guild Wars so much though, another game I enjoyed, don't quite think it should be in BG3 though

If I was shown the Half-plate with no labelling I would've assumed it was leather armor.

I mean, if I purchased a half-plate and got that, I'd feel like I got ripped-off. This is the equivalent of getting a prime-rib steak that is 95% bone and 5% meat.

Hmmm.

Regarding the light armor - the padded one looks alright. Safe and somewhat stylish. The leather one is plain - for the better or worse. The studded armor looks absolutely terrible, in my opinion. >.<

Medium armor - hide armor looks... Alright. Chain is not my style, but the T3 one looks good enough! The T2 scalemail looks great, but T3 is a bit too much - in my opinion. Really like the breastplate. Half-plate looks weird, though, at least for the females... :x

Heavy armor - Ringmail t2 - WTB pants. T3 looks dope though. I like the chainmail - though the colors of the T3 is definitely not my style though. Splitmain T1 and T2 looks awful - but the T3 one is gorgeous! The plate in general gets a plain "NOPE!" from me. >.<

Just opinions, I don't think anything should be changed or removed if people like them in general - as long as there are mods to "transmog" with, then I'll be happy as long as there is one good set.

Personally, I am the direct opposite of some people here. I like stylish armor - it is a fantasy game so I am not really too concerned about the "practical" value of the armor. I mean... There is literally enchanted gear and weapons, real life logic does not apply imo - like I said in another thread about the subject... If there was a magic bra making you invincible - then it would be used in real life. Bra, or not.

None of these are what I'd call ideal for myself. When it comes to outfits alone, then this is my top list of choices (personal preferences, these types are not for everyone :p ):

Female armor:

Light/Medium - Senna, Samira and Katarina (League of Legends), Demon hunter sets (Diablo 3). For more caster style, Yuna and Lulu (Final Fantasy), Morgana / Karma (League of Legends) or Tyrande (Heroes of the Storm / World of Warcraft).

Heavy armor - Saber (Fate), Crusader and barbarian sets (Diablo 3), Leona (League of Legends) or Auriel (Heroes of the Storm).

Male armor:

Light/Medium - Cloud, Aaron or Valentine (Final Fantasy), Jhin or Graves (League of Legends), demon hunter sets (Diablo 3). For casters: Twisted Fate or Swain (League of Legends), monk sets (Diablo 3), Medivh and Deckard Cain (Heroes of the Storm).

Heavy armor - Guts and Griffith (Berserk), crusaders and barbarian sets (Diablo 3), Darius and Shen (League of Legends).

I always, always prefer plainer, more practical-looking armors over weird, fancy ones.

Mod edit for new Megathread title: previous title; "Looks of Armor"


I do know that there have been MANY posts of the different looks of armor types, I'm one of those that prefer a more practical look when it comes to armor. Regardless of that, however, the only thing I do ask is that multiple versions of the same armor type look at least a little bit different. I had my main and Astarion standing next to each other, both wearing leather armor, and it was identical. Literally. Down to the imperfections of the cut. Same color, same style, same notches in the panels. This is EA, so I'm understanding of that, but, in release, please make some variations in the armor. Just some randomness when two characters are wearing the same type, just for some ascetic feel. I guess this would probably also go for weapons as well. Two rapiers are going to look completely different from each other. (I apprenticed under a forger/weapons master for a time, so I know that even individual smiths don't like reproducing the same look of a weapon each time. They will create variations of each one)

Armor visuals aside, I think all the mechanics should be there as well. Namely the strength requirements.

Ring Mail has no purpose when Chain Mail doesn't require that 13 Strength. Ring Mail could be the armor of choice for low level Clerics who have the proficiency but less than 13 Str and Dex, before they can upgrade to a Half Plate. Otherwise I don't see any purpose for Ring Mail to exist in the first place. It's only marginally better than Scale Mail for a 10 Dex character to begin with.

Even more important is that Splint and Plate require that 15 Strength so that Strength gets some value over Dex. And that Clerics can't dump both Strength and Dex and wear Full Plate with 8 Strength.

Chain Mail could be available at the stores since it's a basic starting armor. Withholding it for a few hours so it would be an upgrade doesn't really make things more exciting.

And what's up with the pricing? Studded Leather costs 500?

In all honest so far I've only seen leather, chain mail, and robes and will have to agree with you.

It's a recurring request, and I fully agree. Cosmetic variants would be great. Also tinting.

Shoutout to the Flaming Fist armor design. It's looks stylish and great without being over the top.

Stylish but utilitarian armor like this for players too, please. This style is much more pleasing than Studded Leather or Scale Mail, or many of the overly decorated future armor that have been datamined.

https://youtu.be/bn4AuvMxNuI?t=204

And once again I agree. And not because "it's conservative and plain", but because when there is so much exotic stuff everywhere, it's too much, like overacting. Right now, when you see a simpler design where should be one, it's like a breath of free air.

Funny how some of the lower tier ones look better than their betters. Hope we get a glamour mod again at some point to overwrite armor and weapon appearances.

Mod edit: Title changed for new merged Megathread. Old title; 'Let's talk about armor sexual demorphism'


1) Some armor in the game kinda looks the same:





2) Some look more revealing on females:





3) Found only one that is more revealing on males:



4) But also what is interesting is that armor very often just looks DIFFERENT depending on sex:





5) As opposed to almost the same:



Random images were picked for all examples, however there are plenty more where that came from for every category.

So I want to discuss two things in this thread:

a) Do you think that armor should morph depending on ones sex or stay the same?

b) Do you prefer more practical armor or like the inclusion of revealing armor?

Personally I think that armor should always look exactly the same or very close to it on both sexes, I don't see a good reason to have a very different design depending on ones sex. I also prefer more practical armor, as I think it is more immersive, however I am not against revealing armor options too, so long as the armors look the same on both sexes.

I hadn't noticed that the Gith men get pants. I say that if the women lose their pants so do the men, show the legs.

As far as sexy armor: fine with it but needs to as revealing for both men and women. Bikini armor becomes Borat thong. And there should be a checkmark like the "show helmet" checkmark that puts it back to generic view.

And no absurd pauldrons. Perhaps a designs for dragon's head and the like but no stylized flames or spikes that say "if I look left or right I'm going to stab out my eye" I hate that particular aesthetic.

A: Yes, when it makes sense, that mostly means flexible armor like ring show breasts more.
B: Practical (The Half Plate is not practical by the way)

Apart from the mummy wraps on the gith plate I've thought both armors have been pretty good

A: It should stay mostly the same. It's the same armor, why would it change its entire style and design to detect the gender of the person wearing it? That's just nuts.

B: I prefer practical armor. Give Lae'zel pants, Larian! Revealing armor is just kinda... stupid? I'm not a fan, to say the very least.

I don’t really care as long as it looks good and isn’t too trashy. There has to be some degree of suspension of disbelief and armor is where I personally give some leeway.

It can look different for different sexes. Just make them look good and not trashy (please no thong plate mail).

A. I think armors should be relatively the same within reason, but have variations. Add a transmog and dye system.

B. I think the game should have both. I want to be drowning in both. If I had to pick one then still both. Lol nah practical. Still though can't I have both?

This is the trashiest I've personally found:

I must say Larian, although outrageous and overboard with everything else, seems to be somewhat grounded in the art style.

I still think the female gith half plate is trashier with exposed butt cheeks. But honestly I don’t mind. Yeah I’m a dog.

Would you mind if the male version looked the same, without pants and with exposed buttcheeks?

I agree.
There should be more sexual dimorphism in armors, female armors should be much more revealing, male armors should be much more bulky than this, and show more upper body

I would mind and yes, if you would like Larian to treat the female version the same, I have no issues and say go for it.

But currently I don’t care since what they have now is okay by me. But I will not argue or challenge others who want something else.

You are right male gith should remove chest piece and have a strap with one shoulder pad. Its only fair and lore friendly too lol.

I think that chances are slim that Larian will make armors that are even more different, but you are quite lucky so far.

Hey as long as I get that AC 15 + 2 DEX go for it. Heh.

I don't are either way, I just want it to be the same. Whether males get their buttcheeks out or females get padding, both are fine by me.

It's curious however that you are only one-sidedly ok with it.

Why is it curious? It’s aesthetics. Does a person’s view on aesthetics need to be the same?

Not a fan of Conan?

So how do you personally define ''within reason''?

Same regardless of sex? Yes, atleast that's how I understand aesthetics works. You are free to have different standards for males and females, but I don't think aesthetics is the word you are looking for.. principle maybe?

Principles. Aesthetics. Same idea.

Preferences? That may be a better answer.

Some attire modifications work better on girls vs boys. Vice versa.

The second quote is yours not mine, but if you are asking then I responded already with the third quote. Erotic zones are different on males vs females and if skin is the issue then chest piece> partial butt piece.

I don't like the look of metal on bare legs. In general I don't think the armor needs to be exactly the same on men and women, but it should be the same general style: revealing on both or not revealing on both.

1. I think that the armor must necessarily differ depending on the gender of the character.

2. I like beautiful things, not practical ones. I hate realism in fantasy works. I want epic and cool female armor, not male armor that doesn't tell me the gender of my character.

I know that some people like this "dark souls style", where the female character is distinguished from the male only by the style of gait, but I don't like it. I like to see the difference. By the way, I love Lae armor very much.
I just don't like the color of metal (???) plates, but I like the design itself. No pants for my girl!

Maybe, anyway, one more thing I wanted to mention is that - you are not willing to give what you are willing to take, this might in the future put you in a situation in which you won't get what you want because you won't give others what they want, so they won't give you what you want, it will be all or nothing, no compromise.

I see nothing wrong with any of that armor. I personally like revealing armor, but I'm not going to cry about it if they don't have it in this game.

Yes, I just showed the whole conversation between us.


I assure you, many females love male buttcheeks.

I agree. But I don’t like armor that’s too revealing (unless it fits the world like Conan) for both sexes. How much is not clear. It’s a case by case decision.

Lae’zel’s armor kinda proves your point. It looks great on a female character (some have issue with the butt) but on a male, it looks like crap. None of my male fighters wear it and I wait till I can buy the magic scale mail.

Generic looking armor will not look good on both male and female bodies. It’s a fantasy world. Let’s make everyone look fabulous by offering what works on each body type.

Fuck realism, this is a fantasy game. Armor has to look cool, and sexy armor looks better in a female body.

No Borat thong. Is esteticaly horrible.

The male corrispondent to bikini armor is loincloth just like Conan the barbarian and Red Sonia teach.

And I support your statment against pauldrons. They are evil incarnated.

Said that I hope that Larian manages a wider range of armors, and civilian clothes, more or less revealing (for both the genders) to add more diversity, just in real life where we can see both sex with more or less visible skin. Also it would be nice if they apply, in BG3 the same morphing feature they had in the OSII that allowed the armor to assume a race specific estetic.

"Regardless of sex", help me understand how the female and male forms are aesthetically indistinct.

This reminds me of a lot of discussions regarding Superhero costumes, specifically a comic showing what the male equivalent of Power Girl's costume would look like, but instead of picking an example from the myriad of titillating male hero costumes they move the cleavage down toward his groin and call it a day. Is that the male equivalent of decolletage? Or do we judge them by differently?

Oh my goodness. Not every decision is a life changing event. Not every decision is all or nothing. You need to learn to pick your battles. You need to learn to walk away from insignificant battles.

Yes there are some things to fight for but pixelated armor in a video game is not one of them. Please try not to be over dramatic.

Can you elaborate why you feel like that is necessary?


Basically I am asking what in your opinion would be the problem with male gith armor looking like the female version?

Oh i'm well aware of that. Back on topic. Why not be direct and just say you want pants on X,Y,Z armors sets. I think making male and female armors "exactly" the same is a mistake. So like I said before, within reason.

Edit: I'm 100 percent team cool>realism. I thought at first this was casual skimpy vs hardcore serious metal plates.

No, it's this thing about - you like sexy armor. But there is a big counter-movement to not have sexy armor in video games at all, and I think it's not because you want sexy armor, but because you are against male armor showing buttcheeks. So in the grand scheme of things there are a lot of people that think like you do, and there will be a divide between you and other gamers. But I feel like this can all be avoided AND you would get to keep sexy female armor in games if you were ok with males having sexy armor too.

I think it can be done tastefully.

I like more practical heavy armor and/or equality for both gender. So, yes male buttcheeks are ok. I prefer aesthetic appearance of armor.

It’s not that I particularly like them. I mostly don’t care as long as they are cool looking. If they removed the butt cheeks, fine by me. If they wanted to add butt cheeks to males, not my style but I’ll live and move on.

So please don’t assume what I like and dislike. You don’t know what I think and now you are bordering on offensive.

I'm sorry. How is that tasteful?????

Lowkey, i just hope armors going forward won't look as fanciful. That Ringmail +2 looks like a decent looking wizard set.

Also, circlets. Never liked how in many fantasy settings it's either a helmet or a circlet, so a mage class usually ends up stuck with the latter.

Let me guess, this is coming from ..a "male", right ?

In the risk of being a bit too pragmatic here, we're talking about a plate armor that should protect the body but should also be practical. So if you think of making it "too sexy" for both gender, it's not really a plate armor; what are you protecting ?
So the gith armor with "short" pants (and boots just below the knees) is excellent. I'd like to see the same for "male". And BTW, (risk of being to pragmatic again), the Romain army, "the centurion" had about that same style.

if you make (if we had) stylish armor the same for both gender, we wouldn't have a thread like this, we wouldn't have any data point.

For Loviatar priest, perfect.
For Loviatar priest, perfect.

Well then my earlier reading comprehension failed me, my bad.

Why not? lol

I would mind because it’s not my style but I wouldn’t make a stink about it since it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on.

Again. Pick your fights.

Fair enough. I don't think tbh that anyone wants to die on the hill, we just talking.

I agree to that, it's tastefully and fit into the less pragmatic and more into a fantasy world. but now that we are talking about this, ahhh .. the female equivalent would be ..ah just no

@Nyloth, what do you think ?

All I know is, if I wore a layer of cloth, and a layer of leather with a layer of mail over all, my tits would squash down.

I also know that I don't get less stratching or chafeing or sunburn than males, so would hope to be wearing pants for running around the wilderness.

That looks like trashy female armor slapped on a male tbh. There's nipple chains in there. Blatant and tasteful would be what the dream dude/dudette are wearing.

Yeah no. Unless you apart of lgbt, I can't see that being tasteful across the board.

I'm not apart of that crowd and don't like that style. I only speak for myself, but if you want more I'll gladly point out what I don't like about it and why. Don't let me get a red pen lol.

I think the nipple chain stays regardless of what that person is wearing, it's not part of the robe.

What in your opinion is a difference between an armor that is sexy for the sake of being sexy because it is a fantasy and fck pragmatism and a trashy armor?

I am not a part of lgbt, not sure how you draw the correlation.

Get your red pen out, I am curious.

The point is that what males see as sexy differs from what women see as sexy. There is also a difference in body shape, women usually have curves while men usually are bulk ( there's a reason drag queens focus so much in smoothing their curves).

As much as I agree and I do with the fact that revealing armors for males should be a thing to take dress designed for the female body and put them on a male body is not exactly the same.

The picture you posted is more for a gender fluid male than for a gender conforming male (and pretty sure the percent of people finding it sexy are few). And believe me had I the chance to make my male toons use magic enhanced armor that grants the same stats as the armors we currently have and let my toon to show his arms or pecs or addomen or legs I wouldn't complain.

Also the problem before was that there were no choices, female armors were exclusively sexualized (that is different from sexy), now we are at the opposite of the spectrum that is instead of giving a spectrum of choices due to a push by a part of players we have graphics that taste like a jump in Victorian age where instead of religion leading morality to censor women's body now is an interpretation of progressive thinking to censor women's body.

All when the solution would be to just increase the spectrum so that any player could choose for their town the kind of dress that make them more comfortable and able to enjoy the game.

Figure of speech.

Tend to.


No problem what so ever with biological curves.


If I talk your language- why don't we design a bunch of male armors, a bunch of female armors and then let both males and females wear male AND female armor?


I think the problem remains when the armor morphs depending on sex.


Yes.

Lol, I understand, I also don't think that the armor issue is the most important in the world, I just have my opinions, and I respect yours. What bothers me is that we are both as consumers pulling the games in different directions and I would REALLY like to find a compromise if that is possible, that is why I dissect your words looking for this answer.

Oky dok.

Thigh high waist cut long dress, multiple unnecessary belts(not ff levels but still), the piercings especially on the legs, asymmetric bracelets, thigh high boots, choker, straight long hair down the back, sporadic metallic pieces, skulls, sharp edges, long nails. Just a first glance mind you. Individually I don't like them, but together it paints a pleasure from pain image with a mockery of feminine allure over a male tapestry that has a message "I decide whats sexy, not you viewer". Very artistically aggressive.

Thats what it looks like to me anyway. No idea who the character is btw if that means anything.

Spend more time searching "male fantasy art" on pinterest. Especially art made by K-pop fans. Lots of lithe, willowy men. Or just put in "sexy k pop" and see what comes up. Nearly any "males see" / "females see" statment is just a reference the person's individual tastes and a desire to believe those tastes are universal and natural.

(somewhat off topic but it annoys that 'male' and 'female' have become common usage and people avoid using 'men' and 'women' when discussing gender -- makes it sound like a discussion amongst Ferengi)

Interesting.

Well it's a cultist of Slaanesh, a God of hedonism.


Well, I am personally cis-genderless so I avoid everything that has to do with gender like the plague, and indeed the use of ''male'' and ''female'' is very deliberate on my part.

I'll add some few remarks: lgbtqix doesn't imply homogeneity of tastes, I'm gay still found that style not interesting or sexy and as I stated before I'm pretty sure that the percent of people that found it sexy is low.

As I am sure that what females see as sexy in a man doesn't rely in buttcheeks (for instance in the gay part of the letters ensemble the ones who search for buttcheeks display are those inclined to leather and the dominant/submissive part of the bdsm).


I agree on two positions: in a world where a trinket can allow you to speak with deads to have armors that grant the same defence tshoudn't be saw as something strange, but at the same time to have "sexy" armor is just insensate.


Wonder woman uses a revealing costume but is not designed to be sexy. Red Sonia's leather armor suits her but is not vulgar.

As I said: civil variegated clothing, armors that can find inspiration from roman or greek or germanic populations armors (with use of kilts or kilt like vests for males as alternative to pants or taking inspiration from all the cultures that have armors that didn't cover all the body), a compromise can be found (obviously the full body armors should remain, the point is to give options).

Haha okay. I think I said awhile ago, I respect your thoughtfulness and your perspective of things.

Compromise is a tricky thing. I stand by my statement, you can never please everyone. There's just too many opinions. So if I were Larian, I'd choose the path most appealing to the most people. Now some would say I'm a dirty capitalist but I think that's the best answer. Of course others would suggest that my answer is not the best either so...round and round we go.

Talking about the androgynous male protagonists from Japanese and Korean fiction is a whole 'nother can of beans I think

Hedonism? Ha right on the money. Nailed it.

I know. I'm a full fledged nerd. But again I can understand if what I'm seeing represents a really diffuse trend that involves not a minor fraction of population. Also I learned how the web and social medias tend to give the idea the something is bigger than actually it is. [This is a distorsion that has grwon in the years and is quite rooted].


I use male and female because I like the sound better, also being a biologist to me humans are nothing more than one species between others so to me it comes to talk about males and females. (and again what about doesn't put feelings in everything? is so passive aggressive).

A. Stay mostly the same.

B. Practical-looking -- as opposed to strictly realistic.


*angry Hellenic noices*


It's not really more revealing on males. Different standards. Women and men are not directly equivalently charged in their bodies.

That's why I don't mind the armor pictured. You see more tits in less heavy armor, and something like battle armor is supposed to look impressive and overglorified. So I can wave off the titty armor on that.

My one complaint with Gith armor is that Gith are strong but lanky looking. If the female armor lacks pants because of "versatility" it also makes sense for male Gith. The leather wraps are hideous and make my menacing male Gith look like a hobo in half-plate.

As a woman I personally

1. Would like both male and female armours to look the same

2. Yes I guess I sont mind revealing armour for both MEN and women (but please dont make it overbearingly anime like and not immersive)

3. I just want pretty armour that my lil elf can hobble around in.

4. Add clothing as an option (I really liked the outfits in DOS2 and the cute little corset tops)

(P.s. nothing is wrong with the anime look I just personally dont like it, so no offense to anyone here who does)

Yes, please.

PS: "Skimpy" male armor:

(Apologies if this posts twice -- I think my comment got lost in the aether)

*nods to fellow nerd*

I didn't understand the bit in parentheses so, focusing on the first statement, I'm an internet rando and as such I dislike 'male' and 'female' because it front-loads any discussion of differences between genders in favor of biological explanations. Humans, as a species, stand apart because of our facility with language and our reliance upon abstractions. We aren't the only cultural animal but our reliance upon culture makes us stand apart from other animals. We are homo sapiens and as such there we have as many difference aesthetic preferences as there are stars in the sky.

yesss!

Could definitely see that for the barbarian class !!!!!

I'm disappointed by pretty much every suit of armor in this game and also by the fact that the game doesn't seem to utilize aesthetic progression in armor as part of the visual characterization. Not at nearly the level I was hoping we'd see by 2021.

Their approach is basically the same as BG1/2 for creating a character's look, still leaving everything to be determined by the single 'chest slot.' Well ok there are silver 'gloves' I guess and a pair of boots. But still, I was at least hoping they'd manage to split the torso from the legs by now. Maybe get some real pantaloons in there or a couple options for grieves and guantlets and such? Here we can't even change our primary and secondary color choice, which is just sad.

I dont mind having different choices for more revealing or less revealing armor sets. Sometimes it makes sense for a character to be sporting a more Greco-Roman look and show off the gams. But all the armor sets here are like one offs and a one-size-fits all sort of look. I'd like to see at least a few variants on normal armor for each set type, and beyond just 1 look for magical armor at each level of enchantment. Its annoying to want to wear less effective equipment simply because the +1 version looks better than the +2 version say. The conventions established in MMOs are much better at this. I wish Larian would take a page from what works there and give their players something more to have fun with in this department.

Also mage robes look equally terrible on both sexes.
And I still have yet to find a hood in this game.

Hopefully they put some zots on this stuff. Its more important for a role playing game. Anyone who thinks they got a lock on arbitrating universal style has their head in the clouds. Tastes are wildly divergent as a genral rule. There should be many more options/model-set for each basic armor type to at least accomodate some sense of individual preferences. But at least let us change colors?

I'm mostly OK with the general armor look in the game, but I really want pants on the female githyanki armor and that female chainmail one.
Generally I like more variety and if people like revealing armor then just add different models for the same armor classes - as I said, variety is great.
I personally am sick and tired of chain mail bikinis and am glad, that you do have other options for female characters in most games now.

I like, how it is done in Star Wars - The Old Republic : have a slot for the stats and then wear, whatever you like. Would be a nice feature in this game too.

Aside of your point 4 (I didn't play DOS2), we are on the same page.

It would be nice, in this forum, to have a way to make a poll with some questions and start building some stats.

Exactly!

+1

Larian make this armor happen!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy crap thats awesome. Now I'm set up for disappointment. I hope your happy.

Amazing option, truly, only super ''gamey'', it's like, instead of actual loot you find stat boosts.

I thought this video fits well in the discussion (and it's funny):

Hah, Viva La Dirt League are so good

No you get armor for your class with the right stats, but you have a second slot option for the armor others see on you - so your jedi can look like a smuggler or your smuggler can have heavy armor on, but still have the right stats for them in another slot. It's basically a utility armor slot and a aestethic one - I find this the most elegant solution tbh. You can look like whatever you want and still have the stats you need.

This for example is a force user outfit, but I'm wearing it on my Rattataki agent, because I love the steampunky look:

Oooh another thing I wanted to add was the witcher!

I loved all the historical costume inspired armours and clothing they had!



Although I'm not saying make it exactly like that but something that I really love about DnD and any fantasy inspired game/movie is the historical costume references
You can see anyway that a few of the armours and clothing in game have already done so, and I have no doubt that more will come soon

(in other words please let us have corsets/stays with cute little poofy undershirts) XD

Sorry. :P

Yep but only as winter armor

I had quite a laugh watching this video - that's me !! They just cut it off too soon, that guy would have got a punch in the face LOL ! This is so good LMAO.


I agree. I played SWTOR and yes having a feature adding cloth without touching the bonus of your real armor is awesome.




Yes ! I like that as well. Looks like a DW ranger

Finally, we seem to converge in the same direction.

I understand, I played a lot of ToR. What I mean is that you find the look you like and then you get ''stats'' that you put into your equipment slots. It just removes that feel of finding good sh*t you know? You go through the dungeon, open a chest and find +2 AC, while you still look exactly the same. Like I said, it's an amazing option but also very ''gamey'', I would not be opposed to having this option, just would have to roleplay in my head really hard.

Summer version?:
:D:D:P

based tbh.

Frazetta got it right

But realy i cannot stress this enaugh, i dislike how many of the male clothing options (and character models in general) look androgynous or just twinkishl
Even the hide armor doesnt look like a proper barbarian

Hah, funny, as a person that actually likes androgynous looks, those are not androgynouus at all. I don't think you know what androgynous is mate.

-1
Thats not armor as the most vital and endangered parts of the body are left unprotected.

You are talking to people that prefer aesthetics to realism.

Isn't priest of Loviatar wearing something similar? He doesn’t have nipple chains but I think he will be happy to have it xD

However, it looks "sexy" only from some perverted side. First, the sexual armor for a male and female character will be visually different. It can't be the same. I am sure that this applies to both women's and men's tastes, as someone here already said, the skirts of git men do not look as sexy as Lae skirt. I would, for example, bare their breasts, instead of legs. Remember the trailer in the game! They were half-naked on dragons, very hot. Impractical, but hot.

What you see in this image is female sexuality, well, or it suited some very mannered and unusual male character.
But if it was a female character (and then the chest would be closed, which is logical), then this costume would look very cool. Although the rivets on the skin.. Oh, my God.

o.O - Hello ?!

Can you scroll up to the post about "Female armor in games - Breastplate" and comeback here with your comment ?

I am fine with most of the dimorphism, though I do feel some of the female options leave a bit to be desired. What I really want is for the different color schemes to become a variant for male and female. What? Only women can wear green? That makes no sense! Chain shirt 2's colors would be great for a ranger.

That said, chain shirt 2 also shows one of the complaints I have about the dimorphism of the armor styles. Why is the chain part of the chain shirt only visible for the males? The female set looks nothing like mail of any sort. It looks like cloth or maybe leather armor.

I think, that priest of Loviatar really has a similar armor. I must say, it's not really my cup of tea - be it for male or female - , but that's why I would like variety.

This one has more Vanity.


In what sense is it perverted?


It's both, there are some armors that are different and some that are the same, you can see it from the OP, I can post more examples of the same if you want.






Depends on the individual.


You mean this?


That's because of the wraps.


No, females are not born in clothes, those were made by people, and clothes don't have a sex. You can call it feminine though.

They could add an option to customize armor in a blacksmith. the armor could be divide in sections that could be turned on or off. So if you want more skin, turn off some sections... If you want it to cover more, turned it on.. Some parts could be replaced and/or dyed

And every one would be happy.

+1. I would also like much more in the armor customization department.

I think I found the armor for my male barbarian! Bless you



To me that dude is "sexy" although its not my thing because of the rivets and rings in the skin. And through reverse image search it is intended to be sexy. He is a priest of a god of "Lust, pride and self-indulgence."

@Nyloth Took me a second to get what you meant by "female sexuality", because the half naked dude under the spoiler tag was more tantalizing to me as a woman attracted to men (though unfortunately, the bara art style isn't usually intended for a female audience), but I think I get what you mean. Picture in your mind what a sexy, evil sorceress would look like - its easy to visualize because its such a trope. Make her male and that's that picture. Legs out with a trailing robe, and the male equivalent of showing cleavage. I disagree that it doesn't work here, but if you're not used to this sort of thing, I respect our difference in tastes.

I think there should be multiple styles of armour for each type. Some can be "sexy" and some can be normal for both sexes. Also dyes, we have a framework for a crafting system and can collect herbs already. Each type of armour could have racial styles and also class styles. Something like Drow Cleric style for females I would expect to be "sexy" but some others I would expect to be practical. Ideally both sexes could wear whichever version they wished but that may be hard to add since the bodies are obviously shaped differently.

Personal preference, I prefer practical armour but I am not against the inclusion of more revealing stuff as long as there are plenty of options for everyone. Of the armours you showed, the Hide+1 looks the best, of course I would like to darken it a lot more.

Oh, and please no ridiculous pauldrons unless they can be added separately for those that like them. I like spiky stuff and skulls and all that, but stabbing myself with my own armour is just not my thing.

Ahhh the only way to play a wizard. You have good taste. 100 percent the wizard Mystra told Gale not to worry about. I would definitely main wizard if I had this in bg3 buffness and all.

Bah, if you can scroll up to @sahardima post and get the context, I understand the point/joke she was trying to make and it was good. But, even though I may enjoy male in sexy armor, this pic is off the chart. Seeing that bag of muscle chasing monsters in a speedo (is it chained speedo ?) is just ridiculous. But, I don't know, the few people here that has thrown the "fantasy world" card might like it I guess.

I like boobs, so I'm not really going to complain about female armor that follows breast contours. However... its not terribly realistic. I'm sure that building armor like that would be terribly impractical, and probably dangerous since it deflects attacks towards your heart. Not a good idea.

I don't really feel strongly either way, but I lean slightly towards more realistic breastplates that would basically look the same for men and women, rather than have them be form fitting death traps for women.

I see your +1 and raise you a +1.
I'll pretty much always vote for more customization options.

Yup, it was a joke. Still, this sort of armor would be appealing for some people.


It will be a good compromise.

Sorry, I meant "specific", something like that. Note that the priest loviatar has CERTAIN HOBBIES. If you know what I mean... The female audience most likely will not consider these clothes for male sexy, most likely SPECIFIC. My personal opinion of course.

I'm about 'sexy' armor. Not this one.

Not really? There are certain stereotypes that the male and female audience likes, which are emphasized. Let us proceed from this majority, not from individuals.


As a woman, I know very well that a woman is not born in clothes. But I understand that we live in a society, and there are certain things that look good on a woman, and there are some that look good on a man. Which attracts most of the audience depending on gender.

There are some exceptions in clothing that is "unisex" and looks good on anyone. But If you dress a man in a dress, for example, not every woman will like it and not every woman will find a man in a dress attractive.
That's what I'm talking about.


I understand that it works for some people, but I prefer to think about the majority. Most people love masculinity in men and femininity in women. This image is VERY SPECIFIC for a male character, but VERY COMMON for a female one.

If I saw such a character I would say "oh wow!" (of any gender). But I wouldn't wear this robe on Astarion, just for fun maybe xd

A good idea, but I don't think they will implement it because they will have to pay for additional clothing models/concepts(??). In fact, EPIC and good-looking armor doesn't have to be exposed. You can be sexy without exposed body parts. The problem is that now there is simply no such armor in the game. Right now the most terrible clothes for magicians, my opinion. That awful robe that only changes color.

A year or two down the line we will hopefully get something similar to the customization in Skyrim SE. That level of freedom is where my two cents would go. I dont mind skimpy or revealing armour for both men and women as I think we are making a choice outwith the "normal" constraints of reality. Besides, most real, historical fighting armour was pretty bland and utilitairian. You need it to stop steel, not look good. I wonder if however there could be "some" benefit from wearing little or even no armour in battle real or fantasy. The Picts (probably some of my ancestors) took on the Romansand each other (allegedly) in the nip (nude although adorned with some blueish paint). I mean yes, they did probably lose a lot of fights, but the Picts did prevent the Romans completely dominating their culture. Perhaps there is something in charging bollock naked at your enemy.... You might just distract them enough to get a sneaky stab in whilst they oggle your ... bits. So sexy armour? Yes please but make it a choice or let us mod that choice. Which I'm sure they will.

Wizard robes are hmm, just generic. Not bad, but not good too. I want more variety.

Ohh - I like the first and the third one. Wizards do need more variety.

Actually boob armor is not that bad, check this out:


Someone on reddit did have a funny go at this though:

Original:



Modified:

This is the main point I think where we disagree. I think that an RPG in which you can make your character and choose your story, customization and options as well as aesthetics should be an aggregate of many different things that individuals like, including popular things, but not strictly what majority likes.

I'm in no way an expert on this, but if you're referring to medieval armor i believe it did look good way back when with its narrow waist and wide shoulders look, which is also how they depicted people in their art. Much like how greeks were really into simmetry, perfect proportions and peak physical condition, and that blended into armors having abs, nipples and all that.

You seem to forget that Larian needs to make money. That means keeping development cost within reason and releasing a product that the majority of people of the TARGET AUDIENCE will like/buy.

And no amount of philosophizing will change that. Welcome to the real world.

All variety of choice that is offered improves the worth of every option.

Probably 90%, if not more, of people will defend the tieflings, only a small % of people will actually kill them, but the existence of that choice makes it worth something in contrast, if the plot was railroaded for us to do what the majorirty would do, it would not be as satisfying. Same for options with appearence and aesthetics, your personal choice matters.

By the nature of the genre - RPG, it thrives when it offers unique niche options, otherwise, what is the point of a choice if the only choice that is offered is what majority would do anyway, you can just make a linear adventure game then with a set protagonist Tav with a vault dweller appearence.

PS. This logic in general is also just so funny to me.
-Hey, what kind of game do you want to see?
-The kind that will make money!

I don't think, that variety has to be expensive. There are a lot of nice looking armor models already in game, just not for our PC. I for example love Kaghas armor very much and some of the armor, that looks more like clothing, some of the tieflings wear. Give some dye options and some variants of existing armor and it would be a lot better.
Even for the more exclusive taste like that guy, that looked like the Loviathar priest, you have already armor models. So I'm theory a lot of different models for different tastes are already in the game, just not necessarily for the player.

Very true, there are some beautiful examples of armour throught history. I was thinking more about day to day armour that the average soldier could afford and maintain. If you want to outfit an army, I guess you want to keep the costs down as much as possible so no expensive filigree or gold etching. A lord or baron etc would absolutely most likely have gone for elaborate armour.

And giving a choice won't arm the sells. The point is choice, to every one. I don't like the current homogeny of armors or the fact that almost all forms of clothing recall moralistic ages, when in this years freedom of choice should be the driving motor.

The lack of choice and diversity in armor styles and dressing is even more obvious and blatant when you have different races with different cultures that wear the same identical clothes and style of armors. The only ones that have different armors are the Goblins.

Furthermore Larian build this games doing an improvement of the motor they used with their previous hit games, and in that games there was a lot more diversity, armors changed the aspect based on the race, elvens had a style that reminded their ties with forests, dawrfs have armors that recalled their being bulk and strong, the magistrates robes clearly reminded of their being a mix between a military and religious order, Lhose's armor clearly reflected her complicated nature and so on, that means that Larian already has the code needed to allow at least a little more of plasticity.

So too much male sex appeal? Lol

I'm teasing. No need to take it so serious. My problem is when people complain about exaggerated female attire that focuses on feminine traits gets heated up, but when male attire gets put into question they don't put masculine traits. They put the most feminine crap they could think of on a man. Very inconsistent.

No, it's not the most feminine crap, it's just the same, and it is very consistent. The equivalent of the revealing barbarian would be this:



And there is nothing wrong with either.

Except that this is also not armor. Remember the thread topic?

By game terminology it is, we even discuss robes here, we dicsuss the things that go into your torso slot, if you want to get pedantic about it.

Ok so returning to some of your original statements, would you put that bra on a male barbarian? You want armors to look the same right? I wouldn't. Thats part of being reasonable. You seem to have a huge bias to putting feminine traits on men so i'm curious.

Join my reasonable side. You cannot fight forever. Let it flow through you. We will be the buffest speedo wizards feyrun has ever seen.

No, and if we go to my earlier post you will see that the chest is bare and not with a bra on:



No, I want to see both. I want to see muscular male barbarians and muscular female barbarians, I want to see sexy female sorceresses and sexy male sorcerers.


It's not about reason, I just genuenly like both and find both aethetically pleasing without having double standards, it would make me happy to see both. My problem usually is that I want to play a feminine male character or a masculine female character and I can't, because the game doesn't allow me to do that.

Finally to the root.

I understood what you wanted from the get go. You kept trying to avoid saying it.

All I can say without spiraling into a very different topic, is that you can't have polar opposites be happy in the same space. You like to meld everything together and ignore that boundaries exists for a reason. Individuality I think is what you are missing in understanding. Harmony is an illusion. You can't please everyone because individuality exists.

Don't know if you will understand what I'm trying to say, but thats ok. I've had my fun. I'm done for now. The topic turned out funnier then I expected.

Barbarian don't where armor because thematically they're supposed to represent primal vitality, as opposed to knights who represent a 'civilized' warrior, defined by their armor.
By this turn they also don't where cold weather clothing because unlike the races who abandoned nature they haven't grown so soft to need such protection

It's not all about the beefcake factor.

What do you mean i tried to avoid it? Lol


That's why I made this topic, I wanted to see the amount of people that don't care vs amount of people that do one way or the other.


I understand.

Oh man, people overanalyzing things to the point where nothing makes sense anymore.

Ive said this in anothert thread. Conventional wisdom isnt wrong just because you can go down a rabbithole of explaining it away.

What most people consider "sexy" probably is, what most people consider "feminine" probably is. IF you need to explain why something is what you claim that it is, it probably isnt.

>Its not all about the beefcake factor
But it mostly is.
Down to ancient history and the romans discribing celtic gesetae that were young men in their prime fighting naked.

Public conception dabs on attempts at deconstruction.
Ar barbarian should be a rippling mountain of muscle.

>sexy male sorcerers

What is sexy on a woman is not sexy on a man and vice versa.
Toned muscular women? pretty sexy. Bulky women with a neck like an ox? Probably not sexy for most people.

Soft sensual sorcress dressed in whispy silk? probably sexy, twink dressed in his undies? probably not sexy for most people.

I say "fo rmost people" so someone doesnt jump to "Ackschually i fap to that".

Maybe yes, maybe no, you have to question things to find out, times change, enviroment changes, some wisdom is still valid some is outdated.


There is a difference between wisdom and taste.


That is your opinion, which is not right or wrong. But when you go from ''I want to see males that look like blank and females that look like blank'' to ''Males ought to look like blank and females ought to look like blank'' you go from having a valid opinion to being wrong and irrational, UNLESS you go down a rabbithole of explaining of why that is and providing good logical and rational points that support your position.


It is a very bad sign that your position stops making sense once you start to analyze it.

So too much male sex appeal? Lol

I'm teasing. No need to take it so serious. My problem is when people complain about exaggerated female attire that focuses on feminine traits gets heated up, but when male attire gets put into question they don't put masculine traits. They put the most feminine crap they could think of on a man. Very inconsistent.[/quote]


Wait, you're not off the hook yet.

have a look here, https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/651262796083912198/, to see some armor, I searched for "roman armor" on pinterest. This is stylish, practical and something men could love in a game, I guess (sharing my BF). It's not fully padded but convey the message that you are actually going to fight and need protection without compromising the weight of the armor (which make you less efficient), especially if you are going to walk, run (and jump like crazy) for a long time. After all characters, here, are adventurer.

That touch of realism, for an RPG is cool, that's what makes me give the money.

The mage dress design a la Gandalf, the typical wizard robe, is a stereotype that I hope we will get rid of someday - prob not, sign ..
But there are other cool avenues: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/342836590384906515/
Give mage pants or better outfit !! And throughout this path the "sexy" will come.

But it doesn’t have to be all about boobs & bra and buttcheek - these parts also needs protections if you still want to keep enjoying looking at them

Mages can't wear pants. Pants get in the way of the magic.

It is known.

Very true - not the sort of thing I'd just throw on a character. Skimpy/sexy armor has an element of being a feast for the eyes in a carnal & literal sense than a metaphorical aesthetic. I feel like Astarion's character would have issues with the former, where the latter is more his style. I could see Tekehu from PoE2 able to pull off a skimpy robe in a non-evil looking variety, because it matches his character to flaunt himself. His body type is the Adonis type, rather than lean, but he could still pull it off.

As far as where the rest of this thread is going at this point, I'll just say this: Practical armor is probably what is preferred by the "majority" of the combined target audience, and for the most part that's what Larian seems to be going for at this time (titty half plate aside). Armor conforms properly by physical frame, showing more contours in light armor, and less in heavier ones. Hopefully they do change up the hideous spellcaster robes though - providing a choice between the standard mage dress style but also for simple clothing as well.

If they did add gratuitous sexy armor, I'd honestly be disappointed if they made it only for females and did not make a good looking equivalent for males. Briefs are not an equivalent to an armored bikini. That sets a precedent that I question like how all the women in D:OS1 all fought in heels. In other fantasy games, battle armor has non-phallic, rated PG-13 codpieces that add an additional place for an insignia or house crest. There's a way to make men look good, and emphasize their physique without solely appealing to one audience or another. Something like that barbarian picture linked before, but just a little more...

True. I hope for variety of armors. Something for both sides.

So much overthinking for something so obvious. Almost all games cater to male power fantasies. If the men are exposed, it's to show how masculine and powerful they are. Female characters are there for the men to look at.

This concept is so ingrained into really any media that I'd bet most people don't even notice it anymore. That's why it's still very odd for gamers (in general, not all) when they see a trans character, or a gay male couple. the default for almost any game is: Girls look sexy, boys look badass. Honestly I'd be surprised if most video game armor designers even think "oh, this needs to be sexy" when designing female armor, it's just the default.

ha !
who ever wants to respond to that with the "fantasy world card" again, just before you do so, grab your girl friend or you mom's heels and go for a walk outside - 1-2 miles. Please - just a walk, because in game characters are running - don't run for this test ! So after the "WALK" assuming your ankles are still intact, come back here with your experience We can keep talk about fantasy then.

Not all males have the same fantasies.

Oh gosh ... ok. I'm a girl and I think the opposite ! Girls are badass and we enjoy looking at sexy men. And in this "fantasy world", I would invite you for a walk in the underdark and have a pit stop at the Menzoberranzan city, prepare to be chocked.

It is known. Nothing under the robes.

On the Gith armor and the rest it should go either way -- either give men and women pants or take them from both. I think the aesthetic the artists were going for was high fantasy Spartan. So if Greek armor is the basis both would have greaves but otherwise bare legs.

And I'd like that representation throughout the game -- if you are going to give Wyll's patron a neckline that plunges all the way to the top of the pubis, do the same for Cazador or some other figure.

I agree with this -- even if wouldn't say 'irrational' because of all the connotations of that word. I think many people have a desire to believe that there tastes are universal and natural. I suspect that this is because people want to believe their tastes are something more solid than tastes, that these are something solid, something concrete or based upon something solid and concrete.

@Starlights To be straight with you i'm not a fan of the centurion style armors. A girl has to buy me dinner first to glimpse at my quads. If anything I prefer Aragon and Boromirs style from Lord of the rings. Assuming you want to be on the realistic-ish side of things. I'm partial to frontline fighting but if i had to pick mage attire I'd roll with maybe jedi/sith robes. Swotor has a very nice selection of variations. I lean towards modest attire regardless.

You won't be able to please everyone, which is why it's best to target the majority. Individual approach is very good, I agree with you! But often it is not implemented in games, because there is too much variability, so many tastes and views...

I agree with this, it should be done for both, sexy or practical, it does not matter. But it should be different. I believe that women's and men's armor should be different. Both in the case of a practical option, and in the case of a sexual one. At least for the sake of visual diversity.

ok, fair enough for both examples. The roman armor example is an idea to stay protected while having agility. Perhaps, if I go to the other extreme that I don't like and find ridiculous, is something like this for both male/female:


That looks like a coke can; adventuring with that for days doesn't work out for me.

Ok so with this armor it would depend on the game itself. In realistic leaning game setting this armor is problematic. The armor would be slow with rigid and limited movement. Double plated in some area's is foolish.The weak points of this armor is the armpit and the back of the knee. The plated neck means he wont turn fast and the double plated shoulders means his range is shorter than it looks. He is a dead man in a realistic game.

In a free full fantasy setting this armor is amazing. I'll just anime magic the things. I have zero problems with this. In fact I prefer it. At least I have a larger variety of things to wear. More fun for me. Fun is a priority for me after all. However I believe, in some things at least, a middle ground can be fun. Even more so than extremes.

If we are talking just purely about looks, I think it looks great.

Oh, boy! Let me see if I understand this right. The original poster is offended and complains in a roundabout way about perceived sexism because Larian has two armor sets out of eight, where the legs of the female variants are bared as opposed to the male variants. She then proceeds to question the principles/double standards of those who like women in a fantasy game to be a little more feminine and revealing. Yet she has no objections to the barebreasted male clothing, in fact, she wants quite a bit more of it - suggesting the one of the most vulgar armors I've seen, easily the equal of any silly chain mail bikini, is tasteful. Am I missing something, or is this a case of deliciously involuntary irony?


Two to the left: SEXIST! Two to the right: TASTEFUL!

Not even close. lul


No, those who like women in a fantasy games to be a little more feminine and revealing BUT are against the same applying to men if the outfit is the same.


The main point is that it's different, innit? Sexism is not the outfit but the difference, three to the left btw. I don't have a problem with females wearing the outfit on the right, I actually have zero problems with ANY outfits whatsoever.


When you see what you want to see, how can it not be?

Come on...honesty! You found bare female legs tasteless, but pierced man-titties tasteful lol. If it was truly only about this extremist view of equality, not mixed in with your very own set of double standards, you would logically have objected to the bared male nipples as a *much* worse offender than bared female legs instead of suggesting more of it. When you call out others for hypocrisy albeit in a nice manner, you better be sure your own doorstep is squeaky clean

Ah! More delicious involuntary irony!

Are we reading the same forum?

I found that armor trashy because the legs are bare out of the blue while the rest of the armor design seems to be pulling in another direction, it would look equally trashy on a male, while the purple robe would look good on a female also and has a design that works. Even your typical chainmail bikini looks better than that example, because atleast it is designed to be sexy, this one however looks like a more serious armor but the female randomly forgot to put her pants on.


I don't have double standards. As tasteless as that armor is, removing pants from the male model also would already make it fine for me.


Yes, more irony is always welcome.

It all depends on how the armor morphs. It should change to fit the shape of the body underneath, obviously. If design and color changes too, that's... okay, I guess, as long as the armor isn't made "feminine" just by taking away bits of it, as in some of your examples. That's lazy, and reveals how much male = default is still built into our thinking.


I want both, so I can dress my stereotypically seductive sorcerer differently than my stereotypically studious wizard. Regardless of whether those characters are male or female.

I don't consider the Gith armor to be trashy -- it's just a weird mix. It's space fantasy top, Hopilite on the bottom. My guess as to why is that the writers have gone for Gith culture = Ancient Spartan culture. People keep saying Roman centurion but I'm seeing Greek:

@KillerRabbit

We talking about this one though, not the Gith armor:

Ah right. Never found that in the game so it hasn't penetrated my consciousness. Yeah, pretty blatant double standard. Should go either way. Give the women pants or give the men skirts like Hector is wearing.

Definitely what I also envision for the Gith.



That armor's clearly not finished - look at the boots. That one's not in the game yet if I remember correctly.

In OP, Half Plate +1 was pictured. I can't remember if that's in the game/wearable either. Is it?

Gith should go into battle completely naked and will themselves some armour

Maybe yes maybe not, wouldn't say clearly.


Not sure, haven't found it myself.

And yet that is how actual armor looks like.
As for being slow with rigid movement....
[video:youtube][/video]

A thing with armour is, you don't wear it all day everyday.

You wear it to a riot, arena fight, or battle, and then you change back into your own clothes or workwear. So those naked germans mentioned earlier would put clothes on after the fighting, and the KiSA would take off the armour and just wear the underlying hose and gambeson or whatever.

My point is, a lot of the more extreme armours look daft if they are all your character is ever wearing regardless of what they are doing - for fights that intimidating perv armour is great, but the shopkeeper would maybe refuse to serve you (think of poor Arron, he'd be left talking to your posing pouch!), and your character would get some horrid chafeing if they tried sleeping in it!

That armor video is amazing.

I think we're playing with words muddy a bit the thread.

Simple:
Spartan Armor AND/OR centurion/roman armor, yes good - but it wasn't really the point.

But in game, for women I see legs and for the same armor on men I see full padding, why ? Is it sexist ?

Trying to rationalise that with some example where "it's okay to see legs for men too, it doesn't make them any less badass and it's more practical when walking for days as adventurer and bla .." is what, for one, I used as an attempt to make my point.

if you pull that pic with that cleric and the blue dress half naked, that is just another example to convey the point that yep it's possible on men too.

That video with the armor is a joke. Was that aluminum ? C'mon doing a back flip ?

Watch this guy here and try imagining the guy doing a back flip once he's done dressing ...



But again, we are moving away from the topic

I'm pretty certain the lack of pants for the female armor versions is just those pieces being incomplete, hence why they aren't accessibly normally. If they are really like that, it's a joke though.

@Ixal yeah no. You are not immovable in armor, true. The point is you are slower. A decently trained swordsman would kill him. Combat is more intense than light exercise. You will want you perception to match your reaction as much as possible. If you can move well in full plate armor then you don't need it. The whole point of armor is to take a blow and be able to continue. Thing is a wide variety of weapons exists of different penetration and weight excluding tech like guns. If you are talking history then it's a moot point.

@Starlights Who said anything about impossible? It is wholeheartedly less baddass. Why not just let men wear pants? Perverts. Why on gods relatively green earth are you all fighting to remove pants? You all talk about sexism but instead of advocating to give Laezel some pants, which not a single person in this 8 page topic is against from what I can tell, you want to remove men pants?

Its crazy. You all agree its a feminine style, but "you don't mind". Yeah because you aren't dudes. You want dudes to look a certain way. Sounds sexist to me. You have become your own enemy. How does it feel?

Equality my ass. When the tables are turned you do the same thing. Perverts.

Hahaha

No, that was real plate armor. You will find several videos like this on youtube. It is a very common misconception that plate armor made you slow and you could hardly move in it which obviously was not the case.
Here a compilation:

(If someone knows from where the first snipped is from I would be grateful)

@Aishaddai
No, totally wrong. Decently trained swordman are the normal opponents people in plate armor were fighting and the armor gave them a huge advantage. They are in no means slower than a lighter armed swordman (being unarmored was basically suicide) and had a very small area of where their armor can be penetrated. Basically a sword is useless against plate armor.

I don't understand how hard is it to understand that some of us just want it to be the SAME, with panths, without pants, completely irrelevant, just make it the same for both sexes.


I am a male if you must know.


No, not a certain way, just the same, which way it is, masculine or feminine, bare or covered is irrelevant.


How in the fck is wanting armors to be same for both sexes sexist? lmao


Yes, doing the SAME thing is equality. And how is that perverted?

As for sexual dimorphism, one of the two armors below was made for a woman. Can you tell which one?

No, I can't tell, I am no armor expert, I can only guess it's the first one because it's narrower.

@Kadajko Oh wow you're serious. I think you already know the answer you just don't like it. Men and Women are not the same. They are not interchangeable. They are complimentary. They are different. Each with pro's and con's. They don't compete for the same things. Men are in line with strength, women are in line with finesse. Strength is not better than finesse and finesse is not better than strength. They are simply different. They can accomplish similar things in different ways. In some situations, strength is more deadly. In others, finesse is more deadly.

A man normally has enough masculinity and testosterone for 2 people. A woman normally has enough feminity and estrogen for 2 people. Together, guess what happens. I know certain groups have been trying to push other stuff. That's their business. You are free to believe what you want. I can verify this through biology, psychology, chemistry, history, medicine, genetics, religion, philosophy, spirituality, and hell even certain math subgenres and advanced physics. Though I'll probably get banned. Hell even typing this response will probably get me banned. lol oh well. It does not matter really.

Equality is a joke because how can two different things be equal. It's a power play for subjugation.

@Ixal No I'm right. Get your nose out of Europe's butt. Speed is only relative to your opponent. As much as Europe likes you to believe, you are not a walking invincible fortress. Plate armor has weaknesses. The joints and heat exhaustion. By the time the simpletons of those days realized this and tried to fix it guns were in production. The reason joints were a weakness was so you could actually have a range of motion. You could not protect those spots. You literally had to struggle to protect your armpits, the back of your knees, the tendons on your arm near your bicep, etc.

Please learn your history. Yes, joints were a weak point of plate armor, relative to the rest. They were still protected by mail, sometimes even plate, making them impervious to swords. You would have better luck with a dagger. A less armored combatant would have 0 advantages over someone in plate because 1. plate armor is not slow, especially comapred to other forms of armor and 2. it provides a gigantic advantage over people with lesser armor or even no armor (= suicide). The idea how the agile master swashbuckler having an advantage over combatants in plate armor is a hollywood myth (Syrio Forel from GoT for example). The same way it is a myth that plate armor meant you couldn't be agile what you seem to believe. See the videos, and no those are not aluminium replicas but real plate armor.
Plate armor was bulletproof by the way for quite a long time and it took more than a century of firearm development until plate armor could not keep up any more.

I'm not a scholar of this stuff so I could be wrong but isn't it right that rapiers and the like developed as a response to armor? That it made sense to try and poke your way into the helmet or under the armpits than bash your way through the armor?

Same goes for flanges on maces? Designed to crush the breastplate so the knight couldn't breathe?

No shit? lol


In reproduction, yeah.


Each individual has pro's and con's, regardless of their sex.


Depends on what that thing is. If it's breast feeding a child then no, if it's something both can do, both can compete in that area.


Depends on the individual, regardless of their sex.


And sometimes men have less testosterone and more estrogen and women have more testosterone and less estrogen. But that is not an end all be all when it comes to developing certain characteristics and attitudes.


When mommy and daddy love each other very much? A baby.


Yeah, I'm not a part of any group.


Science is the word you are looking for. Science is good yes, though you won't be able to debunk what I said here with science.


Nah, you'll be fine.


There is a man who is a soldier and one who is a doctor and one who is a programmer, they are so different, mentally and physically, how can they be equal?

Not the rapier, that was a weapon for civilians and not intended to fight against armor, but yes, plate armor prompted the development of weapons to defeat them, either by strong blunt force like with maces or by having a pointed weapon with a lot of leverage like halberds, polaxes and warhammers.
Also small weapons like daggers were effective once the enemy way immobilized. Swords were generally not effective against plate, being more a generalist weapon which lacked the features to defeat plate armor. Thus while glorified they became backup weapons.

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)

Yeah, me too. I even gave Varric a shirt. Putting unsexy (to me) characters in sexy outfits and shoving them in my face isn't very appealing.

(Alistair and Zevran, though, they get the good stuff. And if BG3 adds some sexy light armor for men, it's going right to Astarion.)

@Aishaddai, it looks like pushed your bottons a bit, by the tone of your message, or perhaps not - its hard to express emotion/tones in a text. But the following post here, I am happy and respectful of you & all. I enjoy reading you, you making me paddle a little bit . (look up my new signature )
The following text is my perspective and doesn't necessary reflect ALL women's views.

ok ..

I started playing BG3 in October and I started with a Ranger, I took Lae's armor right away, on the ship, because I liked the look and didn't like her. It was a "fluke", I didn't know it would turn out to be the best armor in EA with the stats and right away I noticed the legs open and the buttcheek. At this point, no big deal. It looks great ! I love it.

It's only recently, in this forum, where we were comparing race faces that I decided to make a "dude" for my 5th run. I grabbed Lae's armor for my "male Ranger" as usual and then oh - same armor - same class - same level, different style - sign, why ?. It doesn't even look great on a male, now "he" looks like a robot - a can of coke and all puffy. Clearly this seems, once again in this whole gaming ecosystem, a double standard male/female.

I know it's hard to comprehend for men, and I acknowledge that some women in this forum also think differently. Whoever not expose to sexism - well, it doesn't exist. I am in computer science and there is 3 women for 20 men and we get some sexism comments here and there all the time - why ? You get a job, same experience, same skills, same same same, but salary is different - why ? It's always a bit harder to get to the next thing all the time, as a woman compare to man - why ?. Over time, you just can't help it, your brain becomes Alerte to details like the gith's armor not the same for both gender, it becomes the "what you see". I was just trying to rationalize with the spartan/roman armor to me make it more acceptable - but I was wrong, I was avoiding talking about my own point. With my point, I really felt like this wikipedia link, what I'm highlighting in red:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender ... It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles.

Before you ask, no - I didn't mess up with wikipedia definition

I acknowledge that this is a game and perhaps we shouldn't make a big fuss about it (as shadowheart would say), but we opened the topic in this forum where we were looking for feedback to the admins of the game. I jumped on the opportunity, thanks to @Kadajko. @Kadajko is my real hero for opening up this can of worms allowing the few of us to talk about this. Because It is "very hard" as a woman to even talk about these things, you're being judge. Just ask around, in your close circle and be mindful that some of us will say no, because of ego and frustration - but is sexism common or uncommon ? Tell me. Even if we all agree in this forum and have the Dev/Admin jumping-in - I don't expect this thread to become popular with other gaming platform and then we will go change the world. I just hope if we fix one detail at the time we will kill this topic and that's what I meant by asking to make them both the same.

I hope this post is not too heavy and doesn't attract too much thunder and if so, I will delete it and move on.

For me, it depends on the character I play. So sexy cloths are ok, unsexy too. All I want is to have a choice.
So if a female armor look like this:
Then male armor should look like this or similiar:
This:
And that:

A few sets of diffrent armors for both.

I've already answered your question. The metaphor means that you can put a bandaid on it, but it still won't stop the bleeding.
An example would be Bioware and it's Andromeda graphical glitches. The bandaid of "let's stop making pretty women" censored staff from speaking up about horrendous animation glitches. Super reductive thinking is the wrong approach and just isn't capable of solving a deeper issue.


I can easily perceive Lae's armor as only incidentally sexy - it's half plate intended only to armor the upper part of the body. Again, I can't change the fact that humanity as a whole find female legs (and ass - her ass is also out lol) more attractive than male legs - so a woman in the aforementioned "Spartan" armor will have sex appeal to most people. But it's harder to perceive this design choice as only incidental (on what could be practical armor of a dexterous fighter) and more as an intentional "lets see how we can get away with having her fight with her ass out", when the males get leather wraps on the legs and have no in-lore reason to require more protection than the females. They are just as lanky as the females, lending to the same dexterous fighting style. I personally see it as a nuanced case where sexualizing the male upper torso could work, but simply removing the leather wraps allows one to remove the possible exploitative nature of it from mind. Again, my male Gith looks like a hobo in half plate. This armor could be meant to glorify an agile warrior (not necessarily sexualize) first and foremost.


I very much agree! And I think these are good examples. My fav class is Barbarian so I love the first two pics especially.

Fully closed clothes, but still very hot... Design, that's what it's about. It's about design... q-q

When it comes to recent fantasy art.
I think Adrian Smith understands perfectly how to do it.

men are hulking barbarians, and women lithe athletes, i love it.

I prefer this one:
or this:

This is also very hot! It's stylish! That's what they have to give us, I don't want to wear Gale's robe or somth like that T_T

He is good, but not my favorite artist. His art is too sharp/"cold".

problem is everything can be saw as "inviting" from the point of view of a predator (as anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of what are the clothes in molested or abused women know)

also to just translate clothing that function on a female body (that has curves) on a male body (that doesn't have the same lines) doesn't function, because that kind of clothing (independently from the fact that it had or not had been designed to be sexy or sezualizing) is designed for a body that has curves.


Changing argument: the two barbarians armors are awesome, and that balded barbaria oh my he's frigging sexy!

And the two rogue females are amazing too. Specialy the last one is really elegant and sexy too.

Those are clothes, not armor.

Again:

This is what you might call armor for rogue or class like this. Armor is just a generic word in this case, not an alloy of metal...

Even for a rogue that is not armor. Armor must offer some sort of protection which those outfits do not.

Those both goes as +0 AC +DEX Mod armours

I want sexy edgelord armor. I want rule of cool.

Any arguments about practicality are completely foolish in light of ANY armor preventing you from being rent in half by a dragon.

I am however down for a wide variety of armor appearances and an appearance tab. If you want to dress like a nun, Id like you to be able to. If I want to dress like a sexy nun, I want to be able to.

They offer protection from papercuts and a slight breeze at the very least. Not much, but certainly not nothing.

Yeah true buttttt I'm sure looking like a cute pirate in leather armour corset is worth it XD

But seriously though I feel like playing a mage or any ranged class it would be better to be equipped lightly so you can manoeuvre more no?

I mean if this is AC 11:

No, my dear friend, this is called LIGHT ARMOR and even in the game it gives protection, just less. You can see for yourself.

Yes, I agree. it should be full leather armor and if you are trying to hide or go stealth mode, you won't ring like a bell.

A clumsy mage that somehow gets heavy armor proficiency can do quite well in full plate (in 5e at least).

I am all for armor sexualation Lae Zel looks sexy... and Shadowheart is also nice looking...

I am tired of the romance videos with no nude scenes. I want nudity there you go armor sexualation is not enough for me.

Same

They need to go full fashion, otherwise what's the point of all the 3d?

I was happier when the paper doll had like 4 armored looks, a single unarmored one, and 2 colors for everything, since the imagination had to do the rest. But now that they've opened it all up, I want to see it all. Sufficient variety to approach the limits of the imagination is a tall order, but at least take it to D&D fashion school so we can get the standards.

Simple tunics, and under gear would be amusing to choose at character creation.

Regular clothes would be cool to swoop at a tailor shop along the way

The regular armors should at least each give a couple different basic looks and a way to dye or change the colors of the cloth and leather components.

Enchanted armors could lock some colors in place, in much the same way it worked in BG1/2, but the regular gear it would be cool to customize.

I also wish instead of just giving us Enchanted equipment, they would make enchanting the equipment part of the gameplay, which could provide an opportunity for initial customization. Especially for +1 equipment. Higher level stuff, sure they can lock it all and show off. But I mean for the basics. I don't generally enjoy armor crafting in an SP game, but that's because of the way its typically handled in fantasy games with endless collecting and grinding to get to the point where you can make cool looking stuff, those systems make sense in MMO, but I'd like them to do something along those lines, or what was introduced in NWN for tweaking models in Aurora. You know switching out straps and belts and pauldrons and such. I'd like shopping for/creating the regular equipment, and then having a mage enchant it to +1 via some questline or such.

I kind of wish they would really focus on dialing the prologue and getting us to our first actual town in the EA. Instead of just dropping a bunch of magical equipment on us at a couple merchants and loots. They could make getting the first +1 anything a major deal in the early part of the game. Instead of giving up the ghost right away

Light armour is still light armour, not just clothes. Neither of the pictured examples are wearing heavy enough garments to count as even Padded Armour. Wearing just clothes does not net you any AC, though you still have your DEX bonus of course.

Astarion's armor looks like this and gives AC 11, although heavy armor AC 15. Think again.

Astarion's armour is supposed to be Padded Armour, which it doesn't particularly look like, true -- though gambeson/aketon based civil clothing were very popular in the late medieval/renaissance times -- but it certainly looks more appropriately like armour than either of the pictures dressups above.

So please. Think again.

Excuse me? It's a game. It does not matter whether it is similar in your understanding or not, it is still armor, it has stats. This suggests that armor of this style is possible in the game and it will still be LIGHT ARMOR that suits rogues, bards, mages, or someone similar. The fact that it "doesn't look like that" seems to be your personal problem of perception versus facts, which are already in the game. And I want to tell you that at this stage, Wyll's armor is also very similar, it's just clothes, there are no "protective" elements, and yet statistically it gives protection. Thank God you've never played Korean games, you'd be surprised what kind of clothing can GIVE YOU PROTECTION. Because in many games, the design doesn't affect the armor stats. And design is important to me.

You write that such armor should give AC 0, but in the game you already have such armor that gives AC 11. Fact.

That's not a fact at all. Astarion's suit is nothing like the exampled pictures, and is clearly supposed to be a doublet, which in case you're unaware was a kind of battle jacket. Wyll's frock is visibly padded. And Korean games are completely irrelevant.,

You are free to wear just clothing. Both Barbarians and Monks are designed to wear nothing but clothing. But DnD do not give clothing AC, and neither should BG3. Mages don't wear armour either (unless they invest in feats or get proficiencies from other sources), they wear clothing.

This is why Nier did it right. Androids need no armor so they can wear maid outfits.

Why shouldn't clothing be armor in a game where you can eat a pig's head in less than six seconds and be instantly healed?

A: I think they should change to compliment the character's body. If the armor can morph to fit dwarves and halflings better I don't see any reason it shouldn't morph to fit men or women better. Unless we're just talking about the taking away pants thing I see being discussed in which case yeah, that's kinda ridiculous.
B: I prefer practical armor. I think sexy armor should be left to mods. I don't necessarily care if they want to add a way to transmog it or something for other people but I'd rather default be practical.

Ok so I had to sit on this for awhile. Funny enough, my family convinced me. What do I get for showing you how wrong you are on pretty much all points? If I do all the work of typing out explanations and citations, what do I get?

You are free to believe whatever you wish, but it seems to me that I would be doing all the work for nothing. Do you even want to know or are you looking for validation? Either way, it means nothing for me. Ignorance is bliss, but not an excuse. You are in charge of yourself. If you want to know then you do the work. I see nothing in it for me. If you can do something right and well then don't do it without some compensation.

Two wrongs don't make a right

Overzealousness is worse than fascism.

Shame you have to be convinced instead of arriving at conclusions on your own. Funnily enough this is actually a sign that conversations with you are most likely not going to be productive, since after a while you will most likely default to the opinons of those around you.


If you don't enjoy it don't do it. I personally enjoy intellectual growth, challenging ideas and plain banter. If none of those things are of interest to you, you are indeed just wasting your time and should stop.


It is not a belief, this is not a religion, it is a conclusion.


I know what I know, if you have new information or information that contadicts what I know I will evaluate it. Validation is the least of my concerns.


This quote I can actually throw right back at you.

Isn't this whole thread based on datamined photos of armors that will probably get changed later? If I'm not mistaken the female hide armor already has pants.

Some are already in the game some are not,maybe they will get changed, maybe they won't, doesn't stop us from sharing our opinions about it.

Maybe you two can take this fight private? I'm not sure any of us are getting anything out of it.

Seriously, this is like the steam forums lol

Shame it is perceived as a fight, I don't think it is, but I can take it to private.

@Aishaddai Message me if you wish to continue.

Hey, In nature, there are many examples of animals (amphibians and a few fish) that can change sex when they need to. Personally, I like women but can appreciate a beautiful man. Sexy armour in a computer game?? Yes please

Yeah, I get that some people are made uncomfortable by such discussions. Just like I'm made uncomfortable by images of brain being pulled from a skull. But with both sometimes the best answer is both: just ignore the content

I am sincerely interested in the answer to my previous question. I'm not to going agree -- I find the whole animus / anima masculine / feminine is within everyone and that is true on both a biological and spiritual level 'theory' kinda silly. Leave that for the Golden Compass books, not real life. But I do, authentically, want to understand the worldview.

If both genders get sexy armor how does that lead to subjugation? My guess is that it's a variant on the Slouching Towards Gomorrah theory.

Kind of amazing to see the topic whirl around and around when its quite straightforward about the WHY here.

Crack open probably the majority of older Fantasy art, and the 'issue' becomes obvious.

Why is there a difference between Male/Female armour representation? Because its 'always' been that way.
Why is it that way? Talk to folks like Frazetta.

No value judgments here btw, I cant be bothered to get into that, but it is what it is, and there's no way people dont get the underlying reason after 12 pages.

I really like the design Larian did, they are incredible. And I'm in favor of sexual demorphism.

First, about the ''realism'', don't forget that lighter amor were used in history. Romans soldier had naked legs, and Celtic warrior could be bare chested, or bare legged. Not everyone is in full plate armor. Actually, full plate make you really slow and is quite heavy. Its makes senses to have lighter part in an armor and to protect only place like shoulder, knee, elbows and hands. The more full ''armored'' you are , the slower you are.

And yes, revealing armor are usually sexier, can be more charismatic and have more personality than bland ''full covered armor''. Body shape are dynamics and beautiful by essence, and merging the mecanical parts of the armor with the organic part of the human anatomy can be pretty and aesthetic, IMHO.

Not to mention that, male armor DO follow male chest, which is flatter by nature. Breastplate armor of fantasy woman follow the curve of the chest, but so does male armor, so its not sexist or anything, same concept.

And as Scribe mentioned, this kind of design has been there like forever, because its pleasing, aesthetic, sexy, and to some degree, historically grounded (not talking about the chest metal plate which I have never seen, but revealing and half naked armors are part of history and many cultures).

So yeah, I think we shouldn't be too judgemental of that and just enjoy the visual.

if you want to go about realism, you already mentioned the gesetea.

Lets spin this further.

Note that going to battle naked is more historically accurate than going into battle wearing studded leather
It is more historically accurate than ringmail
Two thing sthat dnd just made up.

Also note that Helmets do nothing in dnd while arguably beeing the most important part of any warriors kit during the early and high medieval pariods

Totally agree. We are such a successful species very much in part because we enjoy looking at each other and if clothes/armour etc enhance that, all the better. Can't really see the point of topics such as this TBH.

Considering that studded leather didn't exist this is not surprising.
But going into battle naked (even when you include normal clothes for this)? No. Even poor peasants had gambeson type armor and most fighting in the time D&D is based on was done by mercenaries who of course had armor.
There were a few berserker type warriors who went into battle naked to show of how fearless they are, but usually they were killed very fast, especially by archers -> suicide. And much of the clothing posted here as "sexy" like tight corsets or flowing robes would even be a hindrance in combat (corset prevents breathing and robes pose the danger of tripping without offering any protection from weapons).

The former. Ideally even adapting a bit by body type, without limiting the effect to a stretched mesh.

"Practical" is overrrated. Any sweet spot between believable and cool looking is fine.
The problem begins when you try to define what people think it's good looking.
Some people seem to think that big menacing horned helms and giant pauldrons make for the "rule of cool" while I wouldn't want my character caught dead into one.
Sexy/stylish outfits are fine by me to an extent and I have no problems with boots with high heels while thong armors and similar pseudo-sadomasochistic foreplay shit pushes the trend into laughable bullshit as far as I'm concerned.

Admittedly, that's just a side talk. Definitely not a topic I care strongly about.

That said, any attempt to play the angle "if the woman's outfit has cleavage the male outfit should as well" is disingenuous bullshit, that blatantly ignores how what makes an idealized, top shaped body or a sexy outfit are not things that are supposed to be perfectly symmetrical between sexes.
Society DOES have different standards for what constitutes ideals of masculinity and femininity for a reason. Because not every trait considered attractive or desirable on a group applies to the other.

EDIT- Wait, how the hell is this 12 pages?

DnD didn't make those up by any means, they were misgivings already present in the sphere of knowledge/science through flawed examinations of depictions of armour in historical documents and conflation/confusion/disflation of terms (and the factoids that stemmed from these) which affected the conclusions the DnD guys drew from their research.

We are talking here about preference(maybe a little about double standards), not about realism. Dragons are not real, still people like talk about shape their wings, colors, etc. If you want discuss more about realistic themes, make a topic about it. ;-)
That would be fun to watch.

>Going to battle nakeD isnt historically accurate

how about you read my post before you go ACKSCHUALLY MUH PEASANT

im talking about the Gesetae, who were not peasants, they were Mainland Celtic warrior elite and later roman mercenaries.
The same can be said about the entire tribe of the Belgae, at least according to Cesar

They didnt just fight unarmored, they foguht butt naked, they believed it gave them the blessing of their gods, who would view them as courages.
Which is not to say that Mainland celts lacked armor equipment, compared to their germanic neighbours, they didnt lack Iron (Noricum was pretty much where rome would get all its iron from later on) or the techniques to forge proper armor (Roman helmets for example were a Gaulish design)

They chose to do so
And it terrified the Romans


TL;DR: READ

Also

>Muh practicability and sexyness
women warriors are unrealistic.
Every time you go to realism ill go to this because i love how it destroys discussions. it amuses me.
Lets face it, women werent warriors. Maybe one or two in the entierty of recorded history.
And unless you want "Horse archer" to be a character class i wouldnt exactly take the scythians as an excuse for anything.
Female warriors are a romanticised fantasy.
Same as fantasy armor.

Get over yoruself, the entire "but muh realism" crowd is delusional.


>Dragons and realism double standard

Gonna actually disagree with you here. Its not about realism but about believeability.
A Dragon is about as realistic in a medieval setting as an apache attack helicopter is.
one of them is more believeable than the other.
the same applies to many other things, armor is one of these.

As such im largley going to forgive ringmail and studded leather to exist, as long as other people allow Loincloth barbarians and barbarian princesses to exist.
But lets make no mistake, not only are those two equally nonsensical, the former dont even look good

Also true of the Picts. It's not clear if the Picts and the Celts were different people but the Romans saw them as different -- celts being scary because they were tall and hairy and picts being scary because of the extensive blue tattoos and habit of launching into battle naked -- both genders.

No, There are report of woman fighting early , such as onna-bugeisha and Tomoe Gozen, a very famous Samourai warleader. Artemisa , queen of Halicarnassus, Joan of arc , Trieu thi trinh, Lozen, Zenobia etc etc . And these are famous because they were commanders, but you can read stories about middle age where woman would fight to defend their house with scythe and fork. Its not that big of a deal, woman did a lot during middle age, including ruling, trading, having a job etc. Its during Renaissance than woman became much more passive in old Europe because of religion . And its not a surprise, as a woman with a sword or a musket is just as deadly as any man, especially if trained / experienced with weapon. This became even more true once rapier was discovered, as its required very little strengh to effectively kill a man.

You should look at historical document on these and search out for warrior woman and life in middle age / before, you ll be surprised at how much woman could / would do. Woman staying at home to take care of children isn't the norm in every culture, if you read Elizabeth Badinter book ''l'amour en plus'', you ll see that in a lot of cultures, children would be raised by slaves, nanny, or even mens, while women worked / had fun / did whatever.

Keep this discussion civil please.

And of course Boudica. While there are reasons for a sexual division of labor in hunter gather societies -- pregnancy, lactation -- these are societies that have flipped the sexual divisions and cultures where the divisions are fairly close to horizontal with men taking care of children while women hunt.

And there is a chicken - egg issue with European history. So much that history is about the imperial rule and the aftermath of empire. Which is why fantasy settings always have a Nethril / Myth Drannor like setting. Why did the Romans invest so much energy and resources into crushing Boudica? was She was an ally, she was tithing . . . and the answer was the Roman were fighting for patriarchy. Boudica and her daughters were a threat to Roman law itself and the notion that property is controlled by the father and that all authority comes from the father.

What we don't know is how many other matriarchies and gender horizontal cultures were eliminated by the various empires.

again, exceptions to the rule.
also the latter was a leader, wether or not she participated from the front, who knows. also "Charioteer" isnt a DnD class.
Joan of arc was basically a glorified figurehead

>Romans were fighting for patriarchy

listen to yourself. You realy think the mightiest empire in europe for most of its history bothered that some barbarians were ruled by a woman?
Romans foguht for conquest. For political and economic advantages.
Do you understand how different barbarian law was to roman law? And how many non female led barbarian tribes were subjugated by the romans? Despite them beeing "allies" before?
Pretty much all the gauls suffered this fate.

Its also not like the Romans fell over themselves to invade scythia to get rid of the *actual* women warriors, rather than boudicca who was a family of women in a male dominated culture (the celtic one)

>Matriarchies were eliminated by various empires
well, i have a different conclusions as to why that is.
History is brutal and only the strong cultures survive.

Listen to me.

I Don't expect this sort of tone only two posts after I left a reminder to remain civil. If you really cannot make a point without resorting to insulting or snarky language, I suggest you refrain from posting.

I don't expect playable characters to be anything other than rare exceptions. Not everyone goes on a journey that we depart on and not everyone can survive it. Even if female warriors are logically rare in set climate, a female PC will be an exception every single time to every single rule, she is the best of the best, the one and only, be it a Bhaal spawn, a spirit eater, the hero of Neverwinter or whatever title we will get in this game.

my argument was never that there shouldnt be female player characters.
my argument was that the prevelance of female fighters in your average fantasy setting, especialy forgotten realms, is a pretty strong argument against "Historicism" in fantasy.

This discussion of armor keeps getting back to realism, but our heroes' equipment, and its aesthetic, is more a story-telling convention. This is a narrative fantasy adventure, not a medieval historical combat sim.

I would like to add it my absolute love for the idea of just being able to do the entire campaign in civilian clothing (Bilbo baggins inspired outfit)
I kinda hope we arent limited to just armour.

As much as I love how they have already designed the armours in the current game I cant wait to see more
The designs are so incredible so far

Amazingly, science proved many, many years ago that physical differences between men and woman are actual facts--not myths. The science of genetics, for instance, proves it indisputably. Differences in apparel for men and women merely reflect the proven scientific realities of the genetic differences between the sexes. Do not expect to see maternity gowns for men any time soon, etc...;) However, gowns for big, fat, slobs may look like maternity gowns when worn by men, but I can assure you this is not the case...;)

I don't think anyone at any point in this thread ever mentioned having problems with attire taking a form that follows biological needs of sexes. If you want to prove that every difference mentioned in this thread serves an important function from a bioloical point of view however, I am all ears. lul

Very interesting, I didn't know that.
Its a bit sad that in our era, some folk still believe man to be superior to woman. I know girl that could break you like a twig, and other that do martial art that could floor you in five seconds, even though they probably weight 40 less pounds than you. But whatever, keep being delusional.



You should be more specific. What are you talking about?

Everyone knows that man and woman have a few differences . Women have breast and men don't, wow, what a surprise !! I needed genetic to show me that !

Doesn't mean woman can't fight or take care of themselves. We also know that man have , on usual, more muscle fiber than women. But how does it matter? Black skinned people are proven to have more muscular fiber than white men, on average. Should we call white man unable to fight because of that? because that's the same kind of comparison. Minor difference that don't really show or mean anything.

Armour should be the exact same on both, just over different bodies. Unless the armour is seriously magically with the enchantment that makes it change style mentioned in the description, aint no excuse for the dramatic changes.
Armour changing so it fits, sure, armour handwaving so its a completely different style for no reason? immersion breaking and prevents your squad from having a uniform style.

Just a sidenote, can we please limit discussions to the game not personally held views about the place of women or presuming science. Thank you.
the 'science' about strength muscle differences are all things so minor it only comes up in bodybuilders and comparing adventurers, class would really be the bigger issue i.e. fighter v wizard. As for the rest, some men do have X and some women Y. Just, can we stop with discussions that will clearly go no where and only serve to make this forum unwelcome, hostile to women and prevent discussion of the actual issue. I.e. armour that looks cool on Wyll looks lame on SH

From a purely gameplay discussion, its annoying when you find some sweet armour put it on your PC and it looks completely different on you, also sucks? when you get four copies of cool armour and go hey, uniform time but oh it's different cut, colour and materials.. boring. Having it look the same for everyone avoids that. No need to bring sexism into it.

And here how fighting naked turned out
TL;DR, they were easily killed.

But Rome fighting for patriarchy? Thats utter nonsense.

@Hachina

They just don't understand that people can be different. In their mind ''Men and women tend to'' = ''Men and women are''. People that behave differently as individuals are called exceptions.

@Kadajko

You're right... it's a bit sad IMHO .

Also, I believe its a cultural thing. I may be wrong on that, but I think women weren't fighting as much as men during past centuries because it was contrary to tradition . Now we see more and more soldier women and they perform just as well as men.

Forgotten realms is explicitly a world with even ratios of military service and adventurers anyway so it makes sense the standard military gear/armour would be made to the same standard for everyone, no weird differences for women but same concerns, cover important parts protect from sword, going into both

Holy Christ....

This is a fantasy game. The REALITIES of human biology between Men and Women are 100% irrelevant in the game world. The REALITIES in the difference between Fast and Slow Twitch muscles are also, irrelevant.

This is a fantasy game, where monsters need slaying, people need saving, and spells need casting.

Why are there different appearance between the same gear?

Same reason we had it in WoW. Same reason we see it in Japanese RPG. Same reason we see it in Fantasy art going back decades to the formative era for what became 'fantasy art'.

Petition for options? Ask for a way to modify? ABSOLUTELY.

But I can tell there are some intelligent people here dancing around the reality of the WHY when it's not particularly relevant.

And no, the historical accuracy of women fighting during the Roman Empire era, is not relevant to the creation of Bikini Chain Mail, or Conan fighting in a Banana Hammock.

Since you mentioned WoW, not going to lie, that is one of the reasons I couldn't get into the game, the demorphism there is just uncanny.

Oh its some of the worst you'll see, and that one actually swings both ways. Certain robes for my Undead Male Warlock? Big sad compared to Female versions lol.

I read in some posts here, that women warrior are unrealistic. Did someone throw in the "viking" card yet ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield-maiden

But just to go back on the game - BG3 and this thread.

When taking a step back and look at this 13 14 pages long thread - we have these 3 categories:

1. Female are just fine to have armor with legs open and buttcheek, and I want to see more skin - Male are badass and it's ok that they are covered for protection the matching the D&D fantasy theme;
2. Female are just fine to have armor with legs open and buttcheek - Male should match the female style - make them the same (I'm this category);
3. Cover both from head to toe.

It nails down to that.

The historic conversations around armors, in this thread, are a justification for the 2nd category to make it ok for men to have something like 2000 years ago Roman and bla .. or 5k ago Spartanand bla .. and we end up side tracking on that.

If this forum platform had the ability to spin a poll, I would probably add the "I don't care" as 4th category and let it run a few days until it stabilize and observe the results. The only glitch is how you make it so people only vote once. But this subject could be close reasonably fast. And that would be it - the feedback.

I will have quite a laugh if in patch 4 we all lose our pants (and then add em back with a hot fix - I dare you Larian )

lol your signature Starlights PERFECTLY reflects this thread.

yes, but since you mentioning it, who's who ?

No judgment here. You dont get to 14 pages without it being present though.

Personally, if the males are just as objectified, I don't mind. It's more jarring whenever you see females get exposed skin but males are covered from head to toes. It doesn't mean stripper looking, it's just making it look fashionable. It's a fantasy game at the end of the day.

See, I dont think its jarring, especially with the images of the armour I've seen here, at all.

Because I grew up playing Fantasy Games, reading Fantasy Books, and seeing Fantasy art.

I dont see a single thing, even the one called 'trashy' on the first page that is at all shocking, surprising, or jarring, because...I grew up with stuff like this.



Right, Wrong, Indifferent, I do not care, but to be surprised? That's just the format.

I explained on page 8 why the armor on the first page is more trashy than your example.

"I found that armor trashy because the legs are bare out of the blue while the rest of the armor design seems to be pulling in another direction, it would look equally trashy on a male, while the purple robe would look good on a female also and has a design that works. Even your typical chainmail bikini looks better than that example, because atleast it is designed to be sexy, this one however looks like a more serious armor but the female randomly forgot to put her pants on."

This? If so, fair enough. I call it Fan Service. I dont care anyway, I only play Male characters, but I see what you mean by it being a different design choice than what would seem to make sense based on the top half.

Then again...it is half plate. Half...upper.../shrug

10/10,didnt have enough gold for the other half.

Maybe she didnt want to lug it around, probably heavy stuff. Regardless. I'd push for there to be some kind of...what is it in WoW...transmog? Yeah. Thats the angle I would take if I cared.

I agree with that . whatever the truth might be on physical prowess, it doesn't matter in a fantasy world.

@scribe, that's quite a picture you posted, that woman on the knight's lap riding a horse, from your fantasy - lol

Ref.: my signature, I think I will have some fun with ya

Look at the picture I have for you here:


And try to imagine how she will disrupt your fantasy - just lol..

kindly

@Starlights

@Scribe doesn't think that it will disrupt the fantasy, just doesn't care one way or the other.

That picture doesnt disrupt anything I feel. I didnt say that book cover is MY fantasy, but it is the art style which is foundational to Fantasy as a genre.

If (I believe thats Lagertha?) you want to have a strong warrior woman, absolutely 100% go for it, because its Fantasy.

I'm not going to blink if I see some questionable Chainmail Bikini though (well, I would actually in 2021 lol, but the Half Plate on Page 1 was nothing special) because again its foundational for better or (likely) worse.

Again, I must mention Frazetta. Why is there such blatant design demorphism? Its practically coded into Fantasy itself.

EDIT: I mean here, this was..I think Grade 5 for me.

On that book cover, the male fighter amor = the female fighter armor (if you look closely, notice they both have the same style). If you can acknowledge that, then that's all we are saying in this thread.

That's Caramon and Raistlin - the twins, isn't it ? The woman is she half sister or something ? That's old, I didn't exist If you still have that book, it must worth lots of money today.

Edit: it was published in 1986, ancient time and it seems they were more careful with "the armor sexual demorphism " back then. Could that be because the two author are woman/man ? Let's add another 14 pages on that

About 50c, theyre pretty common in second hand shops. was a popular book

It's also about #1. Some are arguing that this is what we would expect given natural differences between men and women (or in their words 'males' and 'females). So, yeah, discussions of historic figures -- Boudica, Joan of Arc are about disputing the notion that "this is how it's always been. What would you expect, that's just nature. Science, history, religion all tell us this is the way it is".

(Now Scribe has made it clear he is saying this is how fantasy art has always been, not this is how all of history has been and I agree with that.)

Also, I appreciate that the mods keep things from going off the rails but I took @sordak's comment as salty but not abusive. He and I have discussed these issues before and I think we both have a sense of when to back away.

And spoiler for those uninterested but I can't believe people are challenging the notion that the defeat of Boudica was about protecting patriarchy. Really? wut? What?! [trigger warning]

Yeah, I'm 90% sure the girl is Tika, who eventually marries Caramon.

The point was that that 'unrealistic' style, is a staple, as you note since the 80s (and i did exist lol).

Still have that trilogy box set + the Legends trilogy. I havent read them in a super long time, wonder how they hold up...

EDIT: And yes, Caramon and Tika have the same style armour. I'm pretty sure Caramon kitted her out himself as she wasnt a Fighter, but got caught up in the flow of the story. I really should read them again...

If you look at the 2nd book, you'll see different styles. But ultimately yes, I dont have an issue with Caramon looking like Tika considering they appear to be in the same 'class' of armour.

EDIT x 2: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons/Commercial_settings/Dragonlance/Tika_Waylan

"Margaret Weis attributed her appearance because the artists wanted to have a "babe" to paint.[2]"

See what I'm saying here? lol

Has anyone here read the fantasy anthology "Chicks in Chainmail" ?

lol no, but a quick google search returns what seems like a series.

Very probably yes, but more on point is that "Chicks in Chainmail" is a long standing fantasy trope, and long lampooned as well.

the armour looks good on the females. we need more evil looking armor, everything is so colourful besides drow armour

You think the Romans did it because of patriarchy? are you insane? Romans took over plenty of male ran tribes once their rulers had died, either be forcing the current heir to leave their kingdom/land to rome when they died. or by provoking said tribe by injustices to make them look like the aggressor to justify a military takeover such as what they did to the iceni. It literally had nothing to do with "patriarchy'.

I am discussing history on video game forum. My avatar is a skull chewing bunny. Of course I'm insane.

Did you actually read the link? Patriarchy is the keystone concept of Roman law. The Pater rules his family and pater rules the state. The emperor is the father of all Romans.

The Romans were awful, they messed with everyone. Lawful evil state They fact that the destroyed lots of other people does exactly nothing to negate the truths that: a) the battle with Boudica was about patriarchy and b) that the Romans imposed patriarchal law across Europe. We, in west, are the inheritors of a patriarchal history.

So now theres my argument beeing misrepresented again.

Not saying there shouldnt be female characters. or that -4 strenght applies.
Im saying that if youre willing to accept the widespead use of female fighters, then maybe you should also accept less than "realistic and perfectly optimal" armor.

Likewise on the gesetae: my other point: just because its stupid, doesnt mean people didnt do it.
SO the realism argument is again wrong. Reality isnt realistic as it seems, people went to battle btut naked even if it gave them a disadvantage.

>Patriarchy
this is a modern ideological argument and you cannot proove anything about this in history.
>Patriarchy is the keystone to roman law

You conflate words. You conflate the modern politically charged word "Patriarchy" meaning "Opression of women" with ancient Patrilineal passing of wealth and power.

It wasnt a deliberate ideology of Rome to opress women where they found them.
Rome, like all other militaristic ancient cultures, was a male dominated society. This was the norm for them, they didnt bother with finding women to opress because it wasnt on their agenda to do so.
They werent "challenged" by a woman lording over men (which, lets be frank, is debateable, the ikeni had A female leader, who was the daughter of a male leader, deosnt imply any femdom bondage or matriarchy going on) any more than they were challenged by Barbarians drinking fermented wheat juice or barbarians having better iron smelting techniques than the romans, or anything else Barbarians did while not beeing subject to the romans.

The fact that they were barbarians and not subject to the romans was what made the romans agressive.

THIS ++++

I not asking for realistic armor (although I hate silly pauldrons) I'm just saying that both genders should be treated equally. If one set of armor shows legs and buttocks on women then the same armor should also show legs and buttocks on men. Sexualize both genders or neither.

Patriarchy is:

Because the argument, we have to accept revealing female armor if we want to play female fighters came up: I don't have to accept armor, that clearly oozes sexism. My female fighter is not wearing the currently best armor for her, because I find it distasteful.
That is the whole purpose of this thread, voicing our opinions about armor - some want more revealing armor for both sexes, some (me included) want less revealing armor. If Larian gives us options, then everyone will be satisfied.
But I really don't see, how we have to accept revealing armor on females just because they are fighters. If you want revealing armor on your female character, by all means, knock yourself out. But I want my female fighter properly dressed.
Tradition in fantasy art isn't an argument for me. Things can change and they have. In a lot of games, you can choose different outfits for your character.

i absoluteley dont have an issue with sexualized or naked men.

However i argue that if you sexualize a man like you sexualize a woman, he wont be sexy but emasculated. Likewise if you sexualize a woman like a man, she would look vulgar and not sexy.

put conan in a chainmail bikini and he looks like a joke.
put red sonja in a loincloth and she looks indecent rather than powerfull.

Of course the ancient etruscans would have disagreed with our modern notions of tits beeing indecent, but thats hardly my fault.

Im not saying that romans werent patriarchal in the anthropological sense.
Im considering the notion silly that the romans would conquer someone specifically because they were ruled by a woman.
Note that there were far more female centric cultures in the roman sphere of influence than the island celts, who, as ive pointed out, were not matriarchal, they were a patriarchic culture by your own definition that happened to be ruled by a woman.
the same could be said about austria under maria theresia.

Shouldn't this thread be in suggestions and feedback? I think the armours are fine myself.

You are implying that there is something wrong with males having feminine featuires or having feminine armor available to males.

I think it can be done well and it doesn't look like a joke (atleast not more of a joke than some female armor):


Like I mentioned previously you are allowed to account for difference in biology. If the male would be bare chested, just cover the chest.


Both types are fine.

Pretty sure Boadicea got aced because she was a woman just as much as Cleopatra got snaked because she was one. The difference being, of course, that we know a bit more about the latter than the former.

We also have no way of knowing if the story about the daughters, the flogging and the rest is true, since there are only three accounts about the whole ordeal and only of them mentions it. Either way, when Tacitus does mention it those acts aren't celebrated but rather denounced, and they're not even described as unlawful 'punishment' (so something that would be seen as acceptable punishment) but rather a consequence of Boadicea's husband's death and the chaos it caused.

Also, i'll admit i got used to topics derailing towards sexism and/or racism around here, but i gotta say it's the first time i see one ending up in roman history.

Shadiversity on youtube did an interesting video (several?) on fantasy armour. It focused on female boobplate armour and it's realism, but he touched on male armour in fantasy too. I'm not sure how relevent to the topic it is, but considering there's a 15 page throad on fantasy armour some people might find it an interesting watch.

I just noticed that it looks like she is wearing ballerina slippers and leg warmers

Because there is, generally speaking.
Well, "something wrong" is not how I'd put it. It's not that it can't be done. It's just that it simply doesn't work aside from a narrow fringe group with a specific weird fetish.
And typically men are praised (or mocked) the most they get close to (or stray afar from) an ideal of masculinity, while the same happens for women and femininity. Which doesn't mean that there isn't room for some overlap or mix-up, but still.

The reason cries about "double standards" are idiotic in general is that "double standards" tend to exist for a legitimate reason. It's disingenuous bullshit to hang to the notion "When it's the same for both is fine" because this alleged peak egalitarian goal of having "The same from both no matter what" doesn't achieve the same effect symmetrically.

Imagine arguing that since one of the top displays of elegance for a fancy evening date for women is a cocktail dress



...then the same should apply to the men accompanying them, rather than a tuxedo.

Actually there is no legitimate reason for it, well, some people think that there is a legitimate reason, but actually it is completely devoid of any rationality.


Sounds great, but ''should'' is the wrong word, whether to wear a dress or a tuxedo is a personal choice.

Sure, to score "progressive points" on twitter.
Hardly to have something resembling a half decent social life.

We are considering adding a poll facility, but nothing is ready to roll out just yet.

No, literally the opposite. I don't even own a twitter account lol.

...works for me

Yeah, I'm sure the man in a feminine cocktail dress is going to be the role model everyone will long to match and pillar of his own social circle.

I'm sure it does.

How about just a person minding their own business and wearing what they like?

@CopperCrate

Oh God, you reminded me of that freakout, that drama was so funny, Owens and Shapiro especially.

This thread is veering away from its original point about armour design in BG3.

Let's keep on track, please people. The wider discussion of gender roles and norms has no place on this part of the forum.

I forgot to mention, that I really loved those Steampunk attires, posted a few pages back. Would love to have something like that for my rogues, bards etc(I do make Steampunk clothing for conventions irl). They do look kind of sexy, but they also let the wearer appeared dressed. So it's the best of both worlds imo.

And I really would like to see, how that poll goes, if that will be possible one day.

I have merged this thread with previous threads concerning armour appearance in BG3.

I like my characters to actually look like heroines and heroes and not like some nuns or nerds. I wanna have Superman in my party, not Clark Kent. Whatever way Larian decides to go, I'll play the outfits modded anyway since modern games tend to go the wrong route way too often. There's already many good outfit mods and they will likely get even better over time.
When I play my heroine, she will be sexy and clearly distinguishable from normal people as it should be. It would be nice if the game offered sexy enough outfits by default but considering the pressure all gaming companies find themselves in nowadays (a pressure I will never understand), I fear I will have to mod more rather than less.
Personally I know no one who approves uptight clothes for heroes. All people I know including my mom find sexy outfits a must for them.

Pressure comes from people, who just like you, don't get what they want and complain about it, I think it's easy to understand, and it's normal.

So we've arrived at a point of agreement. I'm fine with a set of armor that becomes banana hammock. Or a John Carter type chest piece.

In the game the dataminers have found an outfit that looks much like Princess Leia's slave costume. To avoid having only one gender sexualized we should encounter another another NPC in an equivalent outfit, one like the one like @kadajko posted. This avoids the message that women are objects and men are subjects.

I'm equally fine with @flyimar's suggestion - give Laezel pants -- but that leaves the (potential, not verified) NPC problem. I still think there is a problem if we only have succubi types and not incubi


I think that moment can go one of two ways -- if you see the Borat thong equivalent you can get upset that the devs put in the game but it can also serve as an invitation to experience empathy. I think the thrust of Borat's joke is to make men understand just how ridiculous some women's swimwear is. "is that comfortable? how does he keep things from falling out . . ."

So if an outfit seems on one gender, perhaps it was also ridiculous on the other gender but we've become so desensitized to the point that we can no longer spot absurdities that conform to traditional gender norms.

Didn't know that about Etruscans. Interesting.

That last line is my thoughts on the issue - you've put it so succinctly!

I have posted one request/reminder to keep the thread away from wider gender issues. I am not intending to post another one. This is not the place to discuss gender issues, it is a gaming forum to discuss the BG3 game.

Keep the thread about BG3's armour.

But isn't the question of gender representation relevant to question of armor appearance? If we are talking about a difference in armor appearance -- Gith men get pants, Gith women do not and dataminers have shown us that game includes sexy outfits for one gender but not the other -- the pattern of representation of men and women in popular media seems relevant to the topic on hand.

You cannot discuss the difference between armour appearance, without discussing the gender.

Not in Fantasy.

Either we accept it as a foundational aspect of Fantasy Art, that persists due to Fan Service, or we dont, but that IS why things are different.

Wasn't the whole topic about how female and male armours are different and the reasons why?

Gith men get pants??? From where? In game they dont have it.

The merged thread certainly was. Sexual Dimorphism and Armour or whatever it was called.

The WHY is simple. Fantasy Art styles that are foundational to how the setting type has been presented for decades, and fan service.

That is it.

Make a Gith warrior man, find Lae'zel trade her armor back and forth. Put the camera behind and focus on the legs and butt while running.

@Sadurian

I agree with @KillerRabbit and @Scribe.

I don't want to be disrespectful and at the end of the day it is your decisions to cull this discussion, however I do believe that discussion of gender is indeed closely linked to the subject of differenes in appearence between male and female armor in BG3.

I'm too lazy for that, but as far as I know Git near the bridge don't have pants, even if the design is a little different, it's still not pants. Am I wrong?

Likewise I'm too lazy to travel to the bridge. No compatible saves near there. Somewhere on this thread there is a screenshot of the differences.

The problem is that screenshot is not GIT. And it is pulled from the client and it may be a bug of an incorrectly pulled file. I watched the video on YouTube and I don't see their pants there, but maybe I see something wrong, so I asked.

Good point. Always important to verify.

Takes a few minutes to verify -- just make a gith Tav really quickly and run around with Laezel swapping armor back and forth.

Okay folks, if you believe that you cannot have a discussion about armour without discussing gender issues then I'm afraid that the thread will have to be locked.

I tried to warn you that we would not tolerate discussion of gender issues on this forum. That is not the sort of topic we want to see being argued on what is supposed to be a gaming thread. If you wish to talk about gender politics and equality then please do so elsewhere on the internet.