Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 16 of 18 1 2 14 15 16 17 18
Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
"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.

Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Then again...it is half plate. Half...upper.../shrug

Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Originally Posted by Scribe
Then again...it is half plate. Half...upper.../shrug

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

Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
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.

Joined: Oct 2020
H
member
Offline
member
H
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Scribe
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.


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

Last edited by Hachina; 14/01/21 01:47 AM.

If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
Joined: Jan 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jan 2021
@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 smile

Look at the picture I have for you here:

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

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

kindly smile

Last edited by Starlights; 14/01/21 02:01 AM.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a bit, you realize the pig enjoys it.
Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
@Starlights

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

Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
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.

[Linked Image from infinispace.net]

Last edited by Scribe; 14/01/21 02:28 AM.
Joined: Jan 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jan 2021
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 smile If you still have that book, it must worth lots of money today.

Edit: it was published in 1986, ancient time smile 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 smile

Last edited by Starlights; 14/01/21 03:26 AM.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a bit, you realize the pig enjoys it.
Joined: Dec 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Dec 2020
About 50c, theyre pretty common in second hand shops. was a popular book

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Starlights
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.

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]

Patriarchy was at the center of Roman life. The father figure, the pater familias, was a central figure in Roman Law and Roman life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias

The Romans publicly beat women for a series of gendered crimes. Husbands could kill their wives for infidelity and that was often the only way for a man to cleanse one's name of the shame of being cuckolded. Romans wore erect penises around their neck, the most solemn oaths were made on 'Jupiter's stone', that is on the ballsack of the celestial form of masculinity. For Bhaal's sakes this culture that educated their children with stories of the rape of the Sabine women -- when Rome decided they needed more women they forced themselves on the women of culture they genocided. TL;DR masculinity and the rule of the Pater or patriarchy was really important to the Romans.

Boudica was offering the Romans the same deal her husband offered -- the Celts will pay Roman taxes, we ally with you in battle when needed. But the Romans just couldn't allow women to be in change. The public flogging, the assault on the daughters is the way that Romans treated women, not just any old enemies.

Quote
Romans foguht for conquest. For political and economic advantages.

Sure, and one of the political advantages is ensuring that your view of the law dominates. If one tribe allows women to inherit property what to prevent some other tribe from doing the same. And then where are we? Where is that vision of one empire under one set of laws now?

TL;DR not only it is not ridiculous but if you do see this as a battle fought on behalf of patriarchy you are missing the point.

Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Starlights
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 smile If you still have that book, it must worth lots of money today.

Edit: it was published in 1986, ancient time smile 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 smile

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

Last edited by Scribe; 14/01/21 04:51 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Has anyone here read the fantasy anthology "Chicks in Chainmail" ?

Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
lol no, but a quick google search returns what seems like a series.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Very probably yes, but more on point is that "Chicks in Chainmail" is a long standing fantasy trope, and long lampooned as well.

Joined: Nov 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2020
the armour looks good on the females. we need more evil looking armor, everything is so colourful besides drow armour

Joined: Nov 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
TL;DR not only it is not ridiculous but if you do see this as a battle fought on behalf of patriarchy you are missing the point.
[/spoiler]

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'.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
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 wink 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.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
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.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by T2aV
the armour looks good on the females. we need more evil looking armor, everything is so colourful besides drow armour

THIS ++++


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Page 16 of 18 1 2 14 15 16 17 18

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5