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

"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 ++++