Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Even though this is high fantasy, I myself, very much approve if they try to keep the armors somewhat realistic. I don't want yet another game treating women as sex objects. I mean come on. In the two examples you choose....why are they even wearing "armor" as it won't protect them from anything. Not even from chilly winds and even less from men staring at them.

As usul diversity would be the best. We went from exclusively objectification of woman (and denying that women too can objetify men) made by men to a control of the female body hid under the "lets not objectify" and made from women (and woke allied men).

Wonder woman is immortal, invulnerable, why should she wear a full body armor? To censor herself because unless she do that men will droll (pretty sure some lesbians would droll too) or other women (and allied woke men) will get offended because seh dares to show her body?

Also i don't see nothing bad with sexification (lets be real we are a sexual species, all we do rely around sex, or absence of it, even asexuality is defined by the paragon with sexuality), it just need to be an option, and one for males and females.

I want the option (and again I miss Daggerfall) to dress my toons as I want, just like I want to see npc with all the variety of body coperture.

I don't like the revised victorian age moralism that has tainted our modern days.

Because we can use all the fancy and progressive words but we are doing is just changing the narrative but still trying to control and cover the body of females (and forgot about that of men, I will develop better this point in another paragraph).

If it is insensate and irrational to think of a warrior or a paladin wearing partial armors* (for those classes armor classes is based on the physical resistence of the heavy armor and doesn't have a dexterity modifier), why should armors that have dexterity modifiers compulsory be full covering?

And what about barbarians and monks whose armor class don't rely on armor?

Or magic classes that have spells wich increase armor class (on the condition no armor is weared)?

As I said: let the player choose, show diversity in how NPCs dress. Sometimes when I play I had the sensation of being in a very conservative sexophobic moralistic society.

And the problem involves male characters too. Just like for the females there must be coherence to the played class, but again I don't get why the must of male bare skin show is only arms, and a bit of chest and niples in the dream scenes.

Maybe I was spoiled by daggerfall in wich you could have your wizard elven follower of the goddess of love and passion going aroun with a mantle, a loincloth, a pair of bracelets, a pair of sandals, and a bag, or your female breton fighter in full plate armor, with a huge tower shield, and you also have the chance to change from fight to civil ropes, with a vaiety of stiles (from the completely reveling, to the modest ones, to the formal ones).

I loved Daggerfall because you could see and interact with npc fully armored, or with formal dresses, just like ones with nothing more than a bikini or a swimtrunk.

Options, that's what is needed, for players to decide how to dress their own characters (I usually play only male characters, with sexuality that cover all the spectrum, I want to be able to play one that uses not revealing clothes, one who instead put the bare minimum just because nudity would be too much, same goes for when I play female characters), Dragon Age, Knights of the old republic, Elders Scrolls (from Morrowind to the online one), The Outer worlds, Fallout, Original Sin I and II, and so on, no choices, like the human body (male or female) is something to be hide like shameful or negative (Indeed in Dragon Age the female characters that have a more revealing dresses are those that clearly are morally ambiguous).

*DnD is a scenography in wich enchanted object exists, some allow feats like talking with animals, talking with the dead, teleport, cast spells you don't know or are not in your class skills, so an armor is not tied to the percentage of body it covers to function because it armor class can be modified by an enchantment.