I get what you are saying. As a straight fella, I like my eye-candy in fantasy gaming like anyone else, and I agree that it is unrealistic to expect absolute realism, because, really a life of brutal combat against horrifying monsters is pretty grisly and traumatic, and not what we want to experience 'for fun'. Instead we like to roleplay with heroic knights and fair damsels, cos you know, that's more fun.
However I think @LadyRhian is only highlighting the most ridiculous aspects of 'female fantasy art', which deviates from logic and common sense in the blatant attempt to depict women in a highly objectified manner. Personally, whilst I have no big problem with...
... I think she would look no less attractive if her breasts were covered up more sensibly, in a way that did not make a mockery of the rest of her armour.
It is totally possible for a woman to look beautiful and feminine, whilst portrayed 'more realistically'. For example... (and some of these are probably from @LadyRhian's other thread)
Incidentally, I love traditional Chinese clothing (Hanfu) for women, which is makes them look absolutely gorgeous, whilst maintaining 'modesty'. This is partly why I love the Wuxia genre, good wholesome eye-candy
Examples:
Oh and you can even fight in such clothes if your Kung Fu is good enough! lol
@Archaos You're welcome! And as @Heindrich said, I have an entire other thread (of 23 pages) of women in much more realistic fantasy armor. Stuff like this: by NathanParkArt by JakeMartin by Grobelski by WillOBrien
You don't have to have them half hanging out of their armor, have boob windows, or make me wonder if that armor is held on with Sovereign Glue to emphasize that they are women. I'd rather have the three above than anything else I have posted in this thread that are unrealistic. Once you realize you can clothe your character like a woman without having her posed to be a sex object, hopefully, art like this will become unnecessary: by AnotherWanderer
I'm a heterosexual man and is much rather see female characters dressed up practically than just dressed down for the titillation of my senses. Sexualised art has it's place, but people dressed in ridiculous armour shouldn't be treated as anything but people in ridiculous armour.
And frankly, I don't see where you're going with the whole "adventurers would be dirty and smelly and ugly" thing. So what? I wouldn't mind that either.
*A wild wall of text appears!* For me, I think it comes down to this: [Spoiler]"Armor" falling under the general style(?) of the ludicrous getups represented herein and by other fantasy art might perhaps boost charisma, but that's about it - most of the attire would fail miserably in terms of AC, and unequivocally increase the chance of critical hits beyond what one could reasonably expect from a birthday suit. Vital organs are woefully exposed to the elements, (by elements I mean the metals, metallic alloys, or wood making up weapons), in a bullseye motif that relies on bare skin to protect most of the wearer's torso and chest. But hey, least the genitals, (sometimes), and shoulders are protected… Death by critical hit = chunked. Resurrection? Nope. The epitaphs would be downright shameful. Most of the metalwork would require tailoring to the idiot wearer in the manner of full plate mail, and would thus cost as much or more to craft. A good number of the platekinis and metal speedos are dangerous to don while simply stretching, to say nothing of wearing into a battle - bend any joint at your peril! The leatherwork and textiles resemble the sort of stuff I saw in storefront windows whilst walking through LA's fetish/bondage district, with the added feature of defying gravity. Not even latex can pull that off. And who could forget the classic chainmail bikini? Every one of these outfits, irrespective of material, ought to require an Intelligence and/or Wisdom score(s) no higher than say, 6 at most.
But then, in each case, the word fantasy is genuinely ironic - not a one of them works properly in a fantasy setting. Rather, they pander to many (not all) consumers' fantasies. It's not just the "armor" that defies gravity and reality, but the bodies as well. That is, until the buffoon who decided to wear a two-piece, loincloth, or full-length v-neck t-shirt to a fight takes a blow to the chest, groin or gullet and subsequently topples to his or much more often, her death, cursing the name of the merchant who sold the poor sap something crafted from some blacksmith's leftover scraps.
- Captain Obvious' 2 cents. [/Spoiler] Spoilered because long rant is long.
@AstroBryGuy Whenever I see a full suit of armor "almost" like that, (no codpiece), I'm always irrationally terrified it's going to spring to life and chop me in half.
There's anatomical pragmatism and then there's showing off and/or compensating for something. However, no-one wants to take a risk when squishy bits of their body are surrounded by moving metal plates...
Some more "How about NO?" moments. by MizraelTengu Okay, I get that she is supposed to be a mage, but are those belts supposed to act as very inferior armor? And does she own any clothing *without* holes in it? http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/264/1/3/helloravenowl_by_moofanderson-d6mu76l.jpg by MoofAnderson This is worse. Not a possible wardrobe malfunction, but an actual one. Hey lady, your middle is completely exposed! by NathanParkArt If her armor covered her entire body, this might be okay. But wielding a whip with so much bare skin… Eeesh. by AnjaDiPaolo Another lady dual-wielding with no armor. by Taman88 another sword wielder with no armor.
by AnjaDiPaolo Another lady dual-wielding with no armor.
That would actually be a Dervish. They actually gain better AC by not wearing armor and apply Dexterity to attack rolls with Scimitars. http://dndtools.eu/classes/dervish/
And this would be a Duelist.
"Canny Defense (Ex): When not wearing armor or using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon."
So not wearing armor, actually works to their advantage. Heh.
Ah. Neither of those classes existed in 2e. Kits, maybe. I recall some classes in Al-Quadim that might have been something like a dervish. But there was one called a Mamluk (female version was the Mamluka), based on the Christian slaves that fought for the Sheikhs (Mamluk meaning "owned slave"). There was a duelist kit in the Complete Warrior's Handbook, but offhand, I don't recall the details.
by Misha-Dragonov THIS is armor? by Indiron Yeah… I don't see how that bustier stays on, unless it's smaller than her ribcage, and that sounds profoundly uncomfortable by DusanMarkovic Damn… that armor is completely USELESS. http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2014/050/b/e/melisandre_by_nachomolina-d773ykj.jpg by nachomolina And yeah, another female mage who is apparently an ecdysiast. by jujusaurus Another example of armor that molests you. by fdsauarez That's an awfully low neckline. by AniaMitura Yeah, she's HOT. Flamingly so. Her outfit… eh... by khan72 This one is mainly here for the leather bikini, but I'm SCARED of her eyes!
So not wearing armor, actually works to their advantage. Heh.
Not wearing armor =/= Unnecessary boob window.
Actually, someone that relied on their agility and wits to avoid damage (dexterity and intelligence) and used their appearance and personality (Charisma) to seduce or sway men (Safana style) then a boob window is a definite advantage against many men. Especially in a arabic or pirate themed RPG.
Even today a deep cleavage can be distracting. I can only imagine what it could do against pirates or bandits or whatever.
No. A deep cleavage might distract you in your schoolbench, but it won't distract you in a fight of life or death. That is a stupid excuse. Stop using it.
No. A deep cleavage might distract you in your schoolbench, but it won't distract you in a fight of life or death. That is a stupid excuse. Stop using it.
Pirates and bandits never went to school. You don't think a pirate or a swashbuckler, someone like Safana, might use her looks to her advantage? Not in a real fight but how about in a tavern?
So you think that pirates cannot be distracted by a woman's assets or looks when they have been traveling for months in a ship and hadn't seen a woman at all? How about bandits?
I doubt they are that strong-willed. It might not be as true in modern times where sex and nudity is everywhere but you need to look at it from their perspective and stop being so mindlessly dismissive.
No. A deep cleavage might distract you in your schoolbench, but it won't distract you in a fight of life or death. That is a stupid excuse. Stop using it.
Pirates and bandits never went to school. You don't think a pirate or a swashbuckler, someone like Safana, might use her looks to her advantage? Not in a real fight but how about in a tavern?
So you think that pirates cannot be distracted by a woman's assets or looks when they have been traveling for months in a ship and hadn't seen a woman at all? How about bandits?
I doubt they are that strong-willed. It might not be as true in modern times where sex and nudity is everywhere but you need to look at it from their perspective and stop being so mindlessly dismissive.
That doesn't mean that every single woman in every single piece of fantasy art is going to use this logic.
For someone like Safana, it might be reasonable to dress her in scanty clothes because that's what her character likes and what she's expected to do. But to use this character archetype as a justification to dress your female characters--no matter what their personality might be--in borderline-stripper armor is, frankly, narrow-minded and insulting.
Besides, when you're out adventuring, I think most people would want to dress for the worst-possible scenario. How do you know your worst fight of the day could be a tavern brawl? When the army of orcs stampede over the hills to rape and pillage your town, are you going to bet that your female assets will work so effectively as they might have against a drunk? Or when that dragon wakes from the pits of a dungeon while you're sneaking around stealing its gold? Or when you and your party are ambushed in the night by a raid of fem-nazi amazons? (Who, by the way, don't give a damn how big your rack is.)
Personally, if it were me, the life of adventure is too risky for me to put my life in my breasts.
I doubt they are that strong-willed. It might not be as true in modern times where sex and nudity is everywhere but you need to look at it from their perspective and stop being so mindlessly dismissive.
I don't know if you are deliberately playing devil's advocate, but I don't think we are being "mindlessly dismissive" of your arguments, given that many of us have offered reasoned counter-argument to your objections.
I'd like to add that most human cultures have some moral conception that men ought to protect women and children, which stems from natural evolutionary instincts. So if you put a (male) warrior in an arena against a female warrior, dressed in a clearly feminine manner (does not mean revealing) such that there would be no doubt that she was a woman, then most men would hesitate to harm her, but that would be more down to cultural norms and morality than the influence of bikini armour or a nice cleavage.
@Nonnahswriter I wasn't talking about every woman. I was speaking that it's very plausible for a woman of that type (swashbuckler or whatever) could use her looks in taverns. Many people are using their looks in real life to gain advantage over some situations or whatever.
And like I said the Duelist adds his Dexterity and Intelligence as well if they're not wearing armor, which means that by the game rules, you could be fighting almost naked or in just clothes and still do just as well. Another example in BG are the Monk, Kensai and Swashbuckler. They're not wearing any armor (except the Swashbuckler I think?), using their dexterity and other things to survive. Which means, that a high level Monk could be fighting dragons totally naked.
@Heindrich That comment of mine was not about everyone, it was directed towards @scriver. I'm not sure I like being told that my arguments are "a stupid excuse" and I should "stop using them". I also find it very plausible that a woman might use her feminine assets to her advantage.
A bandit or pirate is not an automaton that will continue fighting or cannot be swayed by a scantily-clad woman. It happens in real life and in literature or films.
And actually yes, I like playing the devil's advocate to provide the other side and reasons when and why such outfits might work. I don't like being absolute and just saying "lol yes, that's stupid armor, next".
I get the entire "fighting unencumbered" thing. Historically there have been a lot of unarmoured fighters, usually in a civilian context. I think this argument has raised its head much earlier in the thread.
There is however a big difference between having a sword on the belt of your everyday clothes and wearing only a bikini and greataxe. Unencumbered does not demand that you wear only underwear, a nice loose-fitting shirt and comfy trousers are all you need.
In terms of "distracting opponents" though? Just no. It might make opponents underestimate you due to your obvious lack of judgement, but don't tell me that boobs overcome all resistance. Men may be dogs, but we're not completely stupid dogs.
If someone is trying to kill me I'll defend myself. If the only way to do that is killing the other person, I'll do that. I don't care if the other person is Miss Universe naked. Survival instinct is quite powerful as any person who has been in the position of being attacked can attest.
Comments
I get what you are saying. As a straight fella, I like my eye-candy in fantasy gaming like anyone else, and I agree that it is unrealistic to expect absolute realism, because, really a life of brutal combat against horrifying monsters is pretty grisly and traumatic, and not what we want to experience 'for fun'. Instead we like to roleplay with heroic knights and fair damsels, cos you know, that's more fun.
However I think @LadyRhian is only highlighting the most ridiculous aspects of 'female fantasy art', which deviates from logic and common sense in the blatant attempt to depict women in a highly objectified manner. Personally, whilst I have no big problem with...
... I think she would look no less attractive if her breasts were covered up more sensibly, in a way that did not make a mockery of the rest of her armour.
It is totally possible for a woman to look beautiful and feminine, whilst portrayed 'more realistically'. For example... (and some of these are probably from @LadyRhian's other thread)
Incidentally, I love traditional Chinese clothing (Hanfu) for women, which is makes them look absolutely gorgeous, whilst maintaining 'modesty'. This is partly why I love the Wuxia genre, good wholesome eye-candy
Examples:
Oh and you can even fight in such clothes if your Kung Fu is good enough! lol
Real female warriors wear armor.
You don't have to have them half hanging out of their armor, have boob windows, or make me wonder if that armor is held on with Sovereign Glue to emphasize that they are women. I'd rather have the three above than anything else I have posted in this thread that are unrealistic. Once you realize you can clothe your character like a woman without having her posed to be a sex object, hopefully, art like this will become unnecessary:
And frankly, I don't see where you're going with the whole "adventurers would be dirty and smelly and ugly" thing. So what? I wouldn't mind that either.
For me, I think it comes down to this:
[Spoiler]"Armor" falling under the general style(?) of the ludicrous getups represented herein and by other fantasy art might perhaps boost charisma, but that's about it - most of the attire would fail miserably in terms of AC, and unequivocally increase the chance of critical hits beyond what one could reasonably expect from a birthday suit.
Vital organs are woefully exposed to the elements, (by elements I mean the metals, metallic alloys, or wood making up weapons), in a bullseye motif that relies on bare skin to protect most of the wearer's torso and chest. But hey, least the genitals, (sometimes), and shoulders are protected…
Death by critical hit = chunked. Resurrection? Nope. The epitaphs would be downright shameful.
Most of the metalwork would require tailoring to the idiot wearer in the manner of full plate mail, and would thus cost as much or more to craft. A good number of the platekinis and metal speedos are dangerous to don while simply stretching, to say nothing of wearing into a battle - bend any joint at your peril!
The leatherwork and textiles resemble the sort of stuff I saw in storefront windows whilst walking through LA's fetish/bondage district, with the added feature of defying gravity. Not even latex can pull that off.
And who could forget the classic chainmail bikini?
Every one of these outfits, irrespective of material, ought to require an Intelligence and/or Wisdom score(s) no higher than say, 6 at most.
But then, in each case, the word fantasy is genuinely ironic - not a one of them works properly in a fantasy setting. Rather, they pander to many (not all) consumers' fantasies. It's not just the "armor" that defies gravity and reality, but the bodies as well.
That is, until the buffoon who decided to wear a two-piece, loincloth, or full-length v-neck t-shirt to a fight takes a blow to the chest, groin or gullet and subsequently topples to his or much more often, her death, cursing the name of the merchant who sold the poor sap something crafted from some blacksmith's leftover scraps.
- Captain Obvious' 2 cents. [/Spoiler]
Spoilered because long rant is long.
You don't know what I want.
http://shawntionary.com/chainmailbikini/?p=26
*Casts Divination spell*
...Daaamn. This thing exists?!
Even the Monk wears a garter in combat!
And the Githyanki want to be sexy as well!
Of course, you don't see armor with these features on male fantasy characters.
Whenever I see a full suit of armor "almost" like that, (no codpiece), I'm always irrationally terrified it's going to spring to life and chop me in half.
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/264/1/3/helloravenowl_by_moofanderson-d6mu76l.jpg by MoofAnderson This is worse. Not a possible wardrobe malfunction, but an actual one. Hey lady, your middle is completely exposed!
They actually gain better AC by not wearing armor and apply Dexterity to attack rolls with Scimitars.
http://dndtools.eu/classes/dervish/
And this would be a Duelist.
"Canny Defense (Ex): When not wearing armor or using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon."
So not wearing armor, actually works to their advantage. Heh.
HA HA HA HA enough said
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2014/050/b/e/melisandre_by_nachomolina-d773ykj.jpg by nachomolina And yeah, another female mage who is apparently an ecdysiast.
Especially in a arabic or pirate themed RPG.
Even today a deep cleavage can be distracting. I can only imagine what it could do against pirates or bandits or whatever.
You don't think a pirate or a swashbuckler, someone like Safana, might use her looks to her advantage?
Not in a real fight but how about in a tavern?
So you think that pirates cannot be distracted by a woman's assets or looks when they have been traveling for months in a ship and hadn't seen a woman at all?
How about bandits?
I doubt they are that strong-willed. It might not be as true in modern times where sex and nudity is everywhere but you need to look at it from their perspective and stop being so mindlessly dismissive.
For someone like Safana, it might be reasonable to dress her in scanty clothes because that's what her character likes and what she's expected to do. But to use this character archetype as a justification to dress your female characters--no matter what their personality might be--in borderline-stripper armor is, frankly, narrow-minded and insulting.
Besides, when you're out adventuring, I think most people would want to dress for the worst-possible scenario. How do you know your worst fight of the day could be a tavern brawl? When the army of orcs stampede over the hills to rape and pillage your town, are you going to bet that your female assets will work so effectively as they might have against a drunk? Or when that dragon wakes from the pits of a dungeon while you're sneaking around stealing its gold? Or when you and your party are ambushed in the night by a raid of fem-nazi amazons? (Who, by the way, don't give a damn how big your rack is.)
Personally, if it were me, the life of adventure is too risky for me to put my life in my breasts.
I don't know if you are deliberately playing devil's advocate, but I don't think we are being "mindlessly dismissive" of your arguments, given that many of us have offered reasoned counter-argument to your objections.
I'd like to add that most human cultures have some moral conception that men ought to protect women and children, which stems from natural evolutionary instincts. So if you put a (male) warrior in an arena against a female warrior, dressed in a clearly feminine manner (does not mean revealing) such that there would be no doubt that she was a woman, then most men would hesitate to harm her, but that would be more down to cultural norms and morality than the influence of bikini armour or a nice cleavage.
I wasn't talking about every woman. I was speaking that it's very plausible for a woman of that type (swashbuckler or whatever) could use her looks in taverns.
Many people are using their looks in real life to gain advantage over some situations or whatever.
And like I said the Duelist adds his Dexterity and Intelligence as well if they're not wearing armor, which means that by the game rules, you could be fighting almost naked or in just clothes and still do just as well.
Another example in BG are the Monk, Kensai and Swashbuckler. They're not wearing any armor (except the Swashbuckler I think?), using their dexterity and other things to survive.
Which means, that a high level Monk could be fighting dragons totally naked.
@Heindrich
That comment of mine was not about everyone, it was directed towards @scriver.
I'm not sure I like being told that my arguments are "a stupid excuse" and I should "stop using them".
I also find it very plausible that a woman might use her feminine assets to her advantage.
A bandit or pirate is not an automaton that will continue fighting or cannot be swayed by a scantily-clad woman. It happens in real life and in literature or films.
And actually yes, I like playing the devil's advocate to provide the other side and reasons when and why such outfits might work. I don't like being absolute and just saying "lol yes, that's stupid armor, next".
There is however a big difference between having a sword on the belt of your everyday clothes and wearing only a bikini and greataxe. Unencumbered does not demand that you wear only underwear, a nice loose-fitting shirt and comfy trousers are all you need.
In terms of "distracting opponents" though? Just no. It might make opponents underestimate you due to your obvious lack of judgement, but don't tell me that boobs overcome all resistance. Men may be dogs, but we're not completely stupid dogs.