Unencumbered does not demand that you wear only underwear, a nice loose-fitting shirt and comfy trousers are all you need.
Mage Robes tend to be like that, not protective (unless powerfully enchanted), cool looking (unless you dislike hoods and robes) and they are the most comfortable clothes ever. Also Jan Jansen's Armor would be the best armor ever in real life, 25% of physical damage reduction... Plus the description states that it is stylish, and it gives +1 AC too, besides you can cast spells and I'm going off topic.
I'm with you there @CrevsDaak. Jan Jansen is the petite yardstick by which all style must be measured. I can't imagine the "In addition, the armor is stylish" line being added to a +3 Armorkini's description.
there's a lot of pictures in this thread which are really unfairly judged it seems all to often that people don't look beyond the fact that skin is on show before they condemn the artwork for being unreasonable. people should think about what the pictures of and about before condemning.
that's not to say a lot of this artwork isn't just completely awful but nudity doesn't = bad
@Corvino I don't imagine that will fit well too, Jan's armor is more like a synthetic leather robe, while an Armorkini is, well different (in KotOR2 you could get a 'Dancer's Outfit', +2 to CHA, only usable by female), because Jan's armor is made to be protective and unrestrictive when it comes to spellcasting, but an Armorkini should be made for erotic or joking purposes, I really don't think that someone is silly enough to give a girl an armorkini as protective armor (unless joking).
@Archaos - It is an excuse. You start with the picture and then try to make logic up for why it would be so. It's the same backwards justification you hear from comic book fans trying to justify the sexism in the depiction of heroines. It's been said a thousand times, and it's just plain wrong. People are not distracted by BEWBage when they're in a real fight. We just don't work like that. When you're pumped to the brim with adrenaline everything else goes out the window. You'll be focused on the fight, not taking note of her fashion statements.
And yeah, a social encounter is a whole other deal entirely. The picture was criticised because her lack of plausible combat gear (or rather very likely not having plausible combat gear for the sake of showing boobs). That's the reason it was brought up in the first place.
there's a lot of pictures in this thread which are really unfairly judged it seems all to often that people don't look beyond the fact that skin is on show before they condemn the artwork for being unreasonable. people should think about what the pictures of and about before condemning.
that's not to say a lot of this artwork isn't just completely awful but nudity doesn't = bad
Nobody is saying nudity is bad. In fact I am quite of the opposite opinion (and having grown up in Sweden I am used to having both dongs and boobs dangling about in my general vicinity). But nudity for the purpose of showing skin in situations where the character should be covering up, like armour designed to look sexy for the viewer's gratification? That's what we don't like.
@scriver and that's fine like I say I agree I want armoured females to be armoured but not wading into combat in underwear but that's not what a lot of these pictures are actually showing and that's my problem.
for example on the first page there's a character breathing fire with the op criticising her revealing attire(which it is) but if you look at the pic she's actually performing too a crowd not fighting a war so why should she be fully armed and armoured i've seen much more entertainers in revealing attire then I have armour
a second example is a picture which seems to be of a girl in a sword dancers outfit being criticised too, shes not in battle she's just striking a pose. again this doesn't really seem an appropriate picture to criticise by all means people can dislike the picture but people shouldn't dislike it for something its not
If we want to steer away from the sexual-distraction fighting concept, just for a moment:
This is the same logic that a child might use if he or she had to defend themselves in a fight. While a woman has her beautiful body, a child has their innocent eyes and scrawny arms. In highlighting the puppy-dog eyes, perhaps they hope that their enemy will underestimate them, so the child can strike a weak-spot or slip away unharmed. It might work in movies or literature, but in real life, a brute's a brute and that child is likely to be seriously hurt, if not killed.
To quote (ironically) The Incredibles: "Remember the bad guys on the shows you used to watch on Saturday mornings? Well, these guys aren't like those guys. They won't exercise restraint because you are children. They will kill you if they get the chance. Do not give them that chance."
Not really arguing anyone, just something that occurred to me this morning. :P But I think the same line of thinking can apply to a woman who hopes to "distract" a male combatant. I realize that there's a great deal of difference: a child might not have a choice if they hope to survive a fight they didn't expect. A fully-grown, fighting-capable woman, on the other hand, usually does.
You have a point, @Nonnahwriter. The big eyes & outsized head of young mammals is actually a defense mechanism. Other mammals almost always recognise a juvenile of another species and do not perceive it as a threat, thus often avoiding conflict. It wouldn't work in a fight, but it might prevent one.
Ugh. by Marfrey Lady, you ARE aware that a major artery runs close to the surface on that part of your legs… Might want that bit to be protected. Also eek, chafing. by TheBastardSon This lady looks like she's wearing the end result of a car crash. And not enough of her is covered, sadly enough. by dkmarcos That looks less like armor and more like a bra by alexnegrea Even LESS armor. Soon we'll be seeing naked combatants. by Yichenglong1985 With all those scars on his chest, you think he'd know better. Much better. by deathstarshotput Ugh… shooting sparks plus bare chest= PAIN! by MurphyIllustration Ugh. S&M armor.
by jagged-eye For some reason, this reminds me of Shar-Teel by faye-l Another one that reminds me of Shar-Teel. But i'd want to wear more if I was riding a Dragon. It gets cold up in the sky! by melaniemaier Yeah, I bet nobody EVER mistakes her for the local convenience… by anotherwanderer Speaking as a woman, she'd better have a damn good support bra, or her breasts are going to be bouncing right out of her low-cut top as she runs… by Howietzer How does this guy bend over if he drops a sword? Answer has to be VERY CAREFULLY. by Fallen-Swallow This picture calls for a "DAT ASS" meme from the internet.
Ugh. by Marfrey Lady, you ARE aware that a major artery runs close to the surface on that part of your legs… Might want that bit to be protected. Also eek, chafing.
Aside from the lack of underarmor wear, this one's not so bad. There's going to be a gap in the area you're referring to, otherwise just standing normally would be painful. It's part of the reason that weapons like the estoc and rapier became so popular when plate armor smithing techniques were at their peak, getting a small blade into somebody's artery is a lot more efficient than smashing them with a mace or flail. Maces and flails, of course, being the other popular weapons for killing well-armored opponents.
Yup, it was pretty common practice to not to have plates of armour right up there at the top of the inner thigh. Chainmail or at least some trousers might be a good idea though. You really don't want bare skin nipped between two armour plates (or stabbed in combat) in that area.
Artists seem to have this mistaken impression that armor lies directly on top of the skin. In real life, you wear padding under the armor. Metal directly on skin? Ouchie, ow, ow! The Pinching that would result from that...
by htbuffalo Never show a foe your belly. also by htbuffalo Who needs a sword? Just bend him forward and make him twist back and forth a few times. Easy peasy disembowelment! by gpzang With those headlights on display, I thought this was from the CARS movie… by Melina-Van-Der-Werf Where did her insides go? Is it possible to have a waist that tiny without removing ribs or wearing a corset so extreme what the exertion of combat would make you pass out? Also… nice armor. by SaraForlenza Yeah, we all know why HE has no complaints! (Incidentally, this picture was meant to be ironic.) by mystical-stock Yeah, the lack of armor is what killed her- that's her bier by inbalfeldman Yeah, I found this on a search for "female warrior fantasy" In this case, I think it's a prostitute that does most of her fighting with meat swords… by 7Sins7 How the F does that even stay on? This "warrior" and the last one must own stock in Sovereign Glue factories by Ikura-Maru While this warrior maiden can strangle you with her thighs alone, how does she NOT topple over on those teeny tiny feet? Also, muscles are no substitute for armor! Also, Grumpy Boob cups! by Lord-Darth-Balthazar Yeah, bikini armor is not armor, either! by wickedAlucard Ugh. But between the shoulder pads with eyes and the boob cups, her armor has a face. And what the heck is that thing sticking out of her hair?
by Ikura-Maru While this warrior maiden can strangle you with her thighs alone, how does she NOT topple over on those teeny tiny feet? Also, muscles are no substitute for armor! Also, Grumpy Boob cups!
by kassidikeys Her name, I kid you not, is "knockers". No kidding. by ceruleanvii Naked male character- Druid/shaman by Igor-Grechany-Ostrov That top! Those… pants? Um, how about "NO!"
Comments
Also Jan Jansen's Armor would be the best armor ever in real life, 25% of physical damage reduction... Plus the description states that it is stylish, and it gives +1 AC too, besides you can cast spells and I'm going off topic.
that's not to say a lot of this artwork isn't just completely awful but nudity doesn't = bad
It is an excuse. You start with the picture and then try to make logic up for why it would be so. It's the same backwards justification you hear from comic book fans trying to justify the sexism in the depiction of heroines. It's been said a thousand times, and it's just plain wrong. People are not distracted by BEWBage when they're in a real fight. We just don't work like that. When you're pumped to the brim with adrenaline everything else goes out the window. You'll be focused on the fight, not taking note of her fashion statements.
And yeah, a social encounter is a whole other deal entirely. The picture was criticised because her lack of plausible combat gear (or rather very likely not having plausible combat gear for the sake of showing boobs). That's the reason it was brought up in the first place.
@element - Nobody is saying nudity is bad. In fact I am quite of the opposite opinion (and having grown up in Sweden I am used to having both dongs and boobs dangling about in my general vicinity). But nudity for the purpose of showing skin in situations where the character should be covering up, like armour designed to look sexy for the viewer's gratification? That's what we don't like.
for example on the first page there's a character breathing fire with the op criticising her revealing attire(which it is) but if you look at the pic she's actually performing too a crowd not fighting a war so why should she be fully armed and armoured i've seen much more entertainers in revealing attire then I have armour
a second example is a picture which seems to be of a girl in a sword dancers outfit being criticised too, shes not in battle she's just striking a pose. again this doesn't really seem an appropriate picture to criticise by all means people can dislike the picture but people shouldn't dislike it for something its not
This is the same logic that a child might use if he or she had to defend themselves in a fight. While a woman has her beautiful body, a child has their innocent eyes and scrawny arms. In highlighting the puppy-dog eyes, perhaps they hope that their enemy will underestimate them, so the child can strike a weak-spot or slip away unharmed. It might work in movies or literature, but in real life, a brute's a brute and that child is likely to be seriously hurt, if not killed.
To quote (ironically) The Incredibles: "Remember the bad guys on the shows you used to watch on Saturday mornings? Well, these guys aren't like those guys. They won't exercise restraint because you are children. They will kill you if they get the chance. Do not give them that chance."
Not really arguing anyone, just something that occurred to me this morning. :P But I think the same line of thinking can apply to a woman who hopes to "distract" a male combatant. I realize that there's a great deal of difference: a child might not have a choice if they hope to survive a fight they didn't expect. A fully-grown, fighting-capable woman, on the other hand, usually does.
Another one that reminds me of Shar-Teel. But i'd want to wear more if I was riding a Dragon. It gets cold up in the sky!
O.O
DAT WITCH NEEDS TO DIE!!!
:P