I'm currently playing a female paladin, so I photoshopped different NWN pics into this one because this is how I picture a female character who's got Str 18 .
I'm currently playing a female paladin, so I photoshopped different NWN pics into this one because this is how I picture a female character who's got Str 18 .
Why so misogynistic? You can be strong AND pretty!
(Coincidentally, this is probably what IRL Shartel looks like.)
Sorry, but misoginy is the feeling of hatred and the practice of violence against women. I don't think you've used it in the right context.
Also, although It is certain that strong athletes can be either slim or "butch" , I wanted to make a portrait that really gave you the idea of muscles , since fantasy warriors are usually portrayed as "fragile hot chick in plate mail".
P.s: I loved the asian chick, that would have been a good inspiration, too.
Now, I actually did train martial arts (no, not internet tough guy, I only said I trained it, I never said I was any good, and it was a while ago) and girls that do martial arts dont look like that.
This is what they look like; 1. Thick arms. They have biceps, but unlike on guys, they only show when they flex. 2. Firm belly (unless chubby) that may or may not have abs. 3. Unflabby legs. They may not look muscular, and they are not necessarily thicker as they have less fat, but... its like... hmm... somehow you can just tell they are sturdier. Difficult to explain. 4. Firm butt... which sometimes become too firm, occasionally losing the feminine cherry form 5. Healthy skin.
So, that picture is NOT of a female warrior. That is a debutante, brandishing a sword to try and look sexy for the benefit of her bratty boyfriend.
Now, of course, sorceresses, wizards, witches etc may be skinny since the generally do not fight with weapons, but if you gonna draw a female fighter, add some damn muscles!!!
Even though a lot of the artists in question wouldn't openly admit it, most of this stuff is simply fetish art and not inteded to realistically represent actual warrior women. Saying the artwork is bad solely based on that reason is unfair.
Even though a lot of the artists in question wouldn't openly admit it, most of this stuff is simply fetish art and not inteded to realistically represent actual warrior women. Saying the artwork is bad solely based on that reason is unfair.
I wouldn't call it bad , in fact, most artists do it do it because they're either paid to do it,have a genuine interest in drawing them, or even do it because drawing model-like girls is way faster and they've got deadlines too.
On the other hand, there are also those inexperienced, sloppy artists who think that drawing hot chicks is what illustration is all about.
Can anyone help me with my custom portrait made by god on page 38 because the medium picture appear but the small one don't.
Can anyone help with this because @God don't seem online and want to know how to fix it.
I posted the original thing here so anyone can see it.
If you meaan that it looks like this: Rather than this: Or even that one of the portraits is completely missing, the way that I correct it is with "Change Portrait" in EE keeper. There is another way as well but you would have to ask others about it. For me that's the easiest way.
Eh, that last win picture doesn't have any muscles; the arms and legs aren't drawn as the ususal thinsticks, but they also lack any detail to appear muscled.
The Red Sonja artworks is good one, very realistic. However, I was talking about, like, the minimal muscle mass conducive to fencing versus your really ripped lady (of course, more = better, when it comes to fencing, but you can do with less, and a lot of female martial artists certainly do with less). Alot of martial arts girls are strong but not ripped, and since artists like to make them ladies sexy and some people do not like muscles on ladies (I do, but I am appearently fairly lonely) I am gonna give all pictures a pass, as long as they have the bare minimum muscle mass. Am I not benevolent?
I wouldn't call it bad , in fact, most artists do it do it because they're either paid to do it,have a genuine interest in drawing them, or even do it because drawing model-like girls is way faster and they've got deadlines too.
"Doctor, how did my heart surgery go?" "Huh? No, sorry, I just removed on of your kidney's, and it went splendid!" "But... I had no problems with my kidney?" "Yeah, but heart surgery is sooo DIFFICULT and I have a deadline to meet. NEXT!"
I notice a correlation between wrong body type and wearing armored bikinis, although your last "win" picture was also guilty of that.
Oh, I know I am gonna draw a lot of heat for this one, but I actually dont think bikini armors are that THAT ridiculous. In general, when it comes to armor more = better. However, armor can also be constrictive, and makes you fatigue longer. For instance, cavalry often had lighter armor than infantry. Now, to be fair, this can partly be adressed with training, and an armor such as forearm protectors, shoulder pads and a short sleeve hauberk can be worn with pretty much NO restriction and no negative impact on stamina, if you have practised a bit, so it wouldnt make much sense not wearing that, even if you reject a full plate mail. HOWEVER, not all warriors are found on the battle field. Shinobi, for instance, like to climb and crawl and so on a lot, and for those particular instances, even this bare minimum armor can be constrictive. For instance, there was a metal armor in WWII called the steel bib, but it was only used for urban fighting, as it made it difficult to crawl in mud. I would also argue that there is also the occasional nutter, who actually thinks any armor at all is to constrictive. So, a warrior might very well be ligthly armored, or even wear nothing but plain clothes.
A bikini is not very intimidating however. Sorry girls, sexual dimorpism is unfair. Thus, obviously, it serves an auxiliary function. I can think of a couple; 1. Rather than intimidating the opponent, and making him lose confidence, it instead inspires OVERconfidence in the opponent, making him sloppy. 2. It increases your chances of survival if you lose. After defeat, your opponent cannot bring himself to cull you, so instead he keeps you / sells you as a sex slave. Hey, you're not dead. 3. Similarly, if the battle goes south, you simple toss your weapon in a nearby bush and you go like "Help! I am just an innocent belly-dancer held captive by the evil army you just defeated! Thank you so much!" 4. You are an assasin, and the purpose of your bikini armor is to lure your prey away to a secluded alley, or locked room, where you can do your dirty-work out of sight.
So, there you go; bikini armors are REALISTIC!!! Deal with it.
The saddest part about that comment is that some people who are gonna read that might actually end up believing it.
That version of Red Sonja isn't wearing armor, that is a leather dress. The only protective bit is the skirt, mainly because in some instances it will catch a sword blow mid air. The part about it being more realistic, is that it is inspired by actual historical clothing. (Note how I say clothing, not armor.)
Those Greek and Roman six pack armors where most likely the result of the wearer trying to compensate for something. It's about looking cool.
Shinobi weren't warriors, they were predominatly spies and assassins who avoided open battle at all cost.
There are a billion reasons as to why an artist might choose to draw the character like that. 90% of the time it is because of tastes.
The only thing realistic about bikini "armor" is that it looks sexy to a lot of people. Gladiator armor is designed like that for two reasons: A. It looks cool and B. the lack of actual protection makes it look even cooler because of all the blood and guts spilling when they are actually hit.
Also, yikes! Women don't have to rely on sex appeal to be effective killers! That sex slave comment is just disgusting. If you are a belly dancer, you wear a belly dancing dress, not bikini mail. And I hope you are keeping in mind that not every oponenent is A. an idiot and B. a slave to their own sexuality. If the oponent even is male and straight. If you are an assassin, you would wear something that doesn't make you look like a fighter of sorts. You'd wear clothing that let's you blend into the situation and/ or gives good camouflage. And not some sorry excuse for "armor" that causes you chaffing.
That part about armor in World War 2 doesn't make sense either. You do realize that people had guns, canons and granades back then, right? Medieval/ antique fighting conventions need not apply. Also, you don't see modern soldier jumping around the battlefield in bathing suits either. They wear full clothing plus a helmet, because some well made clothing already gives a notable amount of protection, namely against scrapes and chaffing.
And now for my finishing argument: Iron, steel, armor were/ are all hella expensive. No leader can afford to put each of their soldiers into a full blown steel suit.
There is no shame in liking bikini armor. But please stop saying it's realistic, which it is clearly not. If it were, there would be historical and scientific evidence for it, of which there is none. It's a fetish, simple as that.
Obvioulsy, there have been some sort of misunderstanding. For me, it would make the most sense for ladies to wear at least a hauberk, as it is unconstrictive, even if they depend on a quick and flashy fighting style (which many people seem to think women do, although actual historical warrior women pretty much used the same equipment as their male counterparts - with the exception of japaneese female militia, who used them spears and bows instead of swords). Now, the "cant afford it" arguement does make a lot of sense, except adventurers who cannot afford armor will have an armor after they down their first armored opponent, so this is obviously NOT the reason bikini armor is utilized.
You see, your comic is off thinking a lack of armor deflects arrow; a lack of armor might, depending on circumstance, let you avoid getting hit in the first place (as you can move faster, more easily access crawlspaces and other shortcuts and / or hiding spaces or become stealthier). Now, as I already stated you could wear normal cloth, rather than a bikini, and achieve the same goal - thus, obviously, a bikini serves an auxiliary function. So, I dont get your argument, because I specifically did say that obviously the bikini armor have an auxiliary function, and you are pretending as if I said it provides protection! That is not a very fair way of arguing!
Its the same with the ninja sword; why is it so short? Because a longer sword makes it more difficult to climb and crawl! Now, obviously, wearing a bikini would cause you to scrape your belly on stones and other raspy or sharp surfaces while crawling and climbing, so the benefit added over normal clothing must be EXCEPTIONAL to compensate. And, for instance, confusing the enemy into thinking you are a belly dancer is far superior than just avoiding a few scraps. It all makes sense, deal with it!
Oh, and BTW yes they did use "medieval" armor in WWII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_Bib And yes, often they did not wear it, because it constrained movement - just as a hauberk might, when, well, you need to access a crawlspace or whatnot.
Edit: Also, I have it on the very good authority of a man who watches a lot of anime that female shinobi would use female charms to lure men into dark alleys or locked rooms - the reason there is no historical evidence is OBVIOUSLY because cloth detoriates quicker.
How about we leave the part about the warrior's sex completely out of the question, because it makes literally no difference if they are male or female.
You literally said it's realistic armor, which it is not. The supossed auxillary function you named is rarely applicable in a practical situation and there are infinitely more better ways to deal with situations like these.
Bikini armor was created by horny nerds for horny nerds. There is no other point to them.
Bikini armor was created by horny nerds for horny nerds. There is no other point to them.
Again, not true. Not all areas of the body are equally likely to get hit, for instance, a lot of leg protectors do not protect the back of the leg, only the front. Now, not protecting the very very vulnerable neck is to me ludicrous, except it is very difficult to make a non-restrictive and sufficiently absorbant neck protector - which one reason why shields are so popular. The face is not very likely to get hit, and also you dont want to block your sight and breathing in any way - especially if you start to panic and therefore hyperventilate, as one might during combat, blocking the mouth is a really shitty idea - which is why so many helmets are open. Your shoulders and forearms are very very likely targets, if not directly aimed at but because you might flail them about, in an effort to avoid getting hit where the opponent actually aimed, so there a bikini armor does not make a lot of sense. However, the chest is very likely target, because it is generally easier to hit the chest than the belly so the bikini makes a bit of sense. Do observe that some real, functional, unisex armors are indeed only a chestplate with leather straps to secure it, and nothing else, see link below. (That armors does not make completely sense to me, I should point out, as while the belly is harder to hit, a hit there is likely fatal, while the chest can take more of a beating).
So, in conclusion, since, in general, you lean forward during a fight, anything below the belly button is less likely to get hit, protecting your chest only CAN make sense. Wearing matching protection for your midsection makes less sense, as it is even less likely to get hit than your belly - so that part is probably mostly estethic, fine. I give you half a point. And also, protecting your chest but not the more likely target, your arms, that makes no sense at all - however, that is how I think, conquistadoras were dressed, so why not? Also, chest protections that are uncovered topside, when most blows that unintentionally slides in will hit topside, that also do not make a lot of sense, but hey, I am not a girl, so I couldn't possibly tell why they do not fully covered chest armors. But it serve some purpose, otherwise, why are they so commonly designed that way? Not wearing a helmet however, a lot of historical soldiers did not, despite the fact that the head is a very lucrative target - comparatively to other body parts easy to hit and deals a lot of damage - doesnt make sense for me, but it did for them. And if it did for them, why not for bikini warriors?
In combat theory, there is a formula for decreasing the lethality of incoming attacks that goes something like this "armor X increase chance of surviving a hit with Y % and have the disadvantage of Z". So, for instance, a chestplate might not work all of the time, but still makes sense. Say your unit of 500 soldiers are likely to get hit 100 times during the capture of a fort or whatnot, and 50% of those hits are the on the chest, and the chestplate protects 20% of the time - well, that is now 10 bikini warriors that DID NOT die, all thanks to their bikini armor.
So, a chestplate with just a little overhang for the belly CAN make sense (even though, personally, if I was a girl and in the chauvunistic stereotype fashion to weak to wear full-plate* or if I had a flashy fighting style dependent on speed, I would wear a hauberk, with shoulder puffs, reinforced forearm protectors and an open helmet) as part of a formal bikini warrior infantry unit equipment. And, an adventurer lady who was taught figting by this unit might have never reflected upon why they wear only a chestplate and nothing else (because it makes sense in a unit of 500 soldiers, but less so for a single adventurer) she just goes like "well, this is the way they have always done it, who am I to question?". Deal with it.
*But lol lets get real, a full plate is only 30 kg, a female soldier WOULD be able to use it if she wanted it enough, by started pulling weights two hours a day for a month prior to the upcoming battle.
@DrakeICN This thread is for portraits. It's been that way for 40 pages.
If you want to create a thread proving the realism of "bikini armor", you can do that in the off-topic forum section. But please, keep in mind, that historically, there was no such armor as "bikini armor", this term appeared in the Internet regarding fanart and other pictures. So you can't justify any realism of "bikini armor" by talking about historic chestplates. If you want to talk about armor, please, source historic researches and provide more than the results of a google search of images.
Again, if you want to discuss that, this thread is not the best place.
This is one I recently found and started to use. I don't know the creator, I found it at https://www.pinterest.com/corsetologie/angua-von-uberwald/ . It's based on Ingrid Bolso's portrayal of Angua von Überwald in the movie of Terry Pratchett's "Going Postal". It is, to me, a far more realistic view.
Comments
Why so misogynistic? You can be strong AND pretty!
(Coincidentally, this is probably what IRL Shartel looks like.)
I mean, the first girl is perhaps not the prettiest, but look at that asian chick
Also, although It is certain that strong athletes can be either slim or "butch" , I wanted to make a portrait that really gave you the idea of muscles , since fantasy warriors are usually portrayed as "fragile hot chick in plate mail".
P.s: I loved the asian chick, that would have been a good inspiration, too.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/38/62/1b/38621b3f412821a9769bcb91b2c88656.jpg
Now, I actually did train martial arts (no, not internet tough guy, I only said I trained it, I never said I was any good, and it was a while ago) and girls that do martial arts dont look like that.
This is what they look like;
1. Thick arms. They have biceps, but unlike on guys, they only show when they flex.
2. Firm belly (unless chubby) that may or may not have abs.
3. Unflabby legs. They may not look muscular, and they are not necessarily thicker as they have less fat, but... its like... hmm... somehow you can just tell they are sturdier. Difficult to explain.
4. Firm butt... which sometimes become too firm, occasionally losing the feminine cherry form
5. Healthy skin.
So, that picture is NOT of a female warrior. That is a debutante, brandishing a sword to try and look sexy for the benefit of her bratty boyfriend.
https://heroineimages.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/longboat_captain2.jpg
Thats more like it, there we go!
Another fail;
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/7b/28/3e/7b283e5019601164377ef99d39c02563.jpg
Another win;
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e0/d8/af/e0d8afae6192c24908e844ef6cb369c2.jpg
Now, of course, sorceresses, wizards, witches etc may be skinny since the generally do not fight with weapons, but if you gonna draw a female fighter, add some damn muscles!!!
On the other hand, there are also those inexperienced, sloppy artists who think that drawing hot chicks is what illustration is all about.
Can anyone help with this because @God don't seem online and want to know how to fix it.
I posted the original thing here so anyone can see it.
Rather than this:
Or even that one of the portraits is completely missing, the way that I correct it is with "Change Portrait" in EE keeper. There is another way as well but you would have to ask others about it. For me that's the easiest way.
The Red Sonja artworks is good one, very realistic. However, I was talking about, like, the minimal muscle mass conducive to fencing versus your really ripped lady (of course, more = better, when it comes to fencing, but you can do with less, and a lot of female martial artists certainly do with less). Alot of martial arts girls are strong but not ripped, and since artists like to make them ladies sexy and some people do not like muscles on ladies (I do, but I am appearently fairly lonely) I am gonna give all pictures a pass, as long as they have the bare minimum muscle mass. Am I not benevolent?
"Doctor, how did my heart surgery go?"
"Huh? No, sorry, I just removed on of your kidney's, and it went splendid!"
"But... I had no problems with my kidney?"
"Yeah, but heart surgery is sooo DIFFICULT and I have a deadline to meet. NEXT!"
Oh, I know I am gonna draw a lot of heat for this one, but I actually dont think bikini armors are that THAT ridiculous. In general, when it comes to armor more = better. However, armor can also be constrictive, and makes you fatigue longer. For instance, cavalry often had lighter armor than infantry. Now, to be fair, this can partly be adressed with training, and an armor such as forearm protectors, shoulder pads and a short sleeve hauberk can be worn with pretty much NO restriction and no negative impact on stamina, if you have practised a bit, so it wouldnt make much sense not wearing that, even if you reject a full plate mail. HOWEVER, not all warriors are found on the battle field. Shinobi, for instance, like to climb and crawl and so on a lot, and for those particular instances, even this bare minimum armor can be constrictive. For instance, there was a metal armor in WWII called the steel bib, but it was only used for urban fighting, as it made it difficult to crawl in mud. I would also argue that there is also the occasional nutter, who actually thinks any armor at all is to constrictive. So, a warrior might very well be ligthly armored, or even wear nothing but plain clothes.
Secondly, if two combatants are roughly equally skilled, psychology plays a big part. For instance look at this greek armors;
http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/images/Section/medium/13.png
Why would an armor need abs??? Its psychology! Likewise, observe the gladiator;
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b9/f7/8e/b9f78e62cb119f1f6cd8ed9de5ebb807.jpg
Now, to be fair, they were dressed like that to look more spectacular, but, believe it or not, showing off your hairy chest may actually be a BETTER defense than covering it, as you will look more intimidating if your are ripped as hell.
A bikini is not very intimidating however. Sorry girls, sexual dimorpism is unfair. Thus, obviously, it serves an auxiliary function. I can think of a couple;
1. Rather than intimidating the opponent, and making him lose confidence, it instead inspires OVERconfidence in the opponent, making him sloppy.
2. It increases your chances of survival if you lose. After defeat, your opponent cannot bring himself to cull you, so instead he keeps you / sells you as a sex slave. Hey, you're not dead.
3. Similarly, if the battle goes south, you simple toss your weapon in a nearby bush and you go like "Help! I am just an innocent belly-dancer held captive by the evil army you just defeated! Thank you so much!"
4. You are an assasin, and the purpose of your bikini armor is to lure your prey away to a secluded alley, or locked room, where you can do your dirty-work out of sight.
So, there you go; bikini armors are REALISTIC!!! Deal with it.
The saddest part about that comment is that some people who are gonna read that might actually end up believing it.
That version of Red Sonja isn't wearing armor, that is a leather dress.
The only protective bit is the skirt, mainly because in some instances it will catch a sword blow mid air.
The part about it being more realistic, is that it is inspired by actual historical clothing. (Note how I say clothing, not armor.)
Those Greek and Roman six pack armors where most likely the result of the wearer trying to compensate for something. It's about looking cool.
Shinobi weren't warriors, they were predominatly spies and assassins who avoided open battle at all cost.
There are a billion reasons as to why an artist might choose to draw the character like that.
90% of the time it is because of tastes.
The only thing realistic about bikini "armor" is that it looks sexy to a lot of people.
Gladiator armor is designed like that for two reasons: A. It looks cool and B. the lack of actual protection makes it look even cooler because of all the blood and guts spilling when they are actually hit.
Also, yikes! Women don't have to rely on sex appeal to be effective killers!
That sex slave comment is just disgusting.
If you are a belly dancer, you wear a belly dancing dress, not bikini mail.
And I hope you are keeping in mind that not every oponenent is A. an idiot and B. a slave to their own sexuality. If the oponent even is male and straight.
If you are an assassin, you would wear something that doesn't make you look like a fighter of sorts. You'd wear clothing that let's you blend into the situation and/ or gives good camouflage. And not some sorry excuse for "armor" that causes you chaffing.
That part about armor in World War 2 doesn't make sense either.
You do realize that people had guns, canons and granades back then, right?
Medieval/ antique fighting conventions need not apply.
Also, you don't see modern soldier jumping around the battlefield in bathing suits either. They wear full clothing plus a helmet, because some well made clothing already gives a notable amount of protection, namely against scrapes and chaffing.
And now for my finishing argument:
Iron, steel, armor were/ are all hella expensive.
No leader can afford to put each of their soldiers into a full blown steel suit.
There is no shame in liking bikini armor.
But please stop saying it's realistic, which it is clearly not.
If it were, there would be historical and scientific evidence for it, of which there is none.
It's a fetish, simple as that.
Some comics by Nebezial regarding the topic:
You see, your comic is off thinking a lack of armor deflects arrow; a lack of armor might, depending on circumstance, let you avoid getting hit in the first place (as you can move faster, more easily access crawlspaces and other shortcuts and / or hiding spaces or become stealthier). Now, as I already stated you could wear normal cloth, rather than a bikini, and achieve the same goal - thus, obviously, a bikini serves an auxiliary function. So, I dont get your argument, because I specifically did say that obviously the bikini armor have an auxiliary function, and you are pretending as if I said it provides protection! That is not a very fair way of arguing!
Its the same with the ninja sword; why is it so short? Because a longer sword makes it more difficult to climb and crawl! Now, obviously, wearing a bikini would cause you to scrape your belly on stones and other raspy or sharp surfaces while crawling and climbing, so the benefit added over normal clothing must be EXCEPTIONAL to compensate. And, for instance, confusing the enemy into thinking you are a belly dancer is far superior than just avoiding a few scraps. It all makes sense, deal with it!
Oh, and BTW yes they did use "medieval" armor in WWII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_Bib
And yes, often they did not wear it, because it constrained movement - just as a hauberk might, when, well, you need to access a crawlspace or whatnot.
Edit: Also, I have it on the very good authority of a man who watches a lot of anime that female shinobi would use female charms to lure men into dark alleys or locked rooms - the reason there is no historical evidence is OBVIOUSLY because cloth detoriates quicker.
You literally said it's realistic armor, which it is not.
The supossed auxillary function you named is rarely applicable in a practical situation and there are infinitely more better ways to deal with situations like these.
Bikini armor was created by horny nerds for horny nerds.
There is no other point to them.
Sorry for bringing better arguments to the table and not relying on misconceptions to make an (obviously false) point?
PS: We shouldn't derail this thread any further, feel free to hit me up via PM if you want to add anything else.
https://www.google.se/search?q=chestplate&safe=off&biw=1794&bih=927&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_7oHl9MHSAhViG5oKHausAbsQ_AUIBigB#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=chest+plate+armor&*
So, in conclusion, since, in general, you lean forward during a fight, anything below the belly button is less likely to get hit, protecting your chest only CAN make sense. Wearing matching protection for your midsection makes less sense, as it is even less likely to get hit than your belly - so that part is probably mostly estethic, fine. I give you half a point. And also, protecting your chest but not the more likely target, your arms, that makes no sense at all - however, that is how I think, conquistadoras were dressed, so why not? Also, chest protections that are uncovered topside, when most blows that unintentionally slides in will hit topside, that also do not make a lot of sense, but hey, I am not a girl, so I couldn't possibly tell why they do not fully covered chest armors. But it serve some purpose, otherwise, why are they so commonly designed that way? Not wearing a helmet however, a lot of historical soldiers did not, despite the fact that the head is a very lucrative target - comparatively to other body parts easy to hit and deals a lot of damage - doesnt make sense for me, but it did for them. And if it did for them, why not for bikini warriors?
In combat theory, there is a formula for decreasing the lethality of incoming attacks that goes something like this "armor X increase chance of surviving a hit with Y % and have the disadvantage of Z". So, for instance, a chestplate might not work all of the time, but still makes sense. Say your unit of 500 soldiers are likely to get hit 100 times during the capture of a fort or whatnot, and 50% of those hits are the on the chest, and the chestplate protects 20% of the time - well, that is now 10 bikini warriors that DID NOT die, all thanks to their bikini armor.
So, a chestplate with just a little overhang for the belly CAN make sense (even though, personally, if I was a girl and in the chauvunistic stereotype fashion to weak to wear full-plate* or if I had a flashy fighting style dependent on speed, I would wear a hauberk, with shoulder puffs, reinforced forearm protectors and an open helmet) as part of a formal bikini warrior infantry unit equipment. And, an adventurer lady who was taught figting by this unit might have never reflected upon why they wear only a chestplate and nothing else (because it makes sense in a unit of 500 soldiers, but less so for a single adventurer) she just goes like "well, this is the way they have always done it, who am I to question?". Deal with it.
*But lol lets get real, a full plate is only 30 kg, a female soldier WOULD be able to use it if she wanted it enough, by started pulling weights two hours a day for a month prior to the upcoming battle.
If you want to create a thread proving the realism of "bikini armor", you can do that in the off-topic forum section. But please, keep in mind, that historically, there was no such armor as "bikini armor", this term appeared in the Internet regarding fanart and other pictures. So you can't justify any realism of "bikini armor" by talking about historic chestplates. If you want to talk about armor, please, source historic researches and provide more than the results of a google search of images.
Again, if you want to discuss that, this thread is not the best place.
Enajola by sharandula
BELLA CRAWFORD by LoranDeSore
Mongol by LoranDeSore
Crimson Peak by Charlie-Bowater
birth by fire by adelruna
Knight with a Blue Scarf by Greg-Opalinski
Glam Rock Dwarf Bard by DSBlake
A dwarf's gotta do what a dwarf's gotta do.
This is one I recently found and started to use. I don't know the creator, I found it at https://www.pinterest.com/corsetologie/angua-von-uberwald/ . It's based on Ingrid Bolso's portrayal of Angua von Überwald in the movie of Terry Pratchett's "Going Postal". It is, to me, a far more realistic view.
Halfling by Chris Casciano
Goblin Shaman by Mahaha1985
For one can never have enough shorties. Nevar!