| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 16:54:29
|
Poll Question:
Continued from the discussion that the Drow scroll developed:
To sum up the discussion so far, fantasy armor is getting to the point of skimpy and rediculous in the opinions of many scribes. The armor, as depicted by many artists these days, is less than functional and appears more as 'metallic lingerie' than anything remotely useful in deflecting and attenuating the blows received during combat. By less than functional, I mean to state that the armor provides minimal protection, the prevalent example being a chain mail bikini. Yes, it's technically a chain mail but there is no plausible way it provides the same type of protection that full chain mail provides.
The counter point to this is the Suspension of Disbelief argument basically stating that this is fantasy and reality should not enter too heavily into it. Scribe Old Man Harpell made a very valid point regarding a world where dragons and mages tossing fireballs are relatively common. If you allow too many real-world properties to take over, the dragon will simply squash the adventurer by stepping upon or landing on them. Realistic armor is therefore pointless.
So where do we as a group come down in our preferences for depictions of armor? Realistic depictions which include common parts of armor and its design to deflect and attenuate blows? More fantastic versions requiring more suspension of disbelief and taking into account magical properties? Or does our preference lie in between with basic armor components being designed for visual appeal?
Discuss but, remember we are each expressing our OPINION and each scribes opinion is as valid as your own. Therefore, I ask that the tone remain civil.
Good Hunting!
|
| Results: |
| Realistic |
 [37%] |
22 votes |
| Fantastic |
[8%] |
5 votes |
| Somewhere Between |
[55%] |
33 votes |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 60 counted »» |
Last Vote:
18 Mar 2012 02:12:42 |
|
|
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
Edited by - Wolfhound75 on 22 Apr 2012 21:51:33
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 17:07:12
|
| I think it all depends on how you want to run your game. Personally it does not bother me at all allowing a player to deck their female character out in a chainmail bikini (or whatever). Most people probably play D&D as a fantasy setting versus playing as a "reality" setting. I think it's sort of silly to complain about skimpy armor in a setting where characters can nearly do anything they can imagine. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
 |
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 17:07:17
|
I voted "somewhere between".
I think the armors shown in the FRCS for one of the Chosen (Storm or Dove, was it?) fit the somewhere between description. Also the armor for Myrmeen Lhal depicted on the cover of the novel Night Parade.
To me, this armor is sexy, but it also looks practical and capable of providing protection. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 17:09:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I voted "somewhere between".
I think the armors shown in the FRCS for one of the Chosen (Storm or Dove, was it?) fit the somewhere between description. Also the armor for Myrmeen Lhal depicted on the cover of the novel Night Parade.
To me, this armor is sexy, but it also looks practical and capable of providing protection.
The Night Parade did have a great cover  |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 17:15:18
|
I voted somewhere between, leaning toward realistic. I'll paste what I said in the other thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Let me address this by way of an analogy: In the fantasy crpg Dragon Age 2, the concept of the game is that a bard (prone to obnoxious exaggeration) is telling the story of the main hero ("Hawke," who might be male or female as you the player prefer). The "prologue" of the game is particularly exaggerated, before the bard gets down to "this is what really happened" and describes the rest of the story. Anyway, in the prologue, Hawke's sister (a Mage) is considerably bustier than in the actual game. It's a subtle nuance, but a telling one.
A fantasy story is just that--a STORY, full of wild and amazing things that defy disbelief, highlighting impossible feats of skill and art, and prone to wild exaggeration. Looked at from that lens, of course characters are going to wear impractical things and be improbably good looking. Tiny imperfections and trivial things like functionality of armor are less important than conveying the essence of a character or story.
That does not mean there shouldn't be some level of restraint as regards portraying appearance or dress. Women are just as likely to be objectified in fantasy as anywhere (more so, even), and we should be vigilant against this. I am a proponent of female fantasy armor that leans toward the realistic side, rather than the less practical.
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 17:17:33
|
I'm voting for realistic. I am not a fan of skimpy armor, 'boobplates' (like the one from The Night Parade, which would drive blows directly at the sternum, and--at the very least--knock the wind from the wearer every other blow), or other clearly non-functioning armor designed to reveal the female figure rather than actually protect.
There is a place for sexy, and even a place for sexy armor, in fantasy artwork. But I prefer the functional to the anatomical, by quite a large margin. |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 17:22:09
|
I voted 'Fantastic'.
The arguments I made in the 'Drow Pics' scroll aside, this poll affords the opportunity to present one additional perspective.
When we employ strict 'realism', it negates the possibility of anything else, if you take the arguments of armorers and strict-interpretationists at face value (although to be perfectly fair, many of them are likely presenting the argument from a strictly 'what I can tell you' perspective). There is no possibility of the 'fantasy' element of armor design, because fantasy (aka 'absurd') armor does not do X...only realistic armor can do X.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, 'Fantasy' allows for every possible and conceivable style, including realistic armor style. I shudder to think of Azoun IV in anything but realistic armor, to be perfectly frank.
Fantasy armor allows for concepts and processes not available to real-world armorers, metallurgists, and metalsmiths, hence the 'chain bikini' may have passive protection enchantments, elemental resistances, dexterity boosts, and so forth. You wouldn't see a lady in the Purple Dragons caught dead in such a garment, no, but for a warrior or bard from Calimshan, where the heat will literally roast one alive in a suit of full plate (that has no magical way to prevent this, impossible under realistic rules), such things would likely be more commonplace and useful, and certainly made available for export and sale to foreigners...for a nice fee, of course.
Similarly, a priestess of Kelemvor or Lathander (for example) would likely not don such articles (unless the armor were really powerful), but clerics of Sune, Loviatar, and Sharess would naturally gravitate to articles of this sort. Each deity's clergy would likely consider ability, utility, and yes, image, before allowing such things - but the option is always there.
And of course, it depends on if the DM - Ao's boss - allows it. 
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 17 Feb 2012 17:25:57 |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 17:28:18
|
My interest is from an artist's viewpoint. I like to draw and have made a habit of drawing every character from every game I've played in and giving a copy to the chacter's player. DM's get a special treat but since I'm currently involved in a PBeM campaign with another scribe, I'll keep that treat quiet for the time being.
To me, I think the armor should at least supply the impression that it is capable of providing protection to its wearer but, it doesn't have to be perfectly realistic in its design and articulation.
To sum up, a chain mail bikini, IMO, is stretching this required impression too far but, a breastplate with accomodations for female anatomy works just fine. It provides the essential impression that the armor is effective at stopping blows but has some fantastic design features, specifically breast bumps that would in reality guide attacks into the wearer's centerline as opposed to away from, that would never be seen on real armor.
It's also interesting to note that older D&D images of female melee did not make many allowances for differing armors between males and females. They definately subscribed more to the realistic, practical design looks rather than the fantastic, visually appealing if impractical design and at least in my groups, no one seemed to think that was amiss back in the day.
I find myself coming down in the area of Somewhere Between when I find myself sketching. To me, if the armor gives the impression it is effective, you can add whatever fantastic elements you wish so long as they don't ruin that impression.
Good Hunting! |
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 17:28:51
|
Armour that relies on structural integrity and material properties to deflect, diffuse and absorb blows ought to be functional in design and appearance.
On the other hand, bizarre impractical 'quasi-armour' things are perfectly viable as items of magical protection. They might slightly deflect blows away from the body with a repellor effect, generate a slight force field over the vital areas (or all the body) or some might be designed attract blows that would otherwise hit open areas to the strongest point of the 'armour'.
Yes, it is probably most effective in absolute terms when metallurgy, engineering, craftmanship and the Art are all utilised to produce a final product that resembles the finest real world armours, but is made of metal magically strengthened and magically repels attacks enough to deflect some of them and dampens the energy of those that do hit. The brutal selection process of warfare would ensure that full-time warriors ended up having as much of these elements present as they could afford.
But people who are not warriors on a battlefield and for whom protection is merely one goal among many, with other important factors being comfort, social acceptability and yes, fashion and aesthetic concerns, it makes perfect sense that some people would choose less effective, but more stylish, methods of protection. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 17:54:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Yes, it is probably most effective in absolute terms when metallurgy, engineering, craftmanship and the Art are all utilised to produce a final product that resembles the finest real world armours, but is made of metal magically strengthened and magically repels attacks enough to deflect some of them and dampens the energy of those that do hit. The brutal selection process of warfare would ensure that full-time warriors ended up having as much of these elements present as they could afford.
But people who are not warriors on a battlefield and for whom protection is merely one goal among many, with other important factors being comfort, social acceptability and yes, fashion and aesthetic concerns, it makes perfect sense that some people would choose less effective, but more stylish, methods of protection.
Well-said!  |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 18:32:52
|
The current vogue is for armour drawn to look 'cool', as if it was a one-off piece of concept-designed costume rather than gear made by a town armourer. That's appropriate for a few rich, flamboyant characters, but not for most warriors and adventurers in a world where people visit the jakes, get knocked down in mud, clean out the pans, take pratfalls from time to time, and which is deeply rooted in a sword-and-sorcery tradition that grounds the fantastic in (a kind of) realism.
The Realms norm is thus 'somewhere between', but veering a good deal closer to historical European armour than to Warhammer chaos warrior armour, runway outfits, or cheesecake.
Where did you last see a chainmail bikini, though? Sexy and revealing clothes are good. I suggest wanting to combine them with armour is a slightly odd fetish. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 18:34:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Garen Thal
I'm voting for realistic. I am not a fan of skimpy armor, 'boobplates' (like the one from The Night Parade, which would drive blows directly at the sternum, and--at the very least--knock the wind from the wearer every other blow), or other clearly non-functioning armor designed to reveal the female figure rather than actually protect.
There is a place for sexy, and even a place for sexy armor, in fantasy artwork. But I prefer the functional to the anatomical, by quite a large margin.
Yeah, that's my stance. I'm as fond of looking at the female form as any other straight male, but chain mail bikinis or boobplate armor (great word, there, Garen!) is pushing it. I can see that for non-combat situations, but anyone expecting to need armor for protection is going to expect protection.
I also think that boobplate would take more metal, and certainly more fitting, than armor like what Alusair was wearing on the cover of Crusade -- something that didn't exactly hide her gender, but that didn't emphasize it, either. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Mumadar Ibn Huzal
Master of Realmslore
1338 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 18:40:19
|
I voted for realistic.
The fantastic might be appealing to the eyes at times, but eventhough we have a magical world, the realistic armor adds some grittiness and seriousness that the chainmail bikinis do not give.
To react on something OMH mentioned, a warrior from Calimshan being in Calimshan would be an idiot if he/she would be wearing a full suit of plate armor unless some fancy magical AC would be built in. Now the desire from players to still deck out a character in armor comes from the rules that are skewed towards a simplistic armor bonus without taking environmental penalties into account. Sure there are optional rules etc. to simulate these, but often these are viewed as 'burdensome' by player's and DM's alike. (I see the attack bonusses and increasing number of hitpoint creatures need to have as PCs gain levels in the same vein) Similarly, if e.g. a ranger or a rogue would not lose the bonus for wearing light armor, very few characters would opt for leather, studded leather etc. Here at least a form of 'realism' is built into the rules from the start. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 18:48:05
|
Its a game about FANTASY.
If I wanted realistic armor, I'd go look in a history book.
That being said, I like my female (and male) heroes to be wearing 'prettier' armor. I want my Northmen to have horned helmets (despite evidence they never did any such thing). I want weapons that realistically would be far to heavy to wield.
They are fighting dragons and chucking fireballs around... and you are complaining about whats getting covered (or not covered) by their armor? 
Look at it this way - its like shields, or even a Tonfa (which modern police forces use). Its not about size, its about effectively placing the item between you and the weapon. In a fantasy game, is it so hard to imagine that certain schools of fighting have developed where they have learned to use minimal armor (like bracers), in order to move with maximum agility and therefor fight more effectively AND be able to dodge and parry FAR better?
We have RW martial arts styles like 'Drunk Monkey', which actually requires the user to be stinking drunk. RW martial artists also eschew armor to move in a manner I just described, and use their weapons and body in such a way as to get hit less often, or 'roll with the blows'.
Wearing 'lingerie armor' is akin to wearing a buckler - its for blocking, but you have to be trained to use it effectively.
We also have dwarves and Elves in a fantasy world, and Elves tend to turn everything into 'art' (it must be functional and also look beautiful), and dwarves are such fine craftsmen they can do a lot more with a lot less, and still have it look amazing.
And finally, we have enchantments (I believe they had to alter alias' story so that her armor was enchanted, because of the illustrations). On a world where this sort of armor exists, the need for full coverage is not as severe, and therefor the fighting styles would develop to reflect this. Since primitive humans probably learned their combat techniques from the Elves, and their metalurgy from the dwarves (something I assume RW humans never got to do), I have no problem excepting that the 'norm' for a fantasy setting doesn't even have to approach that of our RW.
I go back to the Elves again, and in particular, The Crown Wars - do you think they stomped around like 'walking tanks' fighting each other? I really doubt that. The primitive humans who witnessed those titanic battles must have been in awe of the way the elves moved, turning lethal combat into a beautiful dance of death, gracefully spinning and twirling and all the while remaining in-motion.
This was ingrained in the human psyche - being weighed-down by heavy armor is far less effective then being able to get out of the way of blows. So blame the elves for 'cutesy armor' - why not? We blame them for just about everything else in FR. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Feb 2012 18:51:47 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 19:15:56
|
I can see your point, Markus, but at the same time, there's a difference between wearing some stylin' armor that still offers full protection, and wearing armor that is armor in name only. A chain mail bikini, for example, isn't protecting much more than a couple of very strategic bits, which aren't likely to be the target of someone intending harm, anyway.
I think the question here isn't about real-world armor types versus fantastic alternates, as opposed to armor that realistically protects versus armor that looks good and protects little.
It's similar to previous discussions about how females in fantasy are often depicted dressed in the equivalent of lingerie or slinky evening gowns, even when in situations where such attire would be incredibly impractical. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 19:34:28
|
I think that the problem lies in the fact that many artists do not take time to study examples of armor before drawing their figures.
What are the differences between bracers and vambraces? Or what's a rerebrace and what does it protect? How about a spaulder or a pauldron? If an artist doesn't know the parts of armor, how can they represent them correctly? They plan out their figure's pose then slap a few lines for armor on them. It's often misdrawn under the excuse that it's 'fantasy' and so the armor doesn't have to look realistic. Fantasy or realistic, it still needs to meet the requirement of providing protection for the wearer or in a melee with some dungeon dwelling nasty intent on ripping you to shreds, you're going to get the bloody end of the spear in your guts.
A perfect example of this, IMO, are breast plates. They are frequently misdrawn as covering the wearer to the tops of their hips. Breast plates cover exactly what the name says, the chest area. They stop at the bottom of the rib cage - what is known as the natural waist. To extend as far as they're typically rendered, it would prevent the wearer from bending around the waist/abdomen area. To give a comical spin to how this would look, picture cutting head, arm, and leg holes in a barrel and strapping that around your torso, then try to engage in a melee brawl with a couple of opponents - unwieldy at best and probably fatal because of lack of mobility.
To expand on what Mumadar said above, a quick historical look at the armors of the middle east show that, in general, the heaviest armors were chain mails and even most of these when examined are closer to what D&D calls a chain shirt than a full chain mail. Examples of splint mails can be found in limited use in certain areas but by far, to use D&D terms, the most common were Padded/Leathers with mails only being donned when extremely heavy combat was expected or in certain geographic areas. Why? Well, having spent seven years in the middle east and wearing the modern equivilent of armor, it's too blasted hot in many areas. You'd cook yourself, literally.
Mumadar was right on the target with his statement that few characters would opt for lighter armors if their classes didn't lose their bonuses. The game mechanic does a great job building in the fact that highly mobile fighters can't wear heavier plate armors and to add to MT's statement about training, this is reflected in the monk's AC bonus as they progress in levels. The extra weight and decrease in the armor's articulation does not allow them easy use of their fighting style, and even impinges upon it making it impossible to fight in that manner.
So making allowances for the fantastic setting (meaning the inclusion of magical means of protection), as an amateur artist I still try to include as many correct parts of armor as I can so that there is no doubt that it is in fact armor but, perhaps I'd modify the asthetics of the piece slightly without going to rediculous (chain mail bikini for example) to allow for individual taste in the flavor of a piece. Ultimately though, you have to view armor for what it is - protection. If it doesn't cover, it can't protect without the aid of magic.
Good Hunting!
DISCLAIMER - @Mumadar - the recent piece I uploaded to the share site for Alandia is a perfect example of misdrawn armor. It was done so at the request of the player. You'll see a marked difference in how Braddock's armor is rendered when I finish that piece. |
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
Edited by - Wolfhound75 on 17 Feb 2012 19:41:03 |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 19:55:21
|
| Some characters don't wear and need armor at all. Just because a female warrior is pictured in something that LOOKS like armor (because it's metallic or it covers "weak spots") doesn't mean it has to be actual, functioning armor, it can as well be just for show. And I doubt that a couple of pieces of metal restrict you like a full-plate, mechanically or realistically. How many of those women in chainmail bikinies (excluding such things like Chainmail Bikini 3rd party book or similar half serious products) have in their statblocks written "full-plate armor"? |
[url=http://expensiveautomobile.com/2009-bmw-3-series-uk-version/]2009 bmw 3 series uk version[/url] [url=http://expensiveautomobile.com/2009-bmw-3-series-touring-uk-version/]2009 bmw 3 series touring uk version[/url] |
Edited by - Imp on 17 Feb 2012 19:56:03 |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 20:31:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
Some characters don't wear and need armor at all.
This brings up another, separate problem. "She doesn't need armor" is often an excuse for an artist to depict a character in as skimpy an outfit as possible.
quote:
Just because a female warrior is pictured in something that LOOKS like armor (because it's metallic or it covers "weak spots") doesn't mean it has to be actual, functioning armor, it can as well be just for show. And I doubt that a couple of pieces of metal restrict you like a full-plate, mechanically or realistically. How many of those women in chainmail bikinies (excluding such things like Chainmail Bikini 3rd party book or similar half serious products) have in their statblocks written "full-plate armor"?
Again, mechanical protection is fine, unless it's provided as an excuse to ignore the intended functionality of armor.
It's quite true that some beings do walk around with diamond-hard flesh, needing no more protection than tissue paper. It's also true that some beings have no modesty whatever, and care little for hiding the splendors of their bared forms from whatever prying eyes might be nearby.
What is decidedly not true is that all of these beings are female, or beautiful females, and those that are don't universally shun the use of full tunics or blouses or breeches or skirts or pants.
I can agree that there may be some schools of fighting where warriors might wear only (for instance) bracers and greaves. What I can't buy is the argument that "it's fantasy," and therefore somehow acceptable that such orders be populated by beautifully-featured buxom women whose hips look suspiciously unfeminine and who decide that their armor is so overwhelmingly hot that they need only don the fantasy equivalent of a bikini to go along with it. At the very least, I'd expect a thigh-length tunic, if not a full pair of leather breeches and a linen shirt (with a leather vest, you know, because).
If nearly every man in D&D was geared up and stripped down like He-Man, people would have a problem with the depictions. It shouldn't be okay for us to hand-wave the illustrations of women in armor if we demand more realism from male characters.
I don't really want to derail this discussion any more, though, so I'll try and keep quiet. I think everyone's aware of my perspective. |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 20:49:27
|
| If anyone is in any way confused about what a chainmail bikini is, then please do a google image search of "Red Sonja." |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 20:53:00
|
quote:
If nearly every man in D&D was geared up and stripped down like He-Man, people would have a problem with the depictions. It shouldn't be okay for us to hand-wave the illustrations of women in armor if we demand more realism from male characters.
If most of fantasy fans were women then we would indeed see He-manesque characters all over the place. However, a higher percentage of fantasy fans are males. Look at the cover of any romance novel to see the inverse.
Sex sells. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:14:34
|
| Unrealistic armor is fine as long as the artists stay away from the ludicrous examples of male-gaze you see in comics and some of the earlier-edition illustrations. No chainmail bikinis, no women twisted at spine-breaking angles so you can see her breasts and butt at the same time (even epic level rouges barely have the Dexterity score to do that ), not so many wizards robes that are so tight they look like a cover of paint. |
Edited by - Eladrinstar on 17 Feb 2012 21:16:11 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:20:23
|
Mmmmmmmm... Red Sonja.
Both Conan and Peter Parker are lucky guys.
And BTW, see if you spot my homages to Conan lore on my Chult map. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:21:56
|
| It some ways I believe topic/poll too limited. As one posted up above , "It's magic.". Something like a ring and cloak both plus five is better then plate armour. Also magical weapons will cut though plate. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Lady Shadowflame
Learned Scribe
115 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:30:49
|
Fantasy worlds should be internally consistent.
So they need to have some sort of logic to them. And that means that, as I said in the other thread, Miss Buxom in the chainmail bikini will not automatically distract all her enemies or have them be reluctant to hit her. After all, she herself is trying to be proof of female fighters. Is she a special snowflake and the only one? No, there are others. Therefore, she might have to face one. And there goes her advantage.
Similarly, if the guy she's waving her girls at is gay, he's not gonna be moved by it.
People in fantasy should be more than cardboard cutouts. Which means a certain level of underlying realism. Special magic armour blah de blah blah, yeah, I get it. But don't try to sell me on the idea that midriff-baring, cleavagey armour will be in any way comfortable without magic.
No amount of "it's fantasy!" gets rid of some things. Breasts bounce when not properly supported. This is at times painful.
Fantasy involves a fantastic environment. However, we enjoy it through the filter of people in it. This sort of thing is akin to claiming "well, food is boring! Let's take out all the mentions of food and food production from our fantasy, to spend more time on the fighting!" Most people need food. The existence, in fantasy, of 'special' characters who don't, does not negate the rest. Expect people to look at the peasants and go "But what do they eat? What strangely nonspecific substance are they farming?"
Similarly, I look at the armour and go "...That would hurt. I know that would hurt."
As one link in the other thread noted, if you want to look at women not wearing very much... why not get, you know, pictures of undressed or semi-undressed women, instead of turning all the pics of the women in action into ones with logic-defying skimpy armour?
I get it. You want to look at women. But even in pictures, there is a time and a place. Commission 'Weariness,' a picture of, say, Alusair taking off her armour and gear after a long day. But let her have the pictures where, when she has her clothes on, they are functional clothes. Please. |
Save a lizard... Ride a drow.
|
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:34:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I want weapons that realistically would be far to heavy to wield.
Why is that an appealing fantasy?quote:
They are fighting dragons and chucking fireballs around... and you are complaining about whats getting covered (or not covered) by their armor?
That's a non sequitur: consistency and verisimilitude aren't limited to kitchen-sink realism. Fireballs and armour are both a certain way in Faerūn.
The rest of your post is a fine argument for some armour, but not why all or most should be so.quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
However, a higher percentage of fantasy fans are males.
Not so. |
Edited by - Faraer on 17 Feb 2012 22:19:03 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:39:49
|
I put somewhere in the between..... which is where I'll stay.
not all armor is intended for battle.... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:42:23
|
Wow. I went a whole two posts without starting my reply.
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
quote:
If nearly every man in D&D was geared up and stripped down like He-Man, people would have a problem with the depictions. It shouldn't be okay for us to hand-wave the illustrations of women in armor if we demand more realism from male characters.
If most of fantasy fans were women then we would indeed see He-manesque characters all over the place. However, a higher percentage of fantasy fans are males. Look at the cover of any romance novel to see the inverse.
Sex sells.
Okay, two problems here:
1) Sex doesn't always sell, and its overuse can actually offend those you're selling--or have already sold--to. Romance novels are about sex; it's perfectly acceptable to use sexualized art to sell them. Fantasy fiction and gaming are about heroism, escapism, and the exploration of foreign worlds. The artwork should be about that.
2) Part of the reason that a higher percentage of 'fantasy fans' are males is because a lot of the art surrounding fantasy fiction is hostile to women. It's unrealistic, misogynist, and depicts women as sex objects to be consumed, helpless victims to be rescued, or prizes to be won.
The above discussion is, in large part, about depictions of women. One of the ways to welcome more women into fantasy--whether that be in the consumption of fiction or at the gaming table--is to reverse the trend of making women in fantasy into victims, prizes, and sex objects. You can't argue that women don't like fantasy, so we shouldn't care how women are depicted in fantasy art; part of the reason so many women stay away from fantasy is the way they are depicted in fantasy artwork.
I hear this argument all the time, about fantasy (be it fiction covers or D&D), about computer gaming, about comic books:
Women don't read fantasy novels, so there's nothing wrong with having a barely-covered woman clutching our hero's leg as he stands triumphantly over the bodies of his enemies.
Women don't play D&D, so it doesn't matter if every module is 'save the princess,' or 'kill the seductress.'
Women don't play computer games, so it's perfectly okay to make the female characters impossibly proportioned and extra-jiggly.
Women don't read comics, so we can make the outfits as skimpy as we want. We can make Power Girl's breasts as large as possible, and even put a big keyhole in the middle of her costume.
The argument that women aren't the primary consumers of a particular product is not an excuse for sexist depictions of women in that product.
Not only is this argument false (women do read fantasy, play D&D, play computer games, read comics), but it's not helpful. The way to welcome women is to say that there is, in fact, something wrong with it. That it matters. That it's not okay. And that no, we can't.
I am willing to bet you that for every man that's convinced to buy a fantasy novel or a D&D product specifically for the 'sex' factor (a scantily clad woman was what put him over the top), there is at least one woman that decided not to buy it for the same reason. Possibly more. And potentially some men, too.
I, for one, want more women reading fantasy, and playing games, and buying comics. And I think better depictions of women in art would go a long way towards achieving that. But, even if I didn't want that, I would still prefer better, fairer, more woman-friendly artwork in my comics and games and fantasy, because I like and respect women. I don't want to be that guy that sits in his den with Playboys out on the coffee table, even if there won't be any ladies over to be embarrassed in front of, and sometimes the art in the products I consume makes me feel like 'that guy.'
Please don't think I'm arguing that every piece of female artwork needs to be of a badass chick taking on a horde of orcs in her mail armor. What I'm arguing is that a whole lot--not most (because I don't have the percentages, but it's likely more than 50%, even if it's getting smaller all the time) or all (because that would be completely disingenuous) of fantasy depictions of women fall on the 'not okay' side of my creep-o-meter, and that I wouldn't blame women for deciding to stay away on that basis. |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:44:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Mmmmmmmm... Red Sonja.
Both Conan and Peter Parker are lucky guys.
And BTW, see if you spot my homages to Conan lore on my Chult map.
Do you have a link? |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Lady Shadowflame
Learned Scribe
115 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:47:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
quote:
If nearly every man in D&D was geared up and stripped down like He-Man, people would have a problem with the depictions. It shouldn't be okay for us to hand-wave the illustrations of women in armor if we demand more realism from male characters.
If most of fantasy fans were women then we would indeed see He-manesque characters all over the place. However, a higher percentage of fantasy fans are males. Look at the cover of any romance novel to see the inverse.
Sex sells.
That's a ridiculous false equivalency.
Romance books are basically softcore porn. And they are usually read alone.
If you want to say that what you're reading is 'fantasy porn'? Fine! Great! Then you've accepted that it is the sexified version, instead of trying futilely to justify how it's not.
RPGs, on the other hand? Those are for groups. And if it was a porny RPG, I would be okay with it, but want equal-opportunity pornishness. If, on the other hand, it's a fantasy RPG, I would kind of like to know that I can play it and be taken seriously by my fellow players. I shouldn't have to play male characters just to avoid stupid stuff happening to them, or to make sure my character is viewed/treated as anything more than a blow-up doll, even within the game. |
Save a lizard... Ride a drow.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fantasy Armor
