Goblin Squad Member
|
If they are using the art style of PF, there is some of the ridiculous anime giant swords in there. Lets hope they leave that out.If you are refferring to this picture there is a lore to explain why she uses that sword: It is really a giant sword, Amiri took it from a dead giant and she is only able to use it effectively when she is in rage.
I admit to liking that explanation (even the fact there is an explanation). But nonetheless, my trouble with these (at least in other games), it harks to me that an ordinary sword just is "not epic enough for this game", eg why not... "Sharks with lazers!"
I think a sword that is of useable dimensions is always going to be good enough in my book: "Stick them with the pointy end". :) Still diversity is a good thing; to leave the door ajar a millimetre or two.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they are using the art style of PF, there is some of the ridiculous anime giant swords in there. Lets hope they leave that out.If you are refferring to this picture there is a lore to explain why she uses that sword: It is really a giant sword, Amiri took it from a dead giant and she is only able to use it effectively when she is in rage.
Edit:
I do, however, see another problem with Amiri's outfit: why should a leather armor let her belly totally exposed? It falls in that sexy x non-sexy discussion people were doing in the posts above. As a woman who travels ALONE the last thing she would want is to look sexy to attract men's gazes.
I hate Amiri's artwork. Brings the entire PF collection down a notch IMO. It's so blatantly anime in every way, the gloves and boots are ridiculous also. You can get away with the Giant's sword, but not on a lipstick barbarian out of dragon ball z.
It doesn't mesh with the style of the characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sexy armor issue is so subjective I've stayed out of the discussion. Appropiate clothing/armor is determined by your culture. There are plenty of real world examples of female clothing that is counter-intuitive to its function but women still wear them for the same reasons women of Golarion might.
Remember the armor in PfO is also "everyday wear" so men dressing in full plate to go to the market is about as realistic as a female wearing a chainmail bikini in combat.
In an effort to push my case for realistic looking light armored Rogues, I'm going to toss some links that show rogue types in light armor. It's hard to locate good images that aren't showing them in plate type mail though.
Image 5
This is bordering on too much with the layers. It could be adapted with gold/silver chasing and designs to make it upper tier armor.
I would be really cool if there were leather braces for throwing knives, or belts with throwing axes that would show if equipped. Skyrim's Thieves guild had some decent leather armor, I especially liked the straps and lack of big elbow/knee pieces. I hope I've been able to give a general idea of more traditional rogue armor. I don't feel that as you increase in levels that the armor needs to add larger bulkier pieces. I think that armor can reflect higher quality and still maintain the same general appearance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mbando
Not exactly sure what you're getting at with the Marines comparison, but I understand the overall point of something looking silly in an unexpected context =/= a situation of unfair objectification. Seeing a man in a big froofy wedding dress or a woman in a James Bond tuxedo might seem silly simply because it's unexpected, but that does not mean that anyone's personhood is being devalued. Culture includes the collection of things we're used to.
Not unfamiliar with Kant -- I have a degree in philosophy. I just avoid technical language for the most part because either no one has heard it and won't understand it, or everyone has heard it and already has an opinion one way or the other. (That said, Kant totally rocks and the means/ends dichotomy is a very useful way to frame the issue.)
Don't get me wrong, like I explained to Greedalox, I'm not interested in neuter or saying sexy is wrong. But the larger problem is that one can talk until blue in the face about how boob windows, thigh-slits, and latex costumes aren't diminishing the personhood of anyone and aren't making anyone a means instead of an end -- because women dress that way and don't feel objectified, because skin itself isn't evil or demeaning, because men aren't threatened by excess body-flaunting, etc. etc. -- and it starts to sound like a justification for the status quo and the same old stuff is given to female characters again while the males gleefully run around fully-clothed. I'm not going so far as to play the false empowerment card in this situation (I've worn far more revealing outfits myself -- never on an adventure though), but I find trying to use a more general heuristic like means/ends makes it seem more of an issue of legitimate differences of opinion/aesthetics/one's self-identity and less an issue of imbalance between fashions on male and female character models which is the problem I see.
It has come up more than once in this thread and others, and I don't begrudge anyone who is 100% sick of the conversation. I am too. That's why I proposed a rather rigid solution that will cut down on further fussing by forcing it to stop being an issue divided on strict gender lines, i.e. girls get this outfit, boys get this one. Instead of agonizing over whether the female outfit is okay or not, bypass the question by saying, "Well if it's not okay, we can be sure we're not isolating her because of her female-ness."
By its nature, the discussion at this level gets mired and ends up being a trench war where few are going to budge. Where is the line between demeaning and sexy, desirable and exploitative? I present two extremes, both not extremely helpful as far as I'm concerned in this situation.
1) For some people sexy is by definition demeaning because it relies on others for its power; it's debasing because it is not a strength from within -- it's passive. It's giving power to another by thinking that you will be only be seen and therefore admired and worshiped, when in reality you are being looked at, judged, evaluated, consumed. (Simone Beauvoir's language, I think.) Simply, it is a trick and will never lead to self-fulfillment/power but only serve the desires of others and make one weak and dependent, self-enslaved.
2) For others, no matter how strange her body appears to anyone else she's still an empowered woman because she is desirable, she knows it, she works for it, and that is always an advantage or power over others. It's self-fulling because she is assumed to be an agent looking towards her own interest. Put more elegantly, we can't judge what makes another person feel powerful and it's wrong and hypocritical to impose our idea of empowerment on someone else. You can't claim to be freeing someone from one cage made by someone else by putting them in another of your making.
It's easy to say that we just need to treat the characters as means instead of ends -- after all every player is inclined to have their character be an end instead of a means -- but it's harder in practice due to the unresolved battle lines drawn above. It's one of those things so perfectly obtuse that it's a great subject for a formal debate because each side has an equal chance at victory. Unless, of course, you have camp set up on one end or the other...
My attempt was to make a rubric that would feel fair regardless of where on the spectrum you fall because it removes the bias (conscious or otherwise) towards a predesignated look for one gender or another.
Less altruistically, and probably more help to the developers than my musings above, I like a little peek at the man-flesh myself and feel often neglected on that front in comparison to those who like woman-flesh. I mean, what does a girl gotta do for a little -- well -- anything? Sometimes even seeing a face is a stretch.
And yes, I know exploiting both genders might not actually make it non-exploitative just as two wrongs don't make a right, but I never said I was Good. Just Lawful. ;)
Edit:
I do, however, see another problem with Amiri's outfit: why should a leather armor let her belly totally exposed? It falls in that sexy x non-sexy discussion people were doing in the posts above. As a woman who travels ALONE the last thing she would want is to look sexy to attract men's gazes.
She's a barbarian, and needs armor that won't restrict her movements. That's what I always assumed.
She's a barbarian, and needs armor that won't restrict her movements. That's what I always assumed.
Edit:
I do, however, see another problem with Amiri's outfit: why should a leather armor let her belly totally exposed? It falls in that sexy x non-sexy discussion people were doing in the posts above. As a woman who travels ALONE the last thing she would want is to look sexy to attract men's gazes.
If that were the case, then male armor would look the same, right?
Why would it? Not all leather armor looks exactly alike. It depends on character preference.
The sexy armor issue is so subjective I've stayed out of the discussion. Appropiate clothing/armor is determined by your culture. There are plenty of real world examples of female clothing that is counter-intuitive to its function but women still wear them for the same reasons women of Golarion might.
Remember the armor in PfO is also "everyday wear" so men dressing in full plate to go to the market is about as realistic as a female wearing a chainmail bikini in combat.
Fashion is subjective, yes. Functional armor, no.
If you wear armor that does not work, you are more likely to die, no matter what you or anyone else thinks. Armor can take on many forms and shapes and sizes based on culture, absolutely, but all are engineering designs tested by real situations. If it isn't up to snuff, people die. Engineering and fashion are totally different spheres, and armor falls solidly into engineering.
Neither physics nor biology have cultural bias.
Male and female characters share the same potential and capabilities in Golarion, ergo there's no reason for a gender divide on what armor will keep them alive.
Chainmail bikini in combat does not say, "There's a fashion in Golarion for women warriors and this is it, isn't our world unique and realistic like our own, full of its own social morays and expectations for women's wear!" It says two things. In context it says, "Those warriors are morons, because if there were any advantage to being three-quarters naked in combat, their male counterparts would dress the same way." Out of context, it says, "We think sex sells," and/or "The artist thinks girls are prettier with less clothes on."
Fully-armored man in fullplate at the market says, "I'm going on an adventure today," and "this is a video game and because it isn't The Sims I don't have to worry about showering, eating, or using the lavatory either."
I don't think your comparison works well.
To pre-emptively counter the "But it's a world full of dragons and kobolds and things, so why not stylized armor," argument, let me just once again beat the horse I thought I killed with my original post: If the males aren't wearing it too, as a participant in the same context of a fantasy world, you have to ask why. The answers aren't forthcoming when you consider both are presumably adventurers trying to stay alive and get loot.
Now, when the PfO: Fashion Show Expansion comes out, I will not be making these same arguments, because then it will apply that it is a subjective thing that is culture-relative within the context of the world. Unless there was a blog post I missed, that hasn't happened yet.
Why would it? Not all leather armor looks exactly alike. It depends on character preference.
Funny how female characters more often "prefer" to wear less leather armor as their preference, isn't it?
Funny how female characters more often "prefer" to wear less leather armor as their preference, isn't it?Why would it? Not all leather armor looks exactly alike. It depends on character preference.
I'm not saying there's not a lean, I'm saying Amiri's minimal armor makes perfect sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Amiri isn't really wearing any suit of armor but instead wearing picemeal armor with the arms and legs hide and the torso padded if anything. The entire setup should only give her an ac bonus of +1 or +2 if the gm is feeling generous and counts the top as padded armor. It probably won't be an issue in game as piecemeal armor will require far more art resources than simple armor types.
A player is free to reskin their armor as they wish, as long as it about adds up in the end. There's no need to bring in variant rules. The torso is minimal, yes, but the arms and legs appear to be extremely well-protected for leather armor. It evens out. Why complicate things with books a lot of players don't even own?
Ignoring all that, though, the armor does look practical from a logical standpoint. She needs to move quick, so the armor goes where it doesn't get in the way. I don't see the big deal.
Seoni does not need armor, so she wears none. Amiri needs (and can tolerate) very little armor, so she wears very little. Why is that a problem? We could also complain about the monk iconic having his chest bared and Valeros and the paladin iconic not wearing helmets. Those decisions are not necessary, but they were made.
Just as there's a fine line between desirable and exploitative, there's one between tastefulness and prudishness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seoni does not need armor, so she wears none. Amiri needs (and can tolerate) very little armor, so she wears very little. Why is that a problem?.
As a barbarian, Amiri can wear light or medium armor and a shield. That is hardly very little.The arms and legs she is using is clearly hide armor and not leather. Barbarians are designed to absorb damage but they also need to avoid it. The entire reason I suggested that it was a variant rule is because it is much more believable than saying it is just a reskin of the armor. It also has a much lower chance of appearing in PFO that way, which is good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If that were the case, then male armor would look the same, right?She's a barbarian, and needs armor that won't restrict her movements. That's what I always assumed.
Edit:
I do, however, see another problem with Amiri's outfit: why should a leather armor let her belly totally exposed? It falls in that sexy x non-sexy discussion people were doing in the posts above. As a woman who travels ALONE the last thing she would want is to look sexy to attract men's gazes.
Actually, yes, almost exactly the same except that there would be no chest cloth. That would make for a perfectly suitable male barbarian.
As a barbarian, Amiri can wear light or medium armor and a shield. That is hardly very little.
It's a matter of fluff, not all stats. Amiri is pretty big on mobility.
The arms and legs she is using is clearly hide armor and not leather.
Yes, but she doesn't have much of anything protecting her torso. Statistically, it's leather. I could be wrong, of course.
Barbarians are designed to absorb damage but they also need to avoid it.
Not every character is maxed out.
Also, sorry if any of this comes off as snippy. I just got in one of those IRC arguments--you know, the one where you realize the moderator of the chat has total control and likes to abuse it. The one where calling him rude gets you laughed at, told to shut the f#*& up, and called an idiot. The one where you have to apologize because you don't want to get kicked out. Oh, sorry, you haven't had any of those conversations? I just f%*&ing had one. Point is, I'm very aggravated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With respect to the look and feel of the armors my suggestions would be the following:
1. For specific armor pieces, avoid detailing totally new looks for male/female/sexy male/sexy female. If we're going for quasi-realism or functional then it might make sense from a resource conservation point of view to start with a common base and just adjust details rather than a total reskin. Im not against looking sexy/attractive in armor. I just dont like the idea of it looking fundamentally different depending on whos wearing it. Notable exceptions would be barbarian male loincloths which would include a 'bra' for women.
2. As far as light armors go, please do not cover the thing with buckles and straps. Personally I dislike Merisiel's look as it makes me think of a bondage queen rather than a rogue. Id like there to be an option for a cleaner or sleeker look for light armors. Of the images Valandur posted above, Image 4 and Image 6 are essentially what I have in mind.
3. Include some medium armors that are piecemeal. Im thinking here of the style of Roman gladiators where the legs, stomach and one arm from wrist to shoulder are covered, as well as a helmet. The rest is bare. The Murmillo and Thraex, among others, are armored in this way.
4. Realistic =/= dirty. Not everything needs to be covered in layers of grime for it to be considered 'realistic'. Likewise, not everything needs to be shined to a spit polish. But it would be very nice to have a mix of options for this. Personally I strongly favor a middle approach where armor has a weathered look to it but is generally clean.
CEO
|
I hate Amiri's artwork. Brings the entire PF collection down a notch IMO. It's so blatantly anime in every way, the gloves and boots are ridiculous also. You can get away with the Giant's sword, but not on a lipstick barbarian out of dragon ball z.
It doesn't mesh with the style of the characters.
Wow, that is actually my favorite piece of Pathfinder artwork and is the iconic that I most associate with. I guess it is true what they say about art being in the eye of the beholder.
-Lisa
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Funny how female characters more often "prefer" to wear less leather armor as their preference, isn't it?Why would it? Not all leather armor looks exactly alike. It depends on character preference.
Especially bearing in mind she is from cold mountains filled with snow, the "bellyless" armor makes no sense at all. If she was a rogue I could accept that, as she could use the sexy appearence to her advantage and would relly more in agility to avoid hits, but a barbarian using almost a bikini? no way. The art is ok, but the concept is wrong.
Edit
this is a leather armor that makes sense.
Another example is this
this site has many examples as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I rather see females in MMORPGs armored exactly like the men. Though I grew up with Frank Frazetta posters in my room as a kid with his buxom, scantily garbed women, I always found it silly that women adventurers would wear armor any more revealing than their male counterparts. Armor is for protection, not fashion. Now, if we are to be allowed several wardrobe slots (e.g. adventuring clothes vs. town clothes), then the ladies might very well want to show a bit of skin...the guys too, for that matter.
Another example is this
The above image would work for a rogue type character wearing light armor (Leather). The shoulder piece isn't ostentatious, nor too oversized, but offers some protection from sword strikes. I like the "light" appearance, not being totally covered, although we're it me gearing up for an actual battle I would likely opt for a fairly thick leather shirt to wear under the armor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluddwulf,
That would be a lot more realistic. The idea that every person could afford a full suit of a particular type of armor makes all characters seem wealthy enough to commission a full suit of anything. How the server would determine your total AC might be trickier. Would it be an average of all the parts or would it randomly determine which part of your body was being struck and apply the appropriate AC (e.g. hitting your plate covered arm would inflict less damage, but your bare head should take far more). As you go down the social ladder, the armor should become more piecemeal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm wondering and hoping that we can wear different pieces of armor ( ie. A chain shirt, with leather arm guards, and leather leg armor, a shield in left hand and a plate shoulder on the right shoulder).
I don't think that would be so realistic. Armor pieces wouldn't probably mix very well when thinking about covering different body parts and fastening them to body. there's also on the meta side to think about armor check penalty and arcane spell failure chance.
I don't see why some armor couldn't be mixed and matched. Maybe not plate with leather, but there's no reason you couldn't mix leather with studded leather, or studded with chain. Plate and chain would mix as would banded with splint (if those are even included). I figure they could break the armor values down into individual pieces fairly easily. I'm sure they have a value on say a full set of plate, or chain. With that breaking down the figure so that the pieces match the sets value.
I think in many cases this sort of armor would look pretty good too. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hate Amiri's artwork. Brings the entire PF collection down a notch IMO. It's so blatantly anime in every way, the gloves and boots are ridiculous also. You can get away with the Giant's sword, but not on a lipstick barbarian out of dragon ball z.
It doesn't mesh with the style of the characters.
Wow, that is actually my favorite piece of Pathfinder artwork and is the iconic that I most associate with. I guess it is true what they say about art being in the eye of the beholder.
-Lisa
Yeah, sorry Lisa. I think Pf has done such an amazing job of getting under the skin of all the classic archetypes from monsters to races to classes. It's what defines you guys the most, you really "get it" what makes them all what they are.
Amiri, IMHO, is a very rare big miss. As much as I love the re-imagining PF does sometimes (goblins, gnomes), the anime emo-barbarian missed very wide left for me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hate Amiri's artwork. Brings the entire PF collection down a notch IMO. It's so blatantly anime in every way, the gloves and boots are ridiculous also. You can get away with the Giant's sword, but not on a lipstick barbarian out of dragon ball z.
It doesn't mesh with the style of the characters.
Wow, that is actually my favorite piece of Pathfinder artwork and is the iconic that I most associate with. I guess it is true what they say about art being in the eye of the beholder.
-Lisa
Yeah, sorry Lisa. I think Pf has done such an amazing job of getting under the skin of all the classic archetypes from monsters to races to classes. It's what defines you guys the most, you really "get it" what makes them all what they are.
Amiri, IMHO, is a very rare big miss. As much as I love the re-imagining PF does sometimes (goblins, gnomes), the anime emo-barbarian missed very wide left for me.
I''m with Rafkin, I do not want to become embroiled in the "skin" discussion nor throw my aesthetic preferences in front of everyone.
That said, as I said above, my concern is: Weapon > Character leading to an ever increasing trend in epicness to out-epic the previous level; imo it should always be Character > Weapon, as it were. Sure the "sword of truth" is dandy and all, but it's our hero who proves he's worth it etc. Concerning the above, the sword and large mits/boots are a bit too manga-style in the sense that mixing art styles is imo not a good idea for coherence. In fact only the sword is a worry for me, and so long as that is x1 exception not repeated anywhere else, then even that is fine with me. The character, Amiri, herself now I can see beyond that sword, is very awesome in appearance and seems in line with other artwork.
Anyway, I'm about as artistic as a scrunched-up piece of paper discarded into the nearest bin. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the record, I have read all three pages of comments so far; I'm just skipping right over the discussion that started to go back to the original topic.
Great work with the blog! To be frank, I wasn't even expecting this much work into the graphics at launch, so this is a pleasant surprise. The mechanics and aesthetics are finally starting to come together, so I'm looking forward to the next blog!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, sorry Lisa. I think Pf has done such an amazing job of getting under the skin of all the classic archetypes from monsters to races to classes. It's what defines you guys the most, you really "get it" what makes them all what they are.
Amiri, IMHO, is a very rare big miss. As much as I love the re-imagining PF does sometimes (goblins, gnomes), the anime emo-barbarian missed very wide left for me.
I usually have not found myself agreeing with avari3 on much. But I also don't like Amiri as drawn here. She smacks of Korean or Japanese anime in a big way. Yeah, it is really "Japanese" anime, but this look permeates almost all of the current crop of Korean MMOs. Not sure why they think it is so cool, but all their toons look the same, and Amiri fits the mold.
Saying that, I support the thread "Plea for ugly"....mole covered witches, fat merchants, big variety.
And yes, I know that adds to the art workload. *shrugs* It doesn't have to happen NOW, just be in the schedule for future work.
I really think the giant sword fits Amiri. I agree that she's kinda anime-ish, but the sword itself is very much part of her character. It's in her backstory, and reflects that she would use an impractical weapon than show "weakness".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a character can blast fire from their hands, why is it such a big leap that a different character can use a huge weapon?
The nit-picking is getting a bit silly for a fantasy game.
Well in truth, I'm also of the opinion magic is over-the-top in a lot of games also, which devalues it as a concept equally. Because many games take this approach: Oversized weapon/shoulder pads (bigger = better/higher level/more powerful character etc) and magic that is more of a fireworks display, it think Pathfinder can do a lot better keeping these things within a framework that makes sense in game/in that lore; which might include keeping concepts such as gravity consistent, mechanics and so forth.
For me magic is the ability to break one of the rules in the game world without the rest being affected, hence it's magic. The real problem with magic is that if it becomes ubquitous, then you have the problem that breaking rules is the rule.
Either way, aesthetically and as part of the world-building and in terms of the escalation on characters' growth and expression, I'm opposed to over-sized weapons and indeed if magic could be toned down and even more restricted than normal. I'm sure there will be different opinions on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a character can blast fire from their hands, why is it such a big leap that a different character can use a huge weapon?
The nit-picking is getting a bit silly for a fantasy game.
The case with this particular NPC wielding a giants sword, is quite a bit different then just having monstrously oversized weapons filling the game world.
If we don't pick nits occasionally we end up with a game full of bugs!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Also, sorry if any of this comes off as snippy. I just got in one of those IRC arguments--...
Sounds to me like something to avoid in future.
Why engage in what is not required if it fills you with such anger that you then cannot avoid radiating to other people?
Sorry, I know it doesn't help your inner turmoil to be rebuffed, but I don't want or need it spewed on my shoes second-hand, either.
Sounds to me like something to avoid in future.
Why engage in what is not required if it fills you with such anger that you then cannot avoid radiating to other people?
Sorry, I know it doesn't help your inner turmoil to be rebuffed, but I don't want or need it spewed on my shoes second-hand, either.
Wow, I didn't realize I was covering your shoes with vomited IRC dealings. My bad.
I'm not going back there. I'm not sure the metaphor is called for, though. Rereading my post, I didn't get especially rude, so why're you complaining?
Ah it wasn't that bad: I was just waking up and grumpy. My apologies Koby.
Heh, me too, in this case. No hard feelings. :P
|
CEO
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate Amiri's artwork. Brings the entire PF collection down a notch IMO. It's so blatantly anime in every way, the gloves and boots are ridiculous also. You can get away with the Giant's sword, but not on a lipstick barbarian out of dragon ball z.
It doesn't mesh with the style of the characters.
Wow, that is actually my favorite piece of Pathfinder artwork and is the iconic that I most associate with. I guess it is true what they say about art being in the eye of the beholder.
-Lisa
Yeah, sorry Lisa. I think Pf has done such an amazing job of getting under the skin of all the classic archetypes from monsters to races to classes. It's what defines you guys the most, you really "get it" what makes them all what they are.
Amiri, IMHO, is a very rare big miss. As much as I love the re-imagining PF does sometimes (goblins, gnomes), the anime emo-barbarian missed very wide left for me.
I guess I'll have to get the art team to create Amiri for me to play in the game and then I can go all berserk with her "anime" sword and whoop a little butt. :)
Lisa
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I guess I'll have to get the art team to create Amiri for me to play in the game and then I can go all berserk with her "anime" sword and whoop a little butt. :)
Lisa
Alrighty then! BRING IT ON, Missy! (Of couse I'll have to get into the game for that to happen, but I'll not complain if I'm a bit early!)
Yet who can we find who would take on the severe burden of getting in early to livestream the bout? Are there no volunteers?