Stupid Sexy Armor


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Glamoured armor can look like whatever the hell the wearer wants while retaining full functionality.

Amusingly, we've had a full plate wearing cavalier glamour her armor into a chainmail bikini, in part just to show off and in part to deliberately draw fire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

Glamoured armor can look like whatever the hell the wearer wants while retaining full functionality.

Amusingly, we've had a full plate wearing cavalier glamour her armor into a chainmail bikini, in part just to show off and in part to deliberately draw fire.

I like the platemail bikini over the chainmail.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Glamoured armor can look like whatever the hell the wearer wants while retaining full functionality.

Amusingly, we've had a full plate wearing cavalier glamour her armor into a chainmail bikini, in part just to show off and in part to deliberately draw fire.

I like the platemail bikini over the chainmail.

Same. Also, I was a big fan of the Ysgardian Gloryborn armor template back in 3.5 if only because it was designed to be used for revealing, physique-displaying armor.

Dungeon Master's Guide II page 277 wrote:
Ysgardian natives emphasize heroic recklessness in battle and armor with this template reflects that philosophy. Though they are constructed to heroic proportions and tend to bear flashy decorations, gloryborn armor and shields frequently seem to lack some vital defensive piece. The overall look might awe viewers or even strike terror into the wearer’s enemies, but the items frequently look incomplete. For example, a suit of gloryborn leather armor might be little more than a set of elaborate leather straps constructed to show off the wearer’s bulging muscles by leaving portions of his torso entirely exposed. Likewise, a gloryborn shield cut to resemble a fearsome mask might be oddly shaped and appear ill-suited for protection. But such oddities of design do not limit the effectiveness of gloryborn armor or shields. Gloryborn armor might look as though it couldn’t stop a kitchen knife, let alone a greataxe, but something about its design seems to draw attacks toward protected areas, making it just as effective as armor crafted on other planes.


As long as the dwarves aren't in bikini armor, we're good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
As long as the dwarves aren't in bikini armor, we're good.

Of course not. Their....beards... get caught in the links of any chainmail bikinis.

That is why they go with nothing at all. Nothing restricting their max dex. No ACP. Although I think there might be some special shampoo and weaving techniques they could use to turn their beards into armor.


Only the nimblest of dwarves would consider chainmail.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Only the nimblest of dwarves would consider chainmail.

Just as well, plate is more fashionable, anyway.


chain mail is sooo 12th century...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
As long as the dwarves aren't in bikini armor, we're good.

Of course not. Their....beards... get caught in the links of any chainmail bikinis.

That is why they go with nothing at all. Nothing restricting their max dex. No ACP. Although I think there might be some special shampoo and weaving techniques they could use to turn their beards into armor.

Invisible dwarves?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:
This has been done to death on the boards.

I am quite surprised that the moderators haven't shut this down yet.

GeraintElberion wrote:
It is pleasing to see many publishers realise that ‘fan service’ only ever served a small subset of fans.

"small subset" - on this we may disagree.

Different people have different definitions of fun.

GeraintElberion wrote:
The term most missing from this thread is verisimilitude.

How much does verisimilitude actually matter? We are playing a game, and games are meant to be fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:


How much does verisimilitude actually matter? We are playing a game, and games are meant to be fun.

I would say it matters a fair bit, but verisimilitude is literally just the appearance of being true or real. That doesn't necessarily mean perfectly conforming to our own world's expectations in every conceivable way. Verisimilitude can also be found in internal consistency. As noted above, Ysgardian Gloryborn armor is forged by Ysgardian smiths to be used by Ysgardian warriors on the battlefield's of Greyhawk's vision of Valhalla. Because Ysgard's warriors are heroic and myth-like, armor and weapons forged by their smiths get their protective and offensive qualities from their narratives as much as much as their designs, if not moreso. It is literally made of the stuff of legends. It's bigger, badder and sexier than its material plane alternatives. You can't make it on the material plane, so if you find it, it's probably from Ysgard. That's a rule and the setting follows it. The idea of Magic A equaling Magic A (a kind of identity property for the supernatural) is also a kind of internal consistency. We accept magic as a force of this fictional universe that protagonists and antagonists can rely upon to create and solve problems for each other so long as it has rules it follows (whether those rules are like immutable physical laws or rules in the legal sense where a sufficiently-crafty person might find a way to subvert a rule or find a loophole). We don't have to know exactly what those rules are or how they interact with each other, so long as it's clear that they exist and characters are at least vaguely aware of some of them. As a side note, this makes outside-context problems where some supernatural element follows a different set of rules that much more exciting, given that you get to see how different rulesets interact with each other or what has primacy when they conflict.

Verisimilitude is also in psychology and behavior. Given X, how would the characters, being people, be expected to react? The most common example of this is "how does the existence of magic reshape how society develops?" To take the Gloryborn armor example above, natives of Ysgard might have different standards of modesty than people from some cultures on the material plane. They don't have to sacrifice the functionality of armor or weapons to capitalize on how well it displays the wearer's heroic figure or how kickin'-rad it looks, so they (not unlike the Drow) might think that anyone who feels the need to cover up is either engaged in some clever stratagem, prepared for a dramatic reveal or is simply ashamed of how they look. Likewise, people on the material plane who know about Ysgardian weapons and armor might see sufficiently impractical-looking equipment as an indication that the person using it either got it from an Ysgard native or is one themselves.

Verisimilitude doesn't necessarily mean making everything perfectly conform to our world's rules and standards. It's just asking "why," and sticking to your story once you have an answer.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

*looks at thread*

*slowly hides Virtuous Bravo Paladin of Arshea with Obediences*


Mystic_Snowfang wrote:

*looks at thread*

*slowly hides Virtuous Bravo Paladin of Arshea with Obediences*

Eh. Looking at some bikini armor, it is better to go with nothing at all. It is less insulting and chaffs way less.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Serisan wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Anguish wrote:

Stop, please.

We just had this debate four days ago and the thread is locked because it's still being moderated. I get it that you're excited to drive traffic to your blog. But really, we don't need this topic again.

?
This one.

Wow. That got ruined IMMEDIATELY.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

lemeres wrote:
Mystic_Snowfang wrote:

*looks at thread*

*slowly hides Virtuous Bravo Paladin of Arshea with Obediences*

Eh. Looking at some bikini armor, it is better to go with nothing at all. It is less insulting and chaffs way less.

Insulting to who?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Mystic_Snowfang wrote:

*looks at thread*

*slowly hides Virtuous Bravo Paladin of Arshea with Obediences*

Eh. Looking at some bikini armor, it is better to go with nothing at all. It is less insulting and chaffs way less.
Insulting to who?

To the wearer, mostly- some fantasy armors are clear hazards to the wearer's health. Anything with metal ornaments (whether evil spikes or just some gold 'trim' style thing) seem like they would stab the wearer if they moved at faster than a brisk walk.

But also the customer- I could go on a long rant (before editing I did), but to summarize- bikini armor is usually a half baked measure that doesn't actually satisfy your desires. If you want to do that, just look for free stuff on the internet.

I wouldn't buy bacon flavored icecream- it doesn't actually give meat. I would buy bacon, and then I would also get icecream separately. No need to mix them and make both terrible. No need to go with 90's style Lara Croft polygons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
I could go on a long rant (before editing I did), but to summarize- bikini armor is usually a half baked measure that doesn't actually satisfy your desires.

Speak for yourself.


Lord Fyre wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
This has been done to death on the boards.
I am quite surprised that the moderators haven't shut this down yet.

Why?


Sandal Fury wrote:
Serisan wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Anguish wrote:

Stop, please.

We just had this debate four days ago and the thread is locked because it's still being moderated. I get it that you're excited to drive traffic to your blog. But really, we don't need this topic again.

?
This one.
Wow. That got ruined IMMEDIATELY.

Different posters will likely have different ideas of which post was the one that "ruined" it, I'll wager.


Ultimately, what an adventurer wants to wear on their adventures is their prerogative.

What people want their characters to look like is also completely up to them and should be free of judgement.

Overall, people are disgusting savages and get all nerd weird with making really sexualizing costumes. Some people choose to dress excessively sexual in real life, too. It happens everywhere.

As far as armor design, you really shouldn't be able to tell gender at a glance when full plate armor is concerned. You should see nothing but metal unless the wearer chooses to open their visor. It's a common thing for heroes to show their face by raising their visor. It's how we got the military salute.

A horizontal peak or crest all the way across the chest about nipple height is common between both genders, as it keeps blunt impacts from collapsing the chest armor. As is a vertical crest or peak to reinforce it in the same way.

Adding two individual peaks just for female characters is purely nerd weird. And you probably need to get out more.

Sovereign Court

I realize that often fantasy armor design can be less than effective...

But that just makes it more realistic to me. After all, "shot trap" is a term used in modern tank armor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_trap

"For example, initial turret design of the Panther and Tiger II tanks had a curved gun mantlet and a curved turret front plate respectively, both with a thickness of 100mm. The lower part of the armour plates acted as shot traps by deflecting incoming shots downwards towards the hull roof (16-17mm thick on the Panther, 40mm on the Tiger II), or into the turret ring where the shell could potentially jam the traverse mechanism."

Both initial designs looked ... "sexier" ... with smoother curves than other tanks of the day.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
As long as the dwarves aren't in bikini armor, we're good.

Of course not. Their....beards... get caught in the links of any chainmail bikinis.

That is why they go with nothing at all. Nothing restricting their max dex. No ACP. Although I think there might be some special shampoo and weaving techniques they could use to turn their beards into armor.

Invisible dwarves?

ok, I have to admit I read this entire thread because I KNEW someone would post a link to that OotS! totally worth it!

Thank you!


VoodistMonk wrote:

Ultimately, what an adventurer wants to wear on their adventures is their prerogative.

What people want their characters to look like is also completely up to them and should be free of judgement.

Exactly. No judgment. Good to know we're on the same page.

VoodistMonk, literally in the next sentence, wrote:
Overall, people are disgusting savages and get all nerd weird with making really sexualizing costumes.

I guess we're not on the same page, after all.

VoodistMonk wrote:
Adding two individual peaks just for female characters is purely nerd weird. And you probably need to get out more.

Sure, "free of judgement." Right.

Also,

VoodistMonk wrote:
nerd weird

I guess this isn't the forum for talking about pretending to be elves fighting dragons, then.


It's pretty easy to talk about elves in crazy spiked fantasy armor without making it weird by overly sexualizing characters.

People are garbage, it's not a judgement, just an observation based on all of human history.

It takes truly minimal creativity to produce good looking characters without exploiting generic sexualizations.

This is a board game role playing adventure, not a bedroom role playing adventure... even in fantasy land, armor is supposed to provide protection from make believe threats. It's still supposed to be armor not lingerie, even in fantasy land.

When you cast mage armor, does it leave your stomach and thighs exposed just because you are female? No, you expect the magical force field to cover everything, otherwise you would have a weak spot or Achilles heel, wouldn't you?


You see, you said this

VoodistMonk wrote:
What people want their characters to look like is also completely up to them and should be free of judgement.
but then you also said this
VoodistMonk wrote:
Adding two individual peaks just for female characters is purely nerd weird. And you probably need to get out more.
and now you're also saying this
VoodistMonk wrote:


It takes truly minimal creativity to produce good looking characters without exploiting generic sexualizations.
and this
VoodistMonk wrote:
This is a board game role playing adventure, not a bedroom role playing adventure... even in fantasy land, armor is supposed to provide protection from make believe threats. It's still supposed to be armor not lingerie, even in fantasy land.

So, I guess you don't think that people want their characters to look like should be free of judgment. That's fine, I guess. I disagree, but you do you. It's just that your "no judgments" statement heavily conflicts with everything that you said after it. And that's less fine. I've made my opinion on this clear in this thread already, so I'm not going to restate it, but I will say that this seems like a bizarrely-minor thing to take umbrage with just because other people think of it differently than you.


I'm entitled to an opinion the same as anyone else. And it's my opinion that reverting to "sex sells" advertisement tactics is truly unimaginative.

Every time I see the classic cleavage breastplate, I think it would have been just as easy to put her family crest or holy symbol across the front of her armor.

It's a choice to revert to those tactics of character presentation. And if it's an extension of your personality, great, but for the most part it's not necessary for the character to be portrayed as a runway model every freaking time.

It's just my opinion.

I still appreciate people who are able to draw their characters well, I respect the talent and time of good artwork. If you pencil a beautiful warpriestess wearing bikini armor, I will give you due credit for your abilities and I won't say anything about my opinion on bikini armor.

I just thought this thread was a place to state opinions of bikini armor. Lol.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:

It's pretty easy to talk about elves in crazy spiked fantasy armor without making it weird by overly sexualizing characters.

People are garbage, it's not a judgement, just an observation based on all of human history.

It takes truly minimal creativity to produce good looking characters without exploiting generic sexualizations.

This is a board game role playing adventure, not a bedroom role playing adventure... even in fantasy land, armor is supposed to provide protection from make believe threats. It's still supposed to be armor not lingerie, even in fantasy land.

When you cast mage armor, does it leave your stomach and thighs exposed just because you are female? No, you expect the magical force field to cover everything, otherwise you would have a weak spot or Achilles heel, wouldn't you?

It really feels like you are trying to sabotage your viewpoint. Is that your intention?

feel free to ignore my rant - sorry it is critical:

Much of what you say makes sense - then you pop off with comments like:

"People are garbage, it's not a judgement, just an observation based on all of human history."

Wha...?

Not real supportive of your viewpoint.

"People are garbage" is an opinion,
"...it's not a judgement.." well... sort of. It's an opinion often expressed - but not even close to universally held by everyone. In order for something to be a judgement, it's basically a considered opinion.
and then you end the sentence with "...just an observation based on all of human history.". So, after observing "all of human history" you have come to the judgement (a considered opinion) that "people are garbage".

I do need to state that as a student of history, I do not share your opinion. People are NOT garbage.

I am not.

My friends are not. The gamers at my table are not garbage.

People I have never met, that I do not know, that I am likely never to even know anything about other than that they are people, these people also are not garbage. They are just people. With good points and bad. Beautiful and Ugly in many ways and often both of those things at the same time.

Expressing this ("People are garbage...") in a post poisons the rest of your post for me. Sorry - were you trying to sabotage your viewpoint? If so, I guess you did a fine job. If not, and you are serious in your view... I would ask you sincerely to re-examine your evidence and conclusion. This view (IMHO) is not health.

Silver Crusade

Being a student of military history I would like to make some observations on actual armor.

From Wikipedia: "In classical antiquity, the muscle cuirass, anatomical cuirass or heroic cuirass is a type of body armor made from hammered bronze plate to fit the wearer's torso and designed to mimic an idealized human physique. It first appears in late Archaic Greece and became widespread throughout the 5th and 4th centuries BC. It is commonly depicted in Greek and Roman art, where it is worn by generals, emperors, and deities during periods when soldiers used other types."

I will point out that it was an idealized MALE human physique, because, well you know, almost no generals, emperors, or war deities during the periods when it was used were female. Repressive society and all that. If they had had more female generals, emperors, and war deities (Athena perhaps?) I am sure they would have had armor that would have been "designed to mimic an idealized human physique" of both Male and Female figures. Perhaps if Boudica had lived longer/beat the Romans, gotten better armor made for her? Or perhaps not...

Typical armors depicted on statues from ancient periods (Greek/roman/Chinese) will often fail to depict the helmets correctly... they actually covered a lot more of the face than the statuary helm does. This is because the sculptor is trying to show the face of "the hero" and the actual armor is trying to protect that face (and the head). Artists and armorers have very different goals in mind when they make their creations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:


It really feels like you are trying to sabotage your viewpoint. Is that your intention?

** spoiler omitted **...

I wasn't trying to sabotage my own argument, I'm just a tad too cynical at times and derail myself by adding superfluous nonsense opinions where they don't belong.

You are correct, such a broad statement about humanity is truly ridiculous and does nothing but subtract from what I was otherwise trying to say.

More on to the original topic, just remember that they put nipples on the bat suit once upon a time, and I have yet to meet anyone who thought it was a good design choice. Obviously someone thought it was, but I haven't met anyone who agrees.

Silver Crusade

VoodistMonk wrote:
nosig wrote:


It really feels like you are trying to sabotage your viewpoint. Is that your intention?

** spoiler omitted **...

I wasn't trying to sabotage my own argument, I'm just a tad too cynical at times and derail myself by adding superfluous nonsense opinions where they don't belong.

You are correct, such a broad statement about humanity is truly ridiculous and does nothing but subtract from what I was otherwise trying to say.

More on to the original topic, just remember that they put nipples on the bat suit once upon a time, and I have yet to meet anyone who thought it was a good design choice. Obviously someone thought it was, but I haven't met anyone who agrees.

well...

some of those heroic cuirass armors from the 4th and 5th CE actually also had nipples (and bellybuttons, only one of those though). But I think the later Roman era copies (Early Imperial Roman) would often drop that stylistic feature. But those might then add in other things, making the armor more of a work of art than actual battle armor.


I had some thing to type here... oh yeah.
the two peaks two cover a woman's breasts on the breast plate... meh, take too long to do, you only really need one hill with no canyon for her cleavage.

thus with a longer than short glance you can tell the wearer is female.

as for the bikini style armors, they do have their place in fantasy, and this is in hot steamy rainforests, jungles and deserts( save their will be full cloaks over their bodies in the desert case). after all full metal in these areas will fatigue the wearer far faster.

and something else.

salvage scrap armor.
this type of armor would actually be made on the field and of several different types of armor.

such as you could have scale covering one of hersholders, banded mail around her breasts down to her waist. one shoulder exposed chain skirt and leather boots and bare thighs. is it sexy armor, well yes and no. is it effective as armor, well yes and no. would a character with any mind of battle tactics recommend staying to fight in such armor? not likely....

salvage scrap would be considered to be either piece or broken armors, and while not apart of the rules at all, it can be squeezed in


I'm a huge fan of piecemail type armor. It can be extremely creative and sensible to a variety of environments, engagements, or particular fighting styles. And that goes for all genders.

Plenty of soldiers have made it a habit to go near naked, and they were plenty lethal in their own rights. Obviously there is a place for it even if you were simply being accurate to a particular character's story. I could easily imagine a Shoanti warrior sporting Thunder and Fang and very little else, man or woman, doesn't matter.

But a lot of what you see isn't that.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

An interesting topic for sure, but these threads have a tendency to end up with a lot of sexist and/or body shaming commentary. With the playtest discussion taking up most of our moderation resources, we do not have the capacity to give this discussion the attention it needs.

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Stupid Sexy Armor All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion