Reasonable Female Armor Thread

>>54014905
to be honest, given what guardsmen normally fight, would running around in bikini armor make any difference beyond propriety in the Imperium?

>>54014893
>third movie has tony be paranoid about his friends and loved ones being hurt and being unable to protect them
>he never actually makes pepper her own fucking suit.

File: Reach_26469917_Full.jpg (308KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1920x1080px

>>54014970
Flak armor makes guardsmen's outlook from "certain death" to "probable death". A marked improvement.

File: ALWAYS UPVOTE GAMBESONS.jpg (477KB, 2718x3300px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 2718x3300px

>>54015399

>>54015401
I'll take armor that stops a high velocity flesh eating beetle 33% of the time over no armor at all.

File: apparently that gun is very arousing.jpg (112KB, 555x800px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 555x800px

>>54015922

File: armour is cool but also odd as heck.jpg (126KB, 640x893px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 640x893px

>>54015934

File: bad guy.jpg (334KB, 888x1125px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 888x1125px

>>54015958

>>54014970
>to be honest, given what guardsmen normally fight, would running around in bikini armor make any difference beyond propriety in the Imperium?

When you put it that way I guess, I mean Orkz can fight marines naked and still have a chance of killing them so there's that.

File: color co-ordination goes out the window when an orc is trying to skull fuck you with an axe.jpg (172KB, 656x1167px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 656x1167px

>>54015979

File: Do I look like someone who gives a fuck about flowers.jpg (335KB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 707x1000px

>>54016002

File: dpuble badasses.jpg (119KB, 640x691px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 640x691px

>>54016015

File: fixing shit time.jpg (120KB, 528x806px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 528x806px

>>54016032

File: IMG_2385.png (225KB, 936x1000px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 936x1000px

>>54014457
>Halo Reach was 7 years ago

File: flag waving muthafucker.jpg (176KB, 929x1427px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 929x1427px

>>54016075

>>54014438
Those extra robot arms don't seem to serve a purpose here. The extra weight would make the wearer's legs collapse under the suit because looking at the knee joint you can clearly see a lack of robo assistance.
>>54014443
Muh-wolverine-stabbies. Veil thingie is cosmetic and could catch wind or block vision.
>>54014457
Kat's arm is to small. Spartan armour is suprisingly decent aside from their retarded color schemes.
>>54014886
Kino.
>>54014893
Iron-man armour is retarded/runs on comic dislogic and should have killed its wearer from the g-force long ago.
>>54014905
No helmet, personalization of army equipment, exposed legs & gut, and that gun will catch on her pauldron literally 9/10 times when she tries whipping it out for a firefight.
>>54015399
wtf are those gauntlets? also that shirtneck is not very good.
>>54015401
She's still got long flowing hair.
>>54015409
Kino.
>>54015686
It...probably works.

>>54016497
>it's "autist goes through and responds to every post in the thread thinking that anyone gives a shit" episode

>armour is expensive, thus a very limited resource
>people are not
>women are shit at fighting, the purpose for which armour exists
>consequentally, there's no such thing as reasonable female armour

>Kino
what did he mean by this?

File: 3cd00239d301f8ab5b03be3396f4fc9db2e6fb87.jpg (905KB, 875x1149px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 875x1149px

>>54016731
That means the image is in the clear, anon.

>>54014970
As far as i know, flak armour is designed to stop shrapnel, rather than direct projectiles or energy attacks.

Wouldnt want enemy explosives to be TOO effective when orchestrating human wave attacks.

File: rOy3mug.jpg (832KB, 1731x2499px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 1731x2499px

>>54015699
This is pretty fantastical, but the closer I look the more I see some elements I think I would incorporate into heavy power armours in my own settings. Something else that does weird me out a little between the two of them in the lineup is that almost every single part of the armour is different even though it looks like the artist just made a copy and added a mask and tail.

I really struggle to find "practical" female armour operating on the principles I want. I've done a few doodles and I can't see any reason that you can't just represent the presence of boobs with something akin to the glacis plate of a tank, wherein you get away from the Unisex/Man Armour issue and have clearly female appearing armour that isn't channelling bullets towards the centre of mass. Ironically the Evangelions, being armours for technically female entities even if they are 50m tall, are the closest I've seen, even if they are covered in a lot of superfluous and odd design choices like the shoulder and knee sections.

File: sororitas_power_armor_concept_v2_0_by_icyymir-d918f4d.jpg (235KB, 795x1004px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 795x1004px

>>54017313

>>54016497
I can't find a picture offhand, but the forearm protector things the one lady has are historical. IIRC they're either for fencing/sparring or when you're too broke to afford actual arm protection to go with a brigandine/coat of plates. It makes it so you can't get slashed properly or cracked across the forearm with a sword during fencing. There are versions that go all the way up the arm and leg ones as well.

File: IMG_0654.png (284KB, 600x832px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 600x832px

I have a thing for armor that isn't all metal or ceramic looking.

>>54017331
Damn, love the aesthetic.
>plz make this a thng, Nu-GW

That aside, I feel like the head is misplaced, it seems to high, and too far back on the shoulders to be anatomically correct.

File: sister_of_battle_re_design_by_rayph-d6vsh2i.jpg (203KB, 736x1100px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 736x1100px

>>54017313
>>54017331
We can go farther with this. :^)

File: Barbarella 2.jpg (286KB, 670x1005px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 670x1005px

>>54014438

>>54014970
Even in the grim darkness of the far future, shrapnel is still one of the big killlers.

File: d58e23f0448ed2bda9671b9e6fef9977.jpg (46KB, 736x368px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 736x368px

>>54014438

>>54019811

That looks like some kind of sororitas mechanicum hybrid.

File: wiesel.jpg (250KB, 720x500px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 720x500px

>>54014438

>>54020318
Most reasonable armor posted so far.

>>54015922
>pauldron on the wrong arm.
>heavily ornate plate in seemingly useless locations when it could be fashioned into a half breastplate at the very least
>belt over the gambeson for some reason

5/10

>>54016598
> I don't want to judge armour by real world standards in a thread about judging armour by real world standards.
>>54015724
Has cat ear themed helmat and a goddam tail. Her leather pockets don't fit in with the rest of her suit and have no reason to exist the way they do.
>>54015760
High heels of a space suit.
>>54015922
Pauldron is to bulky and those boots are to fashionista.
>>54015934
>>54015958
>>54015979
Pretty much fine besides them all having long hair. Last one has some questionable build choices but i'll let it pass for being a holy armour.
>>54016002
Exposed arms, long flowing hair and her battle skirt is exposed between the legs.
>>54016015
The breastplate and pauldron do not provide effective protection and she's wearing furs under the armour which is a bitch and a half.
>>54016032
Long flowing hair and she's got these silly hexagon-chest-plate-things.
>>54016075
Chainbonesaw is badly placed. She should be holding it.
>>54016138
It's fine.
>>54016750
Oversized pauldron.
>>54017313
>>54017331
They would both have their legs crushed under the weight of all that huge ass metal plate that they're wearing. I don't see any "powered" sections on their knee joints. Also those two are going to be both legaly blind and deaf with those pathetic eye holes as their only means of using sight.
>>54018260
Aceptable.
>>54019170
Has forearm spikes .
>>54019205
Surprisingly kino.
>>54019811
Ike the last sisters of battle this fine lady should collapse under her armour's weight. Thankfully she can still see but her head is completely exposed
.>>54020227
You have good taste in movies.

File: That entire comment of (You)rs.jpg (48KB, 441x439px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 441x439px

>>54021167

>>54021415
I don't see you disagreeing so please kindly go fuck off.

File: 4soldier_3_by_shimmering_sword-darr9o3.jpg (215KB, 762x900px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 762x900px

>>54021167
Are forearm spikes necessarily a problem? especially if they have a method of being retracted.

File: Space Militia.jpg (233KB, 682x1100px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 682x1100px

>>54021167
Post better or fuck off.

>>54021470

You expect us to unpack every like of austic faggotry that hinges entirely on personal taste? I mean, this is /tg/ and everyone's personal taste is clearly objectively the best but let's not make more work for ourselves shall we?

>>54021167
>I don't want to judge armour by real world standards in a thread about judging armour by real world standards.

'Reasonable' does not mean 'by real world standards'.

File: armored_suit_sketch_by_steve_burg-d4pwk0k.jpg (92KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x1000px

>>54021819

I don't think he is doing anyone any harm, I enjoy it.

>>54016497
>>54021167
>kino

Thanks for letting us know that your opinion is worthless.

>>54021167
No, I mean that noone gives a fuck about you, stop revieving every fucking pic in this thread, noone will read it. Pick one pic, shit on it or whatever or write up a meme response and fuck off.

>>54016624
>Try to sound smart
>Fail at it
>Look like a retard

>>54021955

Honestly I wouldn't mind an armor critique thread.

>>54017223
>Ironically the Evangelions, being armours for technically female entities even if they are 50m tall, are the closest I've seen, even if they are covered in a lot of superfluous and odd design choices like the shoulder and knee sections.

Not actually superfluous in the case of the Evas. Its important to remember thats NERVs control over the Eva is pretty tenous. The knee and shoulder pylons dont have a protective purpose, but when docked in their cages these points provide areas for the cage to lick down, preventing the Eva from moving or escaping it it somehow becomes active.

In addition, the shoulder pylons flip open to act as storage spaces for weapons and other items. We mostly see them used to store backup weapons like knives.

>>54014970
She's wearing the same armor as everyone else

File: 1425964760712.jpg (312KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 800x1200px

My autism has evolved into advanced autism: the only thing that triggers me more than women in impractical armor is female warriors in impractical armor with zero muscle definition. There *is* a difference between a warrior and a stripper dressing as one.

>>54019811

I wished they looked like that for real. They don't really look like a force to be reckoned with unless you have a fear of screaming nuns wearing boobplates.

>>54022836
/thread

File: 23452345.jpg (57KB, 512x672px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 512x672px

>>54016497
>wtf are those gauntlets
Jack chain.

As bizarre as it looks, it really was a thing used historically to supplement a padded gambeson.

>>54021802
Nice suros pleeb

File: 1423679791088.jpg (89KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 680x510px

>>54014438
>but anon, that's just regular sci fi armor
Yes. That's the point.

File: TheMiddleOneIsAGirl.jpg (124KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1280x720px

>>54023991
I can dig it.

File: 1396480401851.jpg (584KB, 740x740px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 740x740px

>>54022343
>that AK conversion

>>54024094
Do better

File: K-VAR_AKU-94.jpg (50KB, 768x393px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 768x393px

>>54024358
It's an AKU-94 with a plastic shell over it. Are you seriously going to defend the AKU-94?

>>54024453
Do better

File: commission___leopard_armor_by_shimmering_sword-d664ao2.jpg (194KB, 689x850px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 689x850px

How would one actually armor a tail?

You can't even tell that many of these contain a woman. Practical, yes, but sexy?
If this stuff excites you sexually, maybe it's time to admit that what you want isn't a practically armored female, it's a man.

>>54024518
Tuck it in the armor, obviously

>>54024521
Practical tough girls are sexy.

>>54024540
But it's good for balance

>>54024518
Cut it off you furry. Seriously, look at fighting/guard dogs

Maybe a skirt you hide it under, or a series of rings chained together to protect from incidentals. Not her that is actually armor. Because, again, it should just be docked.

>>54024521

Dude, the reason it's sexy is you know it contains a woman. If you just saw the person in the armor and didn't know what their gender was, it wouldn't turn you on. But knowing it's a woman makes it sexy.

>>54022938
>>54021897
>>54021837
Cutest in this thread, my dick has transcended states of matter

File: hah.jpg (37KB, 442x414px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 442x414px

>>54024956

File: smack.png (17KB, 385x416px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 385x416px

>>54025050
No u

>>54025074
But anon, dark angels are literally gay

>>54025128
Surely there's a girl in there, even if she is a lesbian

>>54025150
they are gay MEN

>>54025223
But this is a thread about women in armor, that means she's a chick.

File: _trooper_by_ml_11mk-d2lj5pf.jpg (63KB, 590x1000px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 590x1000px

Where is armor critique dude?

>>54025268
Fair enough.
It was a joke about dark angels being faggots though =(

>>54025339
pls no bully dork angels, I like the color green too much
they use a pretty faggy shade of green though, I'll admit

>>54025339
Girls can be faggots too.

File: Eisen nation.jpg (167KB, 1000x658px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1000x658px

I don't have a better pic

>>54024521
we're not all here too ERP you fucking degenerate. not wanting my female characters prancing around in highheels doesn't make me any less gay.

>>54022836
she has just a fantastic butt

>>54022642
y'know what? you're damn ass right. thank you for saying that.

>>54025260

What cosplay is this supposed to be?

>also, even disallowing the lack of helmet, that is some utterly impractical, shit-tier armor
>open underarms, exposed legs, only one gauntlet, and titplate

>>54027471

>claiming photoshopped historical propaganda as fact

>>54020318
How can she be reasonable if she's blushing so much

>>54021167
>Pretty much fine besides them all having long hair
I'm pretty sure real life male musketeers and whatnot often had curls like that

>>54029381
Having a full set of armor is expensive and heavy, you just need the bare minimum.

If you use any powertools do you really put on a helmet, pads, goggles, face mask and stand on a rubber mat like some faggot?

>>54022892
you're no fun

>>54024521
I don't think OP meant "sexy" as in "sexually attractive", more like "sexy" as in "cool looking".

That said, it's no secret most of /tg/ is somewha/tg/ay

File: 1423630385592.jpg (203KB, 867x1200px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 867x1200px

>>54030215

>>54027459
I like the guy on the right side. Great fashion sense, likes a good book, and doesn't let bad weather ruin his mood

File: 1473636107976.jpg (179KB, 900x1500px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 900x1500px

>>54030227

File: 1482787819644.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>54030260

File: 1488853649871.jpg (788KB, 1000x734px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 1000x734px

>>54030265

File: 1489163667233.jpg (92KB, 787x1015px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 787x1015px

>>54030272

File: 1487397454670.jpg (161KB, 1280x943px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1280x943px

>>54030289
shit wrong one

Oh well, it COULD be female.

Except I think Ilithids are monogendered

File: 1493687736236.jpg (576KB, 1920x2154px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 1920x2154px

>>54030296

File: b08e1f8d73b37f858eedc691138f5526.jpg (41KB, 736x577px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 736x577px

>>54030303

File: Crowfall_FemaleKnightConcept.jpg (411KB, 1024x1249px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1024x1249px

>>54030319

File: knight_by_chazillah-dadohk5.png (311KB, 499x853px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 499x853px

>>54030368

File: 8bc10ad974d5995a640fece1b978b2ef.jpg (232KB, 440x3417px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 440x3417px

>>54030377

File: 062.jpg (378KB, 1200x1744px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 1200x1744px

>>54030405

>>54030405
Not armor
Just a girl dressing up as a guy

>>54030272
That entire cleavage, while covered, does not have chainmail?

Reeeeeeal confident in keeping that shield front and center, huh?

>>54030513
The cloth is covering the chainmail, not vice versa.

Thats a hood, tucked in under the straps of her chainshirt. The metal is under it.

I'd be more concerned about bare arms, but at least she's armored

>>54030409
At least her life wasn't stolen

>>54030443
Take another look at panels 4, 5, and 6.

File: legion.jpg (130KB, 282x500px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 282x500px

>>54030545
>I'd be more concerned about bare arms
Quite true but it does not mean that her armor is unreasonable.
You have to weight the costs, mobility fighter endurance and available technology.
In some times you may want to use lighter armor or be forced to.
While armor that does not cover all of the body still can be very useful.

Pic attached is "iconic" roman armor, macedonian phalanx used less armor and both were highly effective fighting force at their respective times.

>>54030513
>Reeeeeeal confident in keeping that shield front and center, huh?
>>54030793
To be fair, the Romans and Macedonians were THAT confident in keeping their shield front and center, and based their entire formations around that. What I'm personally worried about with the Romans is not so much that their arms or thighs aren't armored, but their feet. It's barely a step up from going around barefoot, and your feet will often stick out under that handy shield. I'm not expecting medieval greaves, but *something* would be nice.

>>54030793
>exposed legs in a skirt(!)
>exposed arms
>sandals
What an impractical female armor! Shame on you!

File: 2015_02_11_19_13_43_by_yorknecromancer-d8hlbxb.jpg (652KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 2560x1920px

>>54022892
It can be done. (Sort of.)

File: loud.sweating.gif (295KB, 504x312px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 504x312px

>>54033454
>That sculpted calf armor

>>54030443
I mean it's social armor
plus there's a bulletproof vest she put on.

>>54017313
>>54017331

The Sisters of Silence should have an owl motif like this. Shit would be cash.

>>54035343
Those are very nice

File: IMG_0662.jpg (50KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 300x400px

>>54033454

>>54024453
>Not liking bullpup

>>54037369
I do like bullpups, but only when the trigger doesn't feel like sandpaper and the magazine doesn't wobble.

>>54037527

So...you don't like bullpups.

>>54024094
>I know everything about a fictional gun from the hyper-future.

You've had enough.

>>54024662
>Good for balance

Well then you can't armor it or it'll be too heavy.

>>54027471
>literally everyone is staring at her ass
>the guy she's about to kill is staring at her ass
>even the angel is pointing out dat ass to the queen

>>54036976
Nice codpiece, gov'ner.

>>54020227

Sauce? Doesn't look like Kung Fury?

>>54024518

Replace it with a cybernetic Lizard-style tail that is full of power blades. The tip could be a power spear.

>>54024518
Articulated plates along the top.

For modern maybe some dragonskin knockoff.

>"reasonable" armor thread
>the armor pictured isn't reasonable at all, it just doesn't show T and A
Everytime.

File: 212e0383052f76c8abbcb9c3187abc3a.jpg (45KB, 564x796px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 564x796px

>>54044865
We had someone giving critique of the armor earlier. Which armor do you find unreasonable and why?

File: 654.jpg (190KB, 647x894px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 647x894px

>>54044986
If by critique you mean shitting onto his keyboard and playing in it, sure. Best not to encourage attention whores or they'll get even more obnoxious.

>>54044865
>Knows what the OP meant
>Spergs out on muh realism anyway
Everytime.

>>54044986
>Which armor do you find unreasonable and why?

Any armor with a woman in it. Women can't be fighters.

File: 1474184964039.jpg (100KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x375px

>>54045567

File: IMG_0666.jpg (59KB, 615x410px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 615x410px

>>54045567

>>54045714
I'm a noob when it comes to armor but it looks like the belly is unprotected, what is the optimum way to protect the belly while maintaining mobility.

>>54045729
Nice but looks needlessly complicated.

File: IMG_1454.gif (2MB, 460x308px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 460x308px

>>54021167

File: CY666.jpg (190KB, 620x450px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 620x450px

>>54045724
It's techno-magic space cloth. I'm kidding of course and you're probably right. But that's not important.

Here's where I'm coming from: The armor art that I'm contributing to this thread is probably not going to look absolutely perfect by strict standards of realism. Because even if armor is meant to appear relatively practical, this is still fantasy art. These aren't design specs meant to function in the real world.

My interpretation of "reasonable" as stated in the OP is less strict realism and more "not overtly slutty or feminine" by my own personal standard. That said, feel free to nitpick if you want, it might provide others with insight or ideas, and that's what these threads are all about.

File: barb.jpg (54KB, 736x814px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 736x814px

>>54044865
There is some actually reasonable armor in this thread though.

But yeah, it irks me as well. A lot of times when people talk about "reasonable" or "practical" female outfits, they just mean "modest". Which means every female warrior has to cover up her whole body (apparently everyone fights in acid rain), wear pants (apparently every single culture ever has pants), and never ever have any feminine features (despite examples of irl historical armor with abs, nipples, moustaches and curiously shaped codpieces)

No one bats an eye when male barbarians fight half-naked tho

>>54024521
I bet you are one of those degenerates that actually require their partners to get undressed before you fuck them.

File: 1419658870800.jpg (229KB, 850x1519px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 850x1519px

>>54014438

>>54024831
this, dock it

File: 1c823ce.jpg (286KB, 1000x1415px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1000x1415px

>>54035343

That's much more like it.

>>54046856
Reasonable is one of those terms that brings out weird definitions. While for me I actually am just looking for logical consistency. And with armor my only additional rule is that it appears protective. If it is skimpy and has magical protection, illustrate the protection with magic effects.

But, don't give me a rogue covered in bare metal plates. Or spikes that will slit their own throats if they have to point at something. And if your barbarian got dem tiddies, they damn well better be supported for practical combat usage.

Modest is often rationally consistent, but but sometimes that is the armor not being flashy. But most armor looks the same regardless of gender for a reason, and that is protective efficiency.

I try not to get too pedantic, so long as the design makes sense in context.

File: pale.jpg (322KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1920x1200px

How's this one?

>>54015979
>bad guy.jpg

Heretic.

>>54015401
if flak armor protects a guardsman from 1st degree shrapnel then it provides the same magnitude of protection as many modern troop carriers

that's pretty fucking great if that's the case

File: gladiatrix.jpg (56KB, 600x351px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x351px

>>54051340
Yeah, I get what you mean. I also get irked when fantasy artists put melee warriors in corsets, or have them wear sharp metal plates on their naked body, or put a fighter in high heels, or other stupidity like that. Though I guess that could possibly work in a campy or cartoonish setting, just not in a more or less serious one.

My comment was probably less directed at /tg/ specifically, and more at similar discussions I've seen in other places on the internet.

>But most armor looks the same regardless of gender for a reason, and that is protective efficiency.
That depends on the context, doesn't it? If it's a regular army or any sort of regular regiment, or if the fighter only cares for efficiency and nothing else, and especially if the fighter is not too rich, then it would definitely look uniform and rather non-descript. But there can be various situations where the fighter's gear's appearance is intentionally individualized, and in a society where there are both male and female fighters, that could include visible gender differences, couldn't it?

File: BX034.png (641KB, 900x944px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 900x944px

>>54051340
The thing that bothers me the most is when you have a male character in heavy armor that fully covers him (and in my opinion, looks cool) and then you have his female counterpart whose armor looks absolutely NOTHING like his, even if they're in the same profession or even in the same unit of a regular military. So you wind up with two separate uniforms, based on gender and nothing else, where the dude gets cool plate armor and the girl gets to show off her T&A for reasons.

It's not that it doesn't make sense, I couldn't care less about that in fantasy settings, but it's just so goofy that it can kill any immersion I might have had. It's like a knife plunged into my suspension of disbelief.

>>54046856
Half naked female warriors are fine with me if their male counterparts are also half naked. I just hope they don't make it super obvious that the reasoning behind the design is pure cheesecake fanservice. That's fine on a dancer or some random sultry merc, but a soldier or a knight? No deal.

File: 0940.jpg (81KB, 564x1008px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 564x1008px

>>54051821
I like it.

File: GW2 Phalanx Armor.jpg (91KB, 821x528px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 821x528px

>>54054497
Reminds of the shit from back when I played GW2.

>>54054241
I see a lot of /tg/ discussions mirrored in other venues. So a lot of it seems to be common understanding about what people are talking about, even if it isn't always in line with personal views.

>armor customization
This is a subject that in general I think gets taken to extremes. That is where I have issues. If a culture has multiple gender expressions in its armor then a large portion of those features will be shared, because the purpose of the armor is the same. The shape of a breastplate in a culture is likely to be pretty consistent, even if possessed of decorative flourishes.

The protective nature will drive that shape. The distribution of armor pieces is also something that is developed. So unless you have a fem!warrior filling a role unique to dude!warrior then a lot of things will be similar. Uniformity or standardization be damned. So if you have a token lady in a group of male warriors her armor should be reasonably the same unless you have a situation that would make it unique (most commonly something like an attache from a different culture) then the core threads of the armor design shouldn't be crazy different.

Modern armor is unisex. Most plate and mail armors are unisex. Possibly slightly different fittings. But that has to do with frame size more than anything. The SAPI plates in my combat vest were the same as those that anyone else had if they were of a similar build.

And sure. Custome tiddie-plates are fine, so long as contextually they have purpose other than battlefield boners! Because honestly getting a boner in combat is pretty regular and never changed my combat effectiveness.

>>54054497
Consistency. I hate a lack of internal consistency. The full playe v. Tiddy plate is a great example of breaking that. Or when it is literally the same piece of gear and just changes shape because tiddies.

At least barbarians are given reasonable comparisons.

File: fft_classes_by_njordy-d32umkk.jpg (187KB, 650x1227px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 650x1227px

>>54054497
>>54054628
>>54054687
>dude gets cool plate armor and the girl gets to show off her T&A for reasons
Yeah, that kind of thing irks me as well, especially if it's the same regiment or the same piece of armor, that just doesn't make sense and just feels like a sloppy concept.

But on the other hand, it also irks me when people start saying the female character's armor should be exactly the same as the male's, cover the exact percentage amount of skin, and other pedantry like that. I feel it comes more from a moralistic standpoint than a narrative/practicality one.

As an example, picrelated doesn't suffer from the "men in practical-looking battle armor, women in skimpy exotic dancer garb" syndrome. But on the other hand, male and female outfits are visibly different, female ones have more feminine features etc.

>Half naked female warriors are fine with me if their male counterparts are also half naked
That's something that I can't agree with 100%. There are/were a lot of cultures irl where women cover up much more than men. In a fantasy world, couldn't the opposite happen? From a creative standpoint, it kinda feels like a "guilt money" situation – if you got a cool half-naked female design in mind, you _have_ to draw a half-naked male just to protect your female design from being questioned. It seems a bit creatively limiting.

>in the same unit of a regular military
Yeah, that's heresy. But what if it's not a regular unit, but rather a rag-tag band of adventurers?

>That's fine on a dancer or some random sultry merc, but a soldier or a knight?
Agreed. I think the key word here is, what should the design evoke? For a soldier, it's uniformity and following orders, first and foremost. So the design should be uniform and simple. No place for erotic teasing there. For a knight, it's valor and protection. But for a rogue character, one of her traits might be seductiveness, if it fits her style.

File: far left is female don't care what anybody says.png (1MB, 2391x825px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2391x825px

>>54055469
I'm still a tiny bit annoyed that I couldn't have a female bard or a male dancer.

>>54055652
I'm okay with that.
As long as mid left is male.

File: 1463282241391.png (374KB, 699x492px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 699x492px

>>54055652
From left to right
>girl, boy, boy, girl

>>54055691
This anon gets it.

>>54054635
Yeah, that's a lot to think about.

>If a culture has multiple gender expressions in its armor then a large portion of those features will be shared, because the purpose of the armor is the same.
Agreed. I think it's important to define what's the basis for the outfit, and which parts are customized and why.

>So if you have a token lady in a group of male warriors her armor should be reasonably the same unless you have a situation that would make it unique (most commonly something like an attache from a different culture) then the core threads of the armor design shouldn't be crazy different.
Yeah, that makes sense. I think in fantasy it's pretty common to have the characters hail from different cultures and walks of life. But imho their designs should first and foremost stem from their culture and personality, and not just the need to show tiddy.

>Modern armor is unisex.
Yeah, definitely. Modern armor is more uniform because modern design in general is more streamlined towards efficiency instead of aesthetics.

>Custome tiddie-plates are fine, so long as contextually they have purpose other than battlefield boners!
Yeah, the "armor is skimpy because it arouses enemies and confuses them" excuse is stupid. Seduction might be an interesting tactic, but it wouldn't happen in the heat of the battle, and in general it fits rogue/dancer/etc types more.

As an aside, however, what if the woman herself just likes to look sexy? Not to seduce anyone or anything, it's just her style. Of course she wouldn't sacrifice her chances of survival for that, but that might still somewhat influence the way she customizes her armor, wouldn't it?

>>54055652
Idk I liked it, it added some additional planning to the troop management.

>>54055691
>>54055739
Lol, couldn't expect any less from /tg/

>>54055469
You have to take into account that real-world cultures with more covered women also had separate roles/purposes to those coverings. If you have a half naked woman for the sake of having a half naked woman you are being rightly questioned. If the developed culture has a reason, then it may still be your own magical realming (don't hide behind the character motivation argument) at least it is internally logical, and that is more valuable.

I also don't buy into it as limiting creativity unless you habe developed cultural reasoning, but you will still be required to illustrate exceptions to confirm the rule. I would consider insistance that men can't be as skimpy as women more as a creative failing than men having to be shown as being equally skimpy is a limiting factor.

In the context of a rag-tag group? Climatological reasons are enough to keep at least a degree of consistency. Unless your lady barbarian is half Frost Giant (and appears that way) she is probably dressing up in a colder climate just as your Knight Templar is going to do some degree of dressing down in a jungle, whatever version of action that takes. So I'll give you getting more variety, like leather armor with a more feminine cut on a rogue or what not, but you aren't going to see people of a shared profession/whatever dress like one is from Dark Souls and the other got lost en route to a Red Sonja look-a-like convention. I can't buy that as it isn't internally consistent.

>>54055810
Agreed on most of the response. The question on the end? Just so long as you acknowledge that the character cannot exist in a vacuum and you are creating the character through your own personal views and to benefit your experience (or that of other players) I don't hold major problems so long as the design itself is good. It's an interesting thought argument, but "it is what the character would wear" is such a dumb excuse when it comes from someone who is not making a self-insert. And if you are an attractive lady who likes to share them tiddies, there is totally room at my gaming table. But if you are a burly dude who just like to play pretend acknowledge that is what you are doing and ensure that it still is design with reason and internal logic.

Though I might still judge you.

So yeah. Go all hog and make customization fit characterization. That is good roleplay. But don't pretend you aren't still the driving force if someone accuses you of a sexist design?

File: Love the muscles tho.jpg (26KB, 239x467px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 239x467px

>>54055469
I agree with you on a lot of points. It's completely reasonable and well put. But at the end of the day, as far as I'm concerned it's not about morals or practicality. I just think certain armor looks silly. It's not realism, and it sure as heck isn't political correctness; it's purely a matter of personal taste. If I liked the way it looked I wouldn't give a damn what the other implications were. It's all make believe anyway. I just selfishly want to see more of what I like.

Perhaps it's cynical, but it bugs me. When fighting to the death, why go out of your way to look cute and sexy besides some fourth-wall-breaking appeal to my dick? I don't need my fighter chick to remind me tits exist. If there's an in universe explanation yes that helps, but we know the real reason she's wearing a chain thong.

>But what if it's not a regular unit, but rather a rag-tag band of adventurers?
If it's adventurers or mercenaries a hodge podge of unique gear is expected. I'm way more forgiving in that case. But if the only chick in the party looks like pic related, I'll still lament the design for personal taste alone.

And I love me some FFT. Good example. To me all the classes, despite differences in design, all look generally in line with each other, and both genders blend well with the setting, so I don't mind the differences. It's just got to look cool and cool is very subjective.

>>54056124
>You have to take into account that real-world cultures with more covered women also had separate roles/purposes to those coverings.
Yes that's true, in general cultures where women were more covered were more patriarchal. But that said, in a fantasy world, cultures might have very different gender roles and and society structures. Of course, practicality of armor etc has to be taken into account.

>If you have a half naked woman for the sake of having a half naked woman you are being rightly questioned.
That's an assumption. What if the artist drew a half-naked woman because he got a cool outfit design in mind that happened to be half-naked? You can't assume that tiddy was the main and only reason, unless it's blatantly obvious.

>don't hide behind the character motivation argument
I didn't mean it as an excuse to hide behind; just as another potential factor to consider. Some women like to show off, that can translate to fantasy as well.

>but you will still be required to illustrate exceptions to confirm the rule
What do you mean?

>insistance that men can't be as skimpy as women
Where did you get that from?

>as a creative failing
Why is not drawing skimpy men a creative failing?

>Unless your lady barbarian is half Frost Giant (and appears that way) she is probably dressing up in a colder climate just as your Knight Templar is going to do some degree of dressing down in a jungle, whatever version of action that takes.
Climate differences are actually an interesting challenge. How would different characters adapt to different climates? It's interesting.
But let's consider that most of the adventure takes place in a mild, temperate climate. In that case, armored knight could still wear their armor, and the half-naked barbarian could still stay half-naked.

>one is from Dark Souls and the other got lost en route to a Red Sonja look-a-like convention
Well I already said that this sort of extreme double standard is stupid.

File: dq3fc_jpn_back.jpg (703KB, 1500x1020px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 1500x1020px

>>54056255
Agreed on most points as well. Of course, design should fit the characterization, that's why I asked the last question as well. Obviously, it would be stupid to deny the creator is still the driving force behind the design. However, I strongly disagree that a design is "sexist" just because it's too risque for Sunday school. That's unnecessary moralfaggotry, in my book.

>>54056297
Thanks, same for your post. I understand where you're coming from. When the outfit's skimpiness clashes with the characterization, it might break the suspension of disbelief and the immersion.

>we know the real reason she's wearing a chain thong.
Don't get me started on chain bikinis. I don't understand why they're a thing. When Red Sonja wore one, it was a dancer's outfit she wore for story reasons. It wasn't meant to be protective or anything. How it mutated into a supposedly protective armor, is beyond my understanding.

DQ3 (your picrelated) is an interesting example. It has more gender dimorphism than FFT, and a couple of male-female design differences are kind of unreasonable (namely, Jester and Warrior). But for me, the more jarring part is that like half of the men are middle-aged, while all women look young for some reason. At least in FFT, they all look young.

>>54056555
>half nake costume showing off tiddies
>it might just be about showing off tiddies
My main point is about maintaining consistency. If you have a gender role for women where they are lewdly dressed, make sure it is consistent and serves an internal purpose. Having a cool idea for a half naked women is /fairly assumed/ to be about having a half naked woman unless the artist provides additional context. If the only reason provided is tiddy it is fair to assume it is about tiddy.

And if women are designing them I would want them to have the same level of rational support. And exceptions to prove the rule would also be necessary. That one, ostracized Drow who happens to dress prudishly gives a cultural support (even if mostly an excuse) as to why most drow are dressed lewdly.

If all barbarian women are their warrior class and the men are dressed conservatively for home making, you will have cases of men choosing war and they will dress to the same level of skimp as he women as that is prone to be the culturally accepted war attire. You have to build and support whatever your reasons are for your design. Just maintaining sight that these are rationales that are internal to the creator.

Not drawing skimpy men when your women are skimpy is a creative failing at a minimum in the context that you incapable or unwilling to always sexualize your mail characters. If you cannot flesh out a world in a rational continuation of design it is a creative failing.

And if you are in a temperate climate you aren't going to see your lady knight strip to a chain bikini. So in the same context you are required some level of consistency.

I guess in summary: yes, tiddy armor can have its place. Just make sure that you have logical support and developed reasoning. Arbitrary bullshit puts the emphasis on bullshit. And no other reason than tiddies given means tiddies is he reason. And that is a creative failing, too.

>>54056905
It is sexist if the primary design is exploitative, which is hard to nail down. It's important to take in story context (alternate motivations for the creator to make the decision other than objectification) and the degree and isolation of objectification. I do not consider Red Sonja, etc. sexist given the character and world context built up around her and other similar characters. Albeit, both Red Sonja and Conan are primarily masculine fantasies, they are given an in world context that is rationally consistent. So, I try to reserve my judgements on sexist if more context is available.

>>54057143
>Having a cool idea for a half naked women is /fairly assumed/ to be about having a half naked woman unless the artist provides additional context.
Well let's say the artist dsigned a female tribal warrior who fights barefoot. Now, you might assume that the only reason for the creation of this outfit is because the artist is a horny foot fetishist perv who wants to stroke his willy. Or... it might be just a character design the artist thought of, that happens to be barefoot. Note that the artist still might or might not be a perv, who knows, but that shouldn't be automatically assumed as the main reason for the design's conception.

>And exceptions to prove the rule would also be necessary. That one, ostracized Drow who happens to dress prudishly gives a cultural support (even if mostly an excuse) as to why most drow are dressed lewdly.
Why though? Why are they necessary? I get how they could add to the concept and help flesh it out. But why "necessary"?

>you will have cases of men choosing war and they will dress to the same level of skimp as he women as that is prone to be the culturally accepted war attire.
If you show a large part of the barbarian society, then yes, sure, showing exceptions would be beneficial. But what if the only member of that society you show is one female party member? Why is the creator obligated to show the male exception?

>is a creative failing at a minimum in the context that you incapable or unwilling to always sexualize your mail characters
But why is not sexualizing male characters a creative failing?

>If you cannot flesh out a world in a rational continuation of design it is a creative failing.
That means that all designs should be consistent, fit the world's style and the characters' personalities. Doesn't mean that every single mark should be checked.

>if you are in a temperate climate you aren't going to see your lady knight strip to a chain bikini.
Agreed. But the half-naked barbarian might stay half-naked tho

File: Frank_Frazetta_026_savagepellucidar.jpg (241KB, 931x1200px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 931x1200px

>>54057273
I might not be entirely knowledgeable on those subjects, but I suppose sexist character concepts are more based on narrative and characterization rather than pure visual design. E.g. Smurfette is a walking woman stereotype (at least, was at the beginning), but she's dressed quite modestly. On the other hand, I wouldn't think, say, Tank Girl is in any way a sexist statement.

From what I know, a lot of fantasy designs have erotic undertones because there's a lot of influence from artists like Boris Vallejo and Frank Frazetta who had very eroticized styles. It doesn't have to stem from sexist beliefs, it's often purely aesthetic.

>>54057570
If an artist gives no other context and the image provides sexualization I consider that fair to assume. Obviously we can be pedantic about it. In the context of the thread I think cases of sexualization for the sake of it are usually pretty obvious. As are foot fetish images often keenly illustrative of their intent.

I consider "design exceptions" necessary because it functions to strengthen the initial propf of concept as well as broadening the design basis. Whether they show them off or not doesn't matter as much to me in the hought experience realm. However, if a creator is going to have a single entity of a culture shown and they choose to sexualize it they should be prepared to receive appropriate criticism. Broader world building can help minimize the validity of that criticism.

If you only sexualize women and not men that is a creative failing because you apparently can't create a full world. Is that a better way to think about it for you?

>>54058421
>If you only sexualize women and not men that is a creative failing

It's impossible not to sexualize women. They're sexualized by virtue of being female.

>>54039467
They're garbage compared to a good ol' trench gun.

>>54023803
That's a Genesis Chain, and everyone knows SIVA'd weapons don't follow the archetype rules for their manufacturer, soit's not a real Suros. He's just a shitter who can't be bothered to finnish leveling the damned thing

File: 898866906.jpg (10KB, 226x219px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 226x219px

>>54058506
what

>>54058421
>As are foot fetish images often keenly illustrative of their intent.
Yes of course, when it's blatantly obvious then it's blatantly obvious. But what if it's just a barefoot female character? Would you assume the main reason for her design is that the creator has a foot fetish?

>I consider "design exceptions" necessary because it functions to strengthen the initial propf of concept as well as broadening the design basis.
I get why it would be beneficial and would help flesh out the concept of the culture. However, I still don't see why it's _necessary_. It can be interesting and helpful to show more about a culture one of the characters belongs to, but is it necessary?

>However, if a creator is going to have a single entity of a culture shown and they choose to sexualize it they should be prepared to receive appropriate criticism. Broader world building can help minimize the validity of that criticism.
So essentially, "guilt money". The creator is forced to create a skimpy male analogue not because they got a cool idea for that, but just to protect their other design from criticism. That's what I call artistically limiting.

>If you only sexualize women and not men that is a creative failing because you apparently can't create a full world.
If the shown portion of the world is otherwise consistent in style and internal logic, why would it need sexualized males to be "full"?

>>54058615

It doesn't matter what you dress a woman in. The fact that they're female makes heterosexual men want to have sex with them. They will always be sexualized simply by virtue of being female. The only difference between outfit types is which subgrouping of male sexual desire you happen to be catering to.

There's no such thing as a non-sexual outfit when the contents of the outfit are the target of sexual desire.

>>54059006
You could say the exact same thing of men, though. The fact that they're male and their male secondary sexual characteristics make heterosexual women want to have sex with them. Men will always be sexualized simply by virtue of being male.

>>54058506
Literally the stupidest post in this whole thread.

Also the anon who is creatively bankrupt and probably That Guy at the table.

>>54058114
Yes, however there are cases where it is sexist (exploitative, objectification) while your example image is actively portraying a character (agency, purpose, capability) which is not at all what I would refer to as being a sexist image.

Yes, the influence is broad, and many of their images aren't sexist, there are still undertones that one needs to be aware of and consider. Presentation can do a lot for many things. And I think there is more value in empowered female representation than in sexualized objectification.

Tank Girl is a great character to illustrate that. The character is the driving agent in her own sexuality, thus you are removing a lot of the exploitation that frequently plagues most minimal dressed ladies.

>>54046856
Now you're just convincing me to have my female fighters armour have this massive guided codpiece on it.

>>54058826
If the character has no rationale to be barefoot, yes. As that is a fair conclusion if the information provided establishes it as such.

Star Wars planets are shitty by design because they are monobiomial and exist to have a set piece location for a part of a story. A lot of fantasy race characterizations are shitty by design because they are monocultural and exist to have a real-world or other form of foil to a different fantasy culture. Your unfleshed out and nonrobustly considered single-entity barbarian is shitty by design because they are literally a fabrication for the sake of the fabrication to fill a design niche. They aren't a character, they are a set decoration.

That is why, even if a minor framing reference, it is important to consider the necessity of broad stroke design work. I guess it isn't necessary to actually flesh things out, but that is followed by merit for calling the creator on pulling that shit.

And that is fine if you consider fleshing a world out limiting. Most people don't flesh out anything but the blood circle around their point of interest. The whole purpose of the comment is that if you have a role that is being presented and you do not have the foresight to acknowledge that any broad culture will have overlaps in whatever gendered or sexualized expressions they possess, then it is valid criticism. If you actually develop a culture and have an internally consistent reasoning, obviously the "you are doing it for your boner" loses validity. Other associated criticisms of your design aren't lifted. Just this very specific one that everyone always addresses in these threads.

>If the shown portion of the world is otherwise consistent in style and internal logic, why would it need sexualized males to be "full"?
Unless your world only has characters sexually attracted to women, then you do not have a full world. That should be obvious how that works. Or you're building a world designed to die out 'cause no one likes men.

File: Codpiece_of_Attention.png (17KB, 175x161px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 175x161px

>>54059932
That's true, but doesn't it mean that it's still primarily the narrative of the picture that characterizes the character in an exploitative or capable way?

In general, I agree with what you said.

>>54060012
>implying I have anything against that

>>54060130
A lot of it, actually, is just that. Which is why you often see so many debates about it, and why some people get saltier than a Lays potato chip factory the moment someone else has sensibilities which aren't in line with there about what is acceptable levels of tiddies.

>>54060012
If the codpiece isn't it's own character then you have failed the world.

>>54060081
>If the character has no rationale to be barefoot, yes.
Well the rationale might be that it's the tradition in her tribe, or something along those lines.

>Star Wars, etc
That's a bit too Tolkienesque in my opinion. Nothing against Tolkien, but I don't think a creator has to think through every aspect of the world, if it's never gonna come into play. Star Wars planets are completely unrealistic, but they work.

>They aren't a character, they are a set decoration.
What if I give them enough characterization, personality and motive? Do I have to include a half-naked barbarian man to have them be considered a "character"?

>if you have a role that is being presented and you do not have the foresight to acknowledge that any broad culture will have overlaps in whatever gendered or sexualized expressions they possess, then it is valid criticism
Do I have to show gender outliers for every culture and profession combo? Or just for those that are dressed a bit too lightly?

>If you actually develop a culture and have an internally consistent reasoning, obviously the "you are doing it for your boner" loses validity.
Idk, I think it's weird that I have to be on the defensive and actively strive to "prove my innocence" the moment I decide to create a not-entirely-covered-up character.

>Unless your world only has characters sexually attracted to women, then you do not have a full world.
There's a difference between the existence of people who like men, and men who actively show off their sex appeal. Same with women, btw. E.g. in cultures where women are obligated to cover up, most men still are attracted to them. If I want to show that in my world, people can be attracted to men, I'd show a character who is attracted to men.

>>54060012
Will the codpiece, you know, serve a functional role? If you know what I mean wink wink nudge nudge

>>54060523
And while I personally like a little more (i.e., a royal didn't like to walk and so never wore shoes while being carried, became popular in the courts and it became a sign of wealth to have soft feet you were willing to display) a tribal tradition is a reasonable explanation.

Also, humorous in mentioning Tolkien, as a lot of his works are lazy monoliths to prop up his linguistics fetish. And I don't think every aspect needs to be considered. But direct relations to things you show are important in the world you make being a world and not cardboard scenery, like Star Wars planets are.

Because you are being pedantic, yes. Somewhere you have to have a passing mention to the cultural aspect that some dudes also do this job and dress this way.

Every single one. If you don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the world you have developed you are in fact the ultimate failure.

The actual question is whether the character is lightly clothed or is there just to generate your boner. And if you are a-ok with everyone just thinking you wanna give yourself a boner, there is no reason to try to flesh anything out beyond what gets you hard I guess.

And there you go. Now you're talking about things in broader strokes. If you can illustrate someone with an attraction to men without sexualizing men, then maybe consider treating women as full entities, too. Because that is really the big question here is why you focus on sexualizing women but don't want to be judged for the same.

>>54060855
>i.e., a royal didn't like to walk and so never wore shoes while being carried, became popular in the courts and it became a sign of wealth to have soft feet you were willing to display
That actually sounds like a pretty cool concept. Kudos!

>Somewhere you have to have a passing mention to the cultural aspect that some dudes also do this job and dress this way.
But why? Do I have to include every gender outlier to every job? There might or might not be gender outliers to every job in every culture out there. That's mildly interesting for sure, but I don't see why it's considered a requirement.

>whether the character is lightly clothed or is there just to generate your boner
The character is there to play a role and take part in the narrative, first and foremost. Design-wise, it might or might not be sexually attractive (to some tastes). But if the design fits the character, the setting and the style, why do I have to be on the defensive and prove I'm not a horny perv?

And another thing: even if (and that's an if) the character fits some of my personal preferences, why would that be a bad thing, as long as it doesn't look out of place? A lot of creators insert stuff they personally like into their works, not always sexual of nature, and their works are still solid. Quentin Tarantino is a foot fetishist and writes bare feet into every fucking movie, yet I didn't notice that until I learned about it, because his films are pretty damn solid.

>then maybe consider treating women as full entities, too
Where did you get the idea that I don't?

>why you focus on sexualizing women but don't want to be judged for the same.
I don't focus on it. Just right now I'm discussing the possibility of a character design that's risque / sexually attractive. Of course I'm aware that it's only one aspect of the design, and that design itself is only one aspect of a character concept.

>>54018260
The proportions in this one twll me she is SHORTT. I mean really short. Girls going to survive because shes the smallest target in the field.

>>54061230
>The character is there to play a role and take part in the narrative, first and foremost. Design-wise, it might or might not be sexually attractive (to some tastes). But if the design fits the character, the setting and the style, why do I have to be on the defensive and prove I'm not a horny perv?
Do you care if you are assumed a horny perv? It behooves you regardless to have a quality world built for that character anyway. Why wouldn't you want to flesh it out?

And Tarantino also likes really pedantic dialogue which obscures bad pacing and structure and uses non-linear storytelling to hide most of the other flaws in his films. His foot fetish always bothered me in his movies. Also, he has bad taste for liking Uma Therman's handfeet.

>Where did you get the idea that I don't?
Why are you chasing an excuse to treat them as less than full entities then?

>I don't focus on it. Just right now I'm discussing the possibility of a character design that's risque / sexually attractive. Of course I'm aware that it's only one aspect of the design, and that design itself is only one aspect of a character concept.
Which is itself part of a world and those overlapping considerations and ideas lead to better, more full stories and worlds which better sell and support the decision to have tiddies out in the first place.

And tiddies are a substantial motivator in my world building. Even if there is zero sexualization in the current world I am making (as it is a children's fantasy world without humans) it still influences how other designs occur.

>>54062135
>It behooves you regardless to have a quality world built for that character anyway. Why wouldn't you want to flesh it out?
Of course I want to do it, but on my terms. I'm actually personally not against creating hot male characters. But knowing I _have_ to do that in order to defend my female design's existence, would kill any possible fun I could have doing it.

>Do you care if you are assumed a horny perv?
It ruins the mood.

>Why are you chasing an excuse to treat them as less than full entities then?
Where did you get the idea that I am?

>Which is itself part of a world and those overlapping considerations and ideas lead to better, more full stories and worlds which better sell and support the decision to have tiddies out in the first place.
Yes, but fleshing out a world can be done in a myriad different ways, because a world has a myriad different aspects to it. Of course I'm not against fleshing out a world, that would be weird. What I'm arguing, however, is why you consider specifically showing male job outliers as the mandatory way to flesh out the world. Why them, and not a hundred completely different aspects of that world?

>And tiddies are a substantial motivator in my world building. Even if there is zero sexualization in the current world I am making (as it is a children's fantasy world without humans) it still influences how other designs occur.
Um... I'm a bit confused by what you meant here. Please explain?

>>54062555
>But knowing I _have_ to
I don't think anyone has to. I just think that you have to in order to have a well rounded and actually rational world built. It's a weird thing that.

>Where did you get the idea that I am?
Same place everyone else thinks great ideas come from?

>What I'm arguing, however, is why you consider specifically showing male job outliers as the mandatory way to flesh out the world. Why them, and not a hundred completely different aspects of that world?
A contextual basis of masculine outliers to highlight feminine outliers is highly important if your world has any concept of gender roles (regardless of number of genders) and is an aspect of cultures that you cannot flesh out in the same manner as other things. Which a culture doesn't use green in any of its clothing or art (because they consider that stealing from The King of All Green and that is a bad omen) doesn't explore the reason why girls get wings and boys don't and how that impacts that culture. Maybe I just don't think people should half ass things? Full ass things only.

>Um... I'm a bit confused by what you meant here. Please explain?
Understanding sexualized content and expression (see, dick-shaped cacti) is important to ensuring that you do not accidentally "adult-theme" your children's world building (see, all cacti composed of non-genital shapes)

>>54062727
>I don't think anyone has to.
>I just think that you have to
okey

>Same place everyone else thinks great ideas come from?
You're dodging the question though.

>A contextual basis of masculine outliers to highlight feminine outliers is highly important if your world has any concept of gender roles (regardless of number of genders) and is an aspect of cultures that you cannot flesh out in the same manner as other things.
Those gender roles can be explored in a lot of different ways. If a society has strict gender roles there might not even be outliers, at least in the depicted period of time. E.g. how many female European medieval knights can we name aside from Jeanne d'Arc? The point is, I agree that the gender roles need to be explored to flesh out a culture where they play an important role, I just don't see how showing a gender outlier is absolutely necessary for that.

>Understanding sexualized content and expression (see, dick-shaped cacti) is important to ensuring that you do not accidentally "adult-theme" your children's world building (see, all cacti composed of non-genital shapes)
Ah, I see, thanks for the explanation.

>>54063622
>I don't think anyone has to.
I don't.
>I just think that you have to
Thanks for removing context! The rest of that line is kinda important.

Necessary to reference. Not necessarily show. And history is a) very limited in documentation and b) heavily edited by those in power. Often men. So, we can't actually measure the frequency of female knights because the world is made of revisionist history. Sadly.

There is something to be said about exploring things with and without full context. Things that are uncommon and supposed to be misunderstood (such as bogeyman monsters and the like) are great when given very little and often conflicting information for their context. These aren't things we are supposed to understand. When exploring developed cultural phenomena, however, you can't really do that. Unless, of course, you are exploring an outlier that has more in common with a local urban legend than a cultural norm. And either your slutty warrior lady is uncommon and an outlier herself, or it is common enough that there will be dudes who share the motivation of a similar outward expression.

Box the circumstance up as much as you like to not have to explore those things, but that just comes off as a cop out instead.

>>54064110
>And history is a) very limited in documentation and b) heavily edited by those in power. Often men. So, we can't actually measure the frequency of female knights because the world is made of revisionist history. Sadly.
That's actually an interesting concept in itself: what kind of history is left forever unknown, having slipped through the cracks of official historiography? Might be fun to imagine.

As for the main topic, I'm afraid I still honestly don't get why is it necessary to show gender outliers for every job. I don't think I've ever seen that topic explored in fantasy or whatnot, unless those outliers were the main point or one of the main points of the story (Eowyn in LotR, Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment, etc). Do you have any examples?

The hypothetical lady in question doesn't have to be slutty. I mean, she could very well be slutty, but that wouldn't necessarily have any relation to her choice of attire.

I'm honestly not arguing to try and find a cop out. As I said, I'm actually not against designing hot male characters and whatnot, if I feel like it. I just don't like feeling forced to design them, and forced to feel defensive about risque female designs at the same time, and those things quite bug me.

File: 1491484924584.jpg (416KB, 1536x1776px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1536x1776px

>>54014438

File: Mitchell_Mohrhauser_Concept_Art_05.jpg (285KB, 864x1226px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 864x1226px

>>54066820
More flightsuit than full armour, but still.

File: 1421537670962.png (675KB, 1172x951px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1172x951px

>>54066869

>>54014438
>female
>reasonable

It's as though you know nothing about that sex

>>54019811
is this the same artist who did the terrible Samus redesign that looked like Weyland in Prometheus?

>>54073935

Yes.

>>54077087
I love this pic

>>54016116
No way it was like 4-5 at most

>>54058506
this

women are sexual, deal with it nerds

File: 0780.png (297KB, 545x602px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 545x602px

>>54080321
As another anon said, if all women are sexual than so are all men, as there will always be someone who wants to fucked and/or be fucked by them. So everyone and everything is sexual. Really puts the 'slippery' in slippery slope.

When it comes right down to it though, I think the issue is less dependent upon gender and more to do with how little you're getting in that area. If you're always so painfully hard up and sex crazed that you must furiously masturbate to every woman you see at all times, you're probably some ronery kissless waifu fag, or a very hormonal young teenager.

But hey man, takes all kinds, here's some more fap bait for ya.

>>54045567

>"women are weak and can't fight!"
>anon is probably a 250+lb sperglord who gets out of breath climbing stairs

>>54084345
-3 STR