Darji Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Not at all. At that point it's a purely stylistic choice. What kind of "realistic" protection it provides should no longer enter the arguement, since the situation is unrealistic to begin with. I'm sorry, I do not follow. You said that the world's logic estabilished that women are equal fighters to men. According to that logic, if men need to cover as much of their skin as possible, so do women. If women don't, neither do man. And considering the cost and weight of materials involved no, its not a stylistic choice. This is actual an argument against bikini armor not your realism claim. I never claimed realism, I claimed internal logic. No you claimed your logic based on the real world not on a fantasy world. Again this is not a real world were our logic even is right or wrong. I our logic there is no magic or dragons for example.
The Sharmat Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Ok Dan, let's accept your premise. However, people in wars don't tend to respect your feelings. You don't have to WANT to fight to be in a combat situation. Now you're a woman fighting a man. You know that you're going to lose if this stays a one on one affair, because physics dictates that no woman can beat a man in a physical confrontation under any circumstances. Wouldn't you like armor that's actually protective so you can last as long as possible until someone rescues you, instead of immediately being gutted because you just had to show your midriff?
dan107 Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Not at all. At that point it's a purely stylistic choice. What kind of "realistic" protection it provides should no longer enter the arguement, since the situation is unrealistic to begin with. I'm sorry, I do not follow. You said that the world's logic estabilished that women are equal fighters to men. According to that logic, if men need to cover as much of their skin as possible, so do women. If women don't, neither do man. And considering the cost and weight of materials involved no, its not a stylistic choice. In your setting, Dan, why would anyone bother with armor at all? It's heavy, limits vision and movement, and is stiflingly hot. Indeed. Once you've established that women are equal to men in combat, it doesn't matter what either wears. You can have both running around in underwear, both wearing full plate, or any combination in between, depending on what overall look you want for your game. All I'm saying is that realism is no longer a factor. 1
Delterius Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) No you claimed your logic based on the real world not on a fantasy world. Again this is not a real world were our logic even is right or wrong. I our logic there is no magic or dragons for example. Not really, I accepted dan's premise of a fantasy setting where women and men are equal combatants. Indeed. Once you've established that women are equal to men in combat, it doesn't matter what either wears. You can have both running around in underwear, both wearing full plate, or any combination in between, depending on what overall look you want for your game. All I'm saying is that realism is no longer a factor. So why don't men wear chainmail bikinis? Edited September 16, 2012 by Delterius
Darji Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Ok Dan, let's accept your premise. However, people in wars don't tend to respect your feelings. You don't have to WANT to fight to be in a combat situation. Now you're a woman fighting a man. You know that you're going to lose if this stays a one on one affair, because physics dictates that no woman can beat a man in a physical confrontation under any circumstances. Wouldn't you like armor that's actually protective so you can last as long as possible until someone rescues you, instead of immediately being gutted because you just had to show your midriff? Personally I want a armor in which I can move and defeat my enemies. Not one that is heavy and maybe has a bit protection which would not even matter against a well aimed hit anyway^^
Tamerlane Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) There's something... odd going on here. There's this weird jump being made between "women are, generally speaking, weaker than men" and "there is no reason for any woman to be a warrior". I'm not entirely sure how some of y'all are bridging that particular gap. Edited September 16, 2012 by Tamerlane
Longknife Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Wouldn't you like armor that's actually protective so you can last as long as possible until someone rescues you, instead of immediately being gutted because you just had to show your midriff? On the other hand you wanna look presentable for the rescue squad. Think about how embarassing it'd be to be found in a clunky steel outfit. Omg I swear I could just DIE if they found me like that!! On a serious note, I wanna hear about dan's personal experience fighting women while both he and his female opponent wore steel armor and how bad he kicked her ass. "The Courier was the worst of all of them. The worst by far. When he died the first time, he must have met the devil, and then killed him." Is your mom hot? It may explain why guys were following her ?
dan107 Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Just so you know, there is a reason why even in the 21st centrury, a time when physical strength is less important in combat than it has ever been the overwhelming majority of the world's militaries do not allow women in combat units. That reason is that men are far superior physically. That difference is only exacerbated in hand to hand combat. The idea of a woman being able to defeat a trained male fighter in sword combat wearing heavy armor is fantasy, period. Whether she's wearing full plate or a string bikini doesn't make it any more or less realistic. Whatever your reasons for not wanting to see chainmail bikinis may be, realism has nothing to do with it. Onna Bushi were specifically female warriors in feudal Japan. They often fought alongside male Samurai (as they themselves were considered part of the Samurai class) To state that a woman defeating a man in combat (armored or otherwise) is fantasy is probably one of the most arrogant, ignorant, and sexist things I've seen posted on a forum in a long time. And also one of the most historically valid things. There is a reason after all while, aside from a few HIGHLY unrepresentative examples, the vast majority of all armies were and are made up of men. CAN a woman POSSIBLY defeat a trained man in armored combat? Sure. But it's pretty damn unlikely. 1
Darji Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) There's something... odd going on here. There's this weird jump being made between "women are, generally speaking, weaker than men" and "there is no reason for any woman to be a warrior". I'm not entirely sure how y'all are bridging that particular gap. Woman are weaker in terms of physical stats. That is something you can not really deny. BUT to be a good fighter does not only depend on your strength . Also woman could have one huge advantage. The advantage of being underestimated which could make them very easily the winner of this duel or fight. Edited September 16, 2012 by Darji
dan107 Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Ok Dan, let's accept your premise. However, people in wars don't tend to respect your feelings. You don't have to WANT to fight to be in a combat situation. Now you're a woman fighting a man. You know that you're going to lose if this stays a one on one affair, because physics dictates that no woman can beat a man in a physical confrontation under any circumstances. Wouldn't you like armor that's actually protective so you can last as long as possible until someone rescues you, instead of immediately being gutted because you just had to show your midriff? If you're not expecting to fight and win, the only reason why you would end up in combat is if you're attacked unexpectedly. So unless you would make it a habit of walking around in armor on a daily basis, as you cook and do the laundry, no you wouldn't be wearing armor to begin with.
dan107 Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 No you claimed your logic based on the real world not on a fantasy world. Again this is not a real world were our logic even is right or wrong. I our logic there is no magic or dragons for example. Not really, I accepted dan's premise of a fantasy setting where women and men are equal combatants. Indeed. Once you've established that women are equal to men in combat, it doesn't matter what either wears. You can have both running around in underwear, both wearing full plate, or any combination in between, depending on what overall look you want for your game. All I'm saying is that realism is no longer a factor. So why don't men wear chainmail bikinis? No reason really. Like I said, it all depends on the look you want for the game. (See Conan for men in underwear). Nothing to do with realism though.
Volourn Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Actually, men, ie. Conan as above, do wear 'armour bikinis'. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Tamerlane Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 And also one of the most historically valid things. There is a reason after all while, aside from a few HIGHLY unrepresentative examples, the vast majority of all armies were and are made up of men. CAN a woman POSSIBLY defeat a trained man in armored combat? Sure. But it's pretty damn unlikely. See, here's my thing. Our party is gonna be... what? Four people? Six people? Something like that. We're going to be playing with a tiny subset of the entire population of a world. We are not gathering every single man and woman together and having them square off in a gladiator arena until only one sex remains. We are talking specific people. Maybe one of those people happens to be a woman who, through a combination of genetics and upbringing, is strong and talented in a fight? More so than most, albeit not necessarily all, men? Spoiler alert: that's vaguely... realistic?
Darji Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Actually, men, ie. Conan as above, do wear 'armour bikinis'. Red Sonja even wore more than Conan XD
dan107 Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 On a serious note, I wanna hear about dan's personal experience fighting women while both he and his female opponent wore steel armor and how bad he kicked her ass. Obviously no one fights in steel armor nowadays, but there are plenty of ways to test physical strength. As a personal experience, I maxed out the Army physical fitness test -- 77 push ups, 80 crunches and 2 miles in 13 minutes. Not a whole lot of women that can do that. The difference is so pronounced, that all branches of the military have separate standards for men and women.
Delterius Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 No reason really. Like I said, it all depends on the look you want for the game. (See Conan for men in underwear). Nothing to do with realism though. Or, instead of applying nonsense to a mundane aspect of the setting, you simply have both women and men wearing similar armor. Because, the average female and the average male adventurer are physically similar.
The Sharmat Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 There's something... odd going on here. There's this weird jump being made between "women are, generally speaking, weaker than men" and "there is no reason for any woman to be a warrior". I'm not entirely sure how some of y'all are bridging that particular gap. We aren't really. I'm just arguing on those terms because all other arguments have been ignored. Generalizations are not invalid, but they're just...general. Not representative of every case by definition. For an example in fiction: Take Brienne from A Song of Ice and Fire. She's a female that fights in the traditional style of western European knight...and she can do it, because she's six and a half feet tall and heavily muscled, truly on the shallow end of the bell curve. CAN a woman POSSIBLY defeat a trained man in armored combat? Sure. But it's pretty damn unlikely. Thank you. And we're dealing with a party of adventurers who are most likely very exceptional people. If you're not expecting to fight and win, the only reason why you would end up in combat is if you're attacked unexpectedly. Perhaps you know you're going to be moving through a warzone. Or due to some quest you just HAVE to speak to someone in one of the army camps. Or maybe you're one of those females that lead and command armies without fighting in the front line; which you've acknowledged exist; and you don't want to be killed by a stray arrow? So unless you would make it a habit of walking around in armor on a daily basis, as you cook and do the laundry, You...you have to be doing this on purpose.
Darji Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) I think we really should end this: Do we think that wearing a bikini armor is absurd in a fantasy game? No Do we want Bikini Armor in this game? No Do we think that in the real world men have advantages when they fight against women: Yes Do we think men would always win in real life? No Do we think that men should have these advantages in a fantasy game? No Cant we all live with this?^^ Edited September 16, 2012 by Darji
dan107 Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Because, the average female and the average male adventurer are physically similar. That's where you lose me. The average man is tougher than the average woman. With training the difference only increases. Therefore, the toughest men are A LOT tougher than then toughest women. 1
Humanoid Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) Would be fun to see the devs bypass the whole human-centric argument by implementing a race where, in a not-uncommon form of sexual dimorphism, the female is physically dominant. Imagine a race where the females looked like ogres and the males looked like gnomes - or for a milder example, orcs and elves respectively. The lack of something like this, given the range of playable species in high-fantasy, has always been a bit of a letdown, though there are some borderline cases: I could buy, for example, male drow being smaller and physically inferior, even if I'm unfamiliar with the "official" statistics: it plays well with the whole spider theme and the image of the female spider devouring the male. Edited September 16, 2012 by Humanoid L I E S T R O N GL I V E W R O N G
Calax Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 2 things One a woman can wear armor just as well as a man. She might not be as physically strong as a man, but women can still be strong enough to wear any type of armor and swing swords. Two, it'd make sense for something like a Succubus (who's entirely built around sex from top to bottom) to be mostly nude in every day life. It'd guard itself with it's magic, and would use it's body to seduce men Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.
Darji Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) Would be fun to see the devs bypass the whole human-centric argument by implementing a race where, in a not-uncommon form of sexual dimorphism, the female is physically dominant. Imagine a race where the females looked like ogres and the males looked like gnomes - or for a milder example, orcs and elves respectively. Yes sure. But again that is fantasy. These people right now arguing about real life XD And for the poster above: It would give a woman a disadvantage since the burden is heavier for her than for a fighter. Edited September 16, 2012 by Darji
dan107 Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) Generalizations are not invalid, but they're just...general. Not representative of every case by definition. For an example in fiction: Take Brienne from A Song of Ice and Fire. She's a female that fights in the traditional style of western European knight...and she can do it, because she's six and a half feet tall and heavily muscled, truly on the shallow end of the bell curve. She's big that's all. I bet that in real life any trained man could kick her ass from here to sunday though. Practically no women out there that combine size, strength, and quickness the way that the best men do. You...you have to be doing this on purpose. Lol, yeah, a little. Edited September 16, 2012 by dan107
Delterius Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) Because, the average female and the average male adventurer are physically similar. That's where you lose me. No, that's where you lost yourself. The setting you estabilished on the last page made a point of equalizing men and women warriors, which most likely includes physical aptitude (after all, that's your argument for why women and men aren't equal in real life). For some reason, you choose to interprete that as armor having no inherent value anymore. Instead, as you should, its best to assume that, as physically men and women are similar, they should be able to wear similar armor. Therefore, there's no reason for the chainmail bikini. Edited September 16, 2012 by Delterius
The Sharmat Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Do we think that wearing a bikini armor is absurd in a fantasy game? No But as this thread has demonstrated, that depends both on who you're talking to and what sort of fantasy game it is. I'm not asking for a blanket ban on games that feature bikini armor. I'm just saying it's absurd in a fantasy game that takes itself seriously. That's where you lose me. The average man is tougher than the average woman. With training the difference only increases. Therefore, the toughest men are A LOT tougher than then toughest women. I think Delterious meant that men and woman can wear the same sort of armor because we both have two arms, to legs, and a head; and further that if in your mind both genders wearing bikini armor is fine because armor is just cosmetic, why not just have both genders wear regular armor?
Recommended Posts