How anachronistically do your fantasy characters dress?

t. referee

"Anachronism" is a meaningless term in a fantasy setting. By definition, it is not our own world. It does not play by our rules.

18th/19th century corsets would be. Modern corsets are more comfortable, assuming they're sized correctly. Still constricting, yes, but I think the main concern would be heat and sweat, two words which really should rhyme and now that I'm thinking about it, it kinda bugs me that they don't.

Source?

I think the problem with this question is that the outer limit of what one considers "historically accurate" is determined entirely by one's own knowledge. I have that problem with "realistic" medieval fantasy in general, really.

>"Anachronism" is a meaningless term in a fantasy setting. By definition, it is not our own world. It does not play by our rules.
It plays by its own rules though. Clothes may be anachronisic there depending on the setting.

None of my characters are too out of place for the time period of the setting. Considering that there's a huge variety of styles and ways of dress spread across the various cultures, it's not hard to find whatever clothes that they want. This is why my elf witch wears a sundress and sunhat.

Is that pic implying people only mention tomatoes are fruits because they don't know enough about plants? It's more just an annoying fact everyone knows.

Zippers exist and are common for adventurers.

Sorry, that was kind of unclear, especially how the picture is related. My problem with it is that it usually results in someone obsessively adhering to historical accuracy (or what they think is accurate) in certain, very limited respects while ignoring all the things they aren't already familiar with. For instance, demanding all the arms and armor be consistent with a certain time period while making characters a philosophically closer to how people saw the world 200 years ago than a genuine medieval outlook. Unless you're a genuine scholar (or at least, know enough to have that level of understanding) you're inevitably going to ignore so much shit that there's no longer any point

Randall Monroe spends his fair share of time yelling at the world from atop Mt. Stupid

I don't understand why everyone doesn't wear sundresses. Women, men, old, young, anyone in a warm climate should wear them. They're wonderful.

If I lived somewhere that had summers that weren't like a dry furnace and winters like a dry icebox I might try it. Not keen on withering my mergers by exposing them to our negative humidity air.

My character is in a sort of technology level (but not cultural) level of Victorian London (Bloodbornish)

Would Jeans exist yet?

How's KH3 coming along, Mr. Nomura?

Not to mention how hypocritical it tends to get.

>summers like a dry furnace
That's the best time for sundresses! When it's stuffy and warm and clothing just winds up trapping heat and a cool breeze can make all the difference.

Jeans were invented in 1871 and patented in 1873, and blue denim trousers were in existence before then.

However, they did originate in America, so they'd be quite exotic in a Victorian London knockoff.

>Kingdom Hearts
>because zippers exist
Do you call a setting edgy because people die, too?

I was talking more pant flies and jackets or secret pockets that can be quickly opened or closed.

>Do you call a setting edgy because people die, too?
Yes. In any good setting, everyone just gets sent to a farm owned by a kindly old couple where there are lots of rabbits for them to chase.

Tell me more about these 'rabbits'.

No no just the tech level around that era is all, not culturally speaking.

But thats good to know. Thanks.

UUUU

They'we vewy wascawy.

I try to keep it within what's plausible for "The Renaissance 1500's", but I doubt I'm always accurate with my setting.

Of course, then you have folks, like the orcs and feral who are often deliberately anachronistic in the backwards sense due to their preferences of tribal life-style.

>Not to mention how hypocritical it tends to get.
I'm unfamilliar with the guy and his comics. Care to provide some examples?

I play with perverts, so bringing out pictures of hyper-slutty clothing for my characters is perfectly fine.
It's really hard to tell when the girls at the table are getting off though

>Lewd, big sister type lady of the knight
>Orphan boy otouto who's probably NBR
I hope this is going where I think it is going.

>lady of the knight
On the one hand, I made a typo.
On the other hand, it's better like this.

I more mean in terms of people who criticize armor as "historically inaccurate", often while having glaring mistakes of their own.

Tell me about the rabbits George

Aw, geez, Lennie, I musta told you a hundred times.

Why does this pic depress me.

The main problem is the "not a vegetable" part. Tomatoes are both, but a bunch of misinformed twats seem to have decided that the two are mutually exclusive and end up looking even dumber while trying to trick people into thinking they're smart. Kind of like when someone tries to use "per se" and spells it wrong.

That's his mom, dood. Which I'd also be fine with, but it doesn't look like the artist was into that.

>She pushed that kid out from between her hips
>She still has an almost ideal hourglass figure
Older women truly are amazing!

Pretty accurate, I tend to use more modern boots and shoes but no one can recognize that except medieval historians so I dont care

>Randall Monroe spends his fair share of time yelling at the world from atop Mt. Stupid
that's not from xkcd, it's from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereals

The fruit/vegetable divide is a purely culinary one, where tomatoes are clearly vegetables and not fruits. In a wider botanical sense, a tomato is certainly a fruit, as it contains seeds. but this is also the case with tons of other culinary vegetables (like squash, cucumbers, beans, corn, etc.), and in that sense, a fruit is vegetable matter, just like the rest of the plant.

>Fantasy genre that isn't Historical Fantasy
>Anachronism

I have exactly *one* recurring NPC who dresses 300 years out of style, because fuck you, that's how he dresses.

Actually, it's the younger women who has an easier time bouncing back from childbirth. For the older ones, keeping their figure, or just simply not having much complications, is more a miracle than a trait of being older.

as fuck

So the idea is to pump out 3 or 4 children before she hits 26, raise your children for another 20 years and then enjoy some quality time with your MILF wife?

Truly our ancestors knew what the good life was.

Usually try to keep it at least close to setting appropriate. I do have one character that is ridiculously anachronistic, though. Picture this. You've got a group of travellers. A cleric with her habit and matching chainmail. The barbarian with obligtory leather belts and a loincloth, and half a temper to crush anyone who mistakes her for a harlot, the alchemist with the face mask and robes, the wiz with his robes., the merchant with something straight out of Arabian Nights. And then there's this faggot with a cloth jacket, cotton sweater, miscolored studded jeans and a pair of plastic self-lacing running shoes. All accentuated with tron lines and an excess of zippers and pins.

There is an in-story justification, tho. He got thrown into the high fantasy setting from conventional Shadowrun setting by a silly mad scientist dragon with a dimensional door.

That's the idea! Remember that all ages have their perks, you should take advantage of the traits of youth while young and then enjoy age when it comes.
My son is 6, and I love him just as much as my 23-year-old wife.

>My son is 6, and I love him just as much as my 23-year-old wife.
>23 - 6 = 17

What? We were stupid hormonal teenagers and I was told since 4th grade that I was supposed to be sterile.
Besides, I don't break the Half-Plus-7 law.

You're a big girl.

Teenagers fuck, user.

>tfw I was born to high school freshmen

...

Umm... 13 is not the same as 17.

My characters dress like this

Sooooooooo, like a whore?

>On the other hand, it's better like this.

It's actually pretty good like that

There's nothing wrong with that. My grandmother had my mother back when she was 15.

Stop complaining.

Note: I'm in the Southern US so nobody gives a shit, especially back when my grandparents were young

You'll need between 6 and 13. Out of 6 only 2 will reach adulthood. Even rich families had high infant mortality. Most kids died before their third birthday.

>>tfw I was born to high school freshmen
What's that like?

Thats the perfect time for girls to have babies
Now we make them stall until an arbitrary age so we don't rush in or some shit.
Dating culture was a mistake.

But the Civial war WASN'T about slavery until Lincoln was up for re-election.

At least it wasn't JUST about slavery...

The pic is by some lefty webcomic artist. SMBC. Reminder that XKCD backed Her.

Even the guys that created the confederacy openly said that it was about slavery.

On the plus side, when he's 17 she'll be only 34.

If we're talking about how I would actually picture my characters probably very

Just thinking of one assuming D&D at say 1500 era clothing, My imagining of the charcter has clothes from well into the 1800's.

How old are you, user?

Think about it this way sweat rhymes with wet.

>How anachronistically do your fantasy characters dress?
On the outside, they wear period clothes.

But underneath, modern underwear/swimwear. Period underclothes are just boring.

>anachronistically
>fantasy
How the FUCK you can be anachronistic if you are not real world setting?

Seriously, this is one of those things that trigger me to no end - idiots talking about anachronisms and historical accuracy for made-up worlds and settings.

Yes, as part of the bigger issue of federal law superseding state law. The confederacy fought to dismantle big government. Slavery was probably a sticking point due to the debilitating blow the economy was projected to be (and was) dealt in the South, but there was a greater, overarching thing there. To say it was "about" slavery is misinformation. It would be like saying WWII was "about" stopping the Holocaust, there were much more complicated elements and agendas at play there and the thing you're claiming it was "about" didn't come directly into focus until later in the war.

>Pretending American Civil War was about anything else than financial oligarchy B fighting against financial oligarchy A
>Pretending it was about protection of local self-governance
user... words cannot describe how redneck you sound

>game has elves and dwarves and dragons and magic
>"hey, you can't wear that! it's not historically accurate!"

>How the FUCK you can be anachronistic if you are not real world setting?
One-piece swimsuits in not!Ancient Egypt.

For example.

In a fantasy world, a truly free individual dress as they please

The Civil War was about slavery. The Confederates fought for slavery. In their secession statements, the Confederate states made it explicitly clear that they were seceding over slavery.

When the Civil War ended, people began this myth that the Confederates were fighting for anything but slavery in order to spare the South's feelings. Unfortunately, the truth is what it is.

>Anachronistic
Case study: 13th warrior film adaptation
Explaination: A largely real-world setting, set in specific period, yet numerous characters are somehow in possession of well-kept antiques OR wearing armours not even invented for next few centuries. Note how the anachronisms were completely absent in the source material book.
>Non-anachronistic
Case study: LotR
Explaination: A completely made up world, with zero relation to history or any particular period in it. This allows to have a combination of arms, clothes and weapon from any given "period". Films further exemplify on this

Dear Veeky Forums - finally learn the fucking difference

So?
It's not!Ancient Egypt. It can have fucking mecha, magic and physical gods, alongside rifled muskets (it's a thing), scythian chariots and fucking Chinese dragons endangering easter flank of the country. And let's not forget about cute catgirls

In short - if it's not Ancient Egypt, but instead not!Ancient Egypt, you can put whatever the fuck you want in it.

If it's explicitly not a historical setting, you can't be anachronistic, you asthmatic aspie.

>separate control over its own institutions
It was about states rights.

>To say it was "about" slavery is misinformation.
>avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Uh-huh.

t. revisionist

keep drinking the kool aid

>t. revisionist
Said the guy claiming the confederacy was about anything else than slavery

>It was about states rights.
The only state right the Confederacy cared was slavery, hence why it didn't allowed states to don't have slavery within themselves.

>Revisionist
>Citation from founding documents
I tip you a whatever-hat-was-popular-in-the-South

see Yes, it was about state's rights: the right to own slaves.
Yes, it was about protecting their economy: the economy dependent on slave labor.
Yes, it was about protecting the Southern Way of life: an idealized way of life in which slavery played a central role in upholding.

The men that drafted the declarations of secession had no qualms about admitting it. You shouldn't either.

Your own source proved it >The only state right the Confederacy cared was slavery
Source? Besides your imagination.

Keep sucking the dick of your aristorcratc masters.

Yeah, and said laws were respectively abolishion of slavery and implementation of protective tarrifs.
Truly, a war for noble cause like no other!

>Your
user, I'm not even that guy.

Stay redneck, but stay away from internet.

"~DEPENDS
ON
THE
SETTTIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNG~"
> guitar solo

>rights only matter if you do what I like with them
This is what is wrong with the West today.

>no counterargument
Ok.

Not even American.

Holy fucking crap. Eurofag here, and I'm astonished at what I'm seeing in this thread. We barely even learn much US history, but it always seems pretty cut and dry that 'The Civil War was about Slavery' is a non-controversial statement of fact. Do people really dispute that?

There are people who believe that World War II was an act of German self-defense, or that Japan had the right to invade the United States after the embargo. Why would you think things were any different on the civil war?

Here's your counterargument.
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
>A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

For you.

>Not American
>Defending Confederacy
>Having the fucking audicity to even take voice in the subject
Literally kill yourself.

Also, nice to know national law should be less important than locally set laws and how this is somehow "wrong" about West today.
Better go back to medieval juditiary traditions, right?

Not him, but also fellow Eurofag.
And we spent fucking month analysing the Civil War step by step when doing history of the 19th century (entire 4th year of study was about it).
It's literally impossible to say it was a war for anything else than keeping slaves and abolishing tarrifs, as both those things were pretty much the very reason how South was able to operate, being agrarian (plantations to be precise) and lacking industrial base.
Which was also the reason why Confederacy failed in the end, since it had no fucking industry to speak about, while lacking Irish to throw into the grinder.