Why do people get so upset over unrealistic female armor?

>Why do people get so upset over unrealistic female armor?
Actually, I don't discriminate, I get upset over unrealistic male armor too.

Mostly virtue signalling. Pretty sad really.

It'll make you feel better in case the thread gets hundreds of replies. Unless you can't help yourself.

Thats because of your autism.

Pretty much this. White Knights are the saddest people alive.

You can even hide individual posts if you want.

Wow. Who knew you need to do so little to trigger someone?
Enjoy your Safespace there, buddy.

haha

Most nerd girls are fat or ugly, and the ideal beauty of female characters in alluring unrealistic armor triggers them. Feminist beta men think like women in this regard. Notice how you never see women triggered by bare-chested men in rugged furs/leathers with 6-12 pack abs?

Having realism arguments in fantasy settings are stupid to begin with, and the plausibility/suspension of disbelief cop-outs are no better. In a setting where you can get roasted by dragons, impaled by demons, and obliterated by mages, you really shouldn't give a shit if your character is wearing platekini. Honestly it probably helps them dodge better. :^)

Maybe it's the new daily meme thread?

>In a setting where you can get roasted by dragons, impaled by demons, and obliterated by mages, you really shouldn't give a shit if your character is wearing platekini
I never understood this argument and hope you are trolling.
>be young adventurer
>think about buying armor
>get informed that dragons, demons and mages exist somewhere and there is a small chance that I might encounter them
>well, fuck armor then
>go outise naked
>get hit by an arrow
>ded

>get hit by an arrow
>ded
That'll be 30 golds for the res, please. Plus tip.

>using suspension of disbelief is a cop-out
no, I'm pretty sure that's answering OPs question well enough.

You can imagine your own speculative reasons to answer the question but the people who are annoyed have already done it in the last thread.

>t. Unbelievably butthurt virgin

>every setting ever has resurrection magic
>every setting has resurrection magic this cheap
>implying I'm not lying dead, forgotten in soem backwards woods while some hillibilly mountain bandits rape my corpse

>implying some simple helmet wouldn't be much cheaper
It's a retarded argument and you know it, only works if you make a really gamey world.

>wear heavy armor, inhibited movement, pressure cooked inside metal
>roll out of the way of fire, arrows, spells, whatever you can think of

A setting was never specified so both you and the person you are replying to can make up any arbitrary standard of 'realism' you want and argue around it.

Most Veeky Forums games have a Dex stat and mechanics for dodging, opposed to choosing to limit mobility and tank. But nice try.

>Most

I finished Dragon Age: Origins through Dragon Age: Awakenings wearing a wedding dress. No armor. I miss those times, watching some elf in a blood soaked wedding dress dagger-climb an ogre to slice it's head off. With high enough accuracy/agility and crit ability, practically every kill was a severed head or a special finishing move. The dragon ones were pretty fun to watch in particular.

SKIMPY ARMOR IS UNREALISTIC

NO REALLY, WHO DRESSES IN JUST ARM AND LEG GUARDS?

>there is no inbetween between going out General Buttnaked style and wearing 200kg dwarfen forged heavy armor
>every character is a DEX character that just can evade everything
Well, and of course what this guy says , in any super hero game or Exalted armor might be just fashion, though most settings and systems aren't like that and try, even with different tones, to appeal to some certain degree to realism, which means that a non-magic fighter that doesn't won't to evade will wear some kind of armor for protection.

>though most settings and systems aren't like that
I love when people talk out of their ass.

Models, actors and entertainers?

Gladiators were entertainers, I guess. I wonder if they were even given the option of chest armor. Fights might be more exciting without it. Also shorter, which might be a bad thing.

How about a setting based in realism? World of Darkness tries to be like a "real world" game.

Oh, the primary Defense trait is used to avoid attacks? Armor only reduces damage by a set amount? Hmm.

>every character is a monk
>implying a monk is a super hero
Well, probably at a certain level.

> try, even with different tones, to appeal to some certain degree to realism, which means that a non-magic fighter that doesn't want to evade will wear some kind of armor for protection.

?

Barbarian, gains unarmored defense, increases with Dex+Con modifier.

Druid, nonmetal armor, shapeshifts into animals with natural armors.

Rogues, gain Uncanny Dodge.

So with Fighter, Paladin and Cleric bringing up the armor side of D&D, we have 4 out of the 7 classes who get attacked in melee either dodging or not wearing armor. Could cheat and include things like Ranger and spellcasters, who certainly don't wear armor, but. :^)

>Isn't the point to have fun
BUT YOU ARE HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY!

Oh I know. See, last thread, a feminist woman decided to argue up and down the thread about why she didn't like to see sexualized (Not unrealistic, just sexualized) armor on female characters. Then, when people pointed out that she didn't say the same about male characters, like Conan, she moved the goalposts. To where? you might ask. Well, she moved them to how the social outcasts, general nerds and autistic folks (Male,of course) that make up the bulk of this hobby's following made her uncomfortable in some gaming stores, and thus how this must make TTRPG's inaccessible to women in some places. She repeatedly pointed this out, yet would take no criticism of the other feminists and SJW-types who came in and demanded that things be changed for them. When everyone decided that she was a loon, or pointed out what the other anons issue was, she pulled out the ultimate insult of (drum-roll please) anti-feminist. Sounds hilarious right? I made this thread just to spite her.

>Barbarian, gains unarmored defense
Doesn't mean he will use this, especially when he has low DEX.
>Druid, nonmetal armor
Still armor.
>Rogues, gain Uncanny Dodge
Against certain attacks, a rogue would still wear light armor.
Aside from a barbarian deciding to ditch armor, these are still classes that will not run around naked.

Fat slut probably doesn't even look good in skimpy armor.

True.

I didn't even comment til just before it fell off the board, just pointed out what most everybody else's point was and some other user jumped down my throat asking for proof when I was just pointing out, well, points.

All that said, glad to see she hasn't this one up, yet. OP out.

I get upset over it because I'm autistic. Same reason I get upset when my scifi settings are too soft, or when someone refuses to think through the consequences of a culture's deeply ingrained values on how it develops.

How many maidens have you saved over TCP/IP today, Galaweeb?

That makes more sense than most.

>I am okay with a 20 Ton Lizard flying
>I am okay with a virgin with a pointy hat wiggling his fingers and performing cosmic, reality pending powers
>WHAAAAT THIS CHICK FIGHTING IN HER LOINCLOTH REALLY TAKES ME OUT OF THE MEDIUM! THIS WILL NOT STAND!

False equivalence.

You wish.

One of these three things is based on reality, the other two aren't. You can probably guess which.

>>In a setting where you can get roasted by dragons, impaled by demons, and obliterated by mages, you really shouldn't give a shit if your character is wearing platekini

None of these are based on reality.
This is literally what the same dude who made the argument said.

So your MUH FALSE EQUIVALENCE-Defence doesn't hold water. Get out.

Chicks fighting isn't based in reality.

>y tho
because it's more like:
>dragons exist
>magic exists
>metal armor still protects you
>females knights don't wear metal armor

Really though. I want huge women to be normal in the setting to wear armour, not just fit/toned girls, only then can my autism be satisfied.

Yes it is, it wasn't very common, but for fucks sake let this meme die already.

The human body exists and that it can get killed pretty easily by some simple pointy things made out of metal, armor exists that can protect really well against these simple things. Adventurers aren't fighting dragons 24/7, especially not the ordinary folk that just protect some village against some goblins. Would your awesome monk go to them and tell them to ditch their armor because some demon might show up? So that they can get poinsed by a goblins rusty dagger the next day? Probably not, because he has above average WIS.

Hell, even a high level fighter is expected to wear armor against a dragon, because he's supposed to have gained fantasy armor that can withstand what a dragon would throw at him.

Not all those things bypass armor even if it would in reality.

Some settings don't have armor for males and females because it would be useless, like Conan, but other settings give males armor because it legitimately protects them and gives females no proper armor for aesthetics.

It's internally inconsistent, user. It's not hard.

>Some settings don't have armor for males and females because it would be useless, like Conan
Conan wore armor the whole time, at least in the books.

>STILL arguing about this shit

It's been a thousand years already. Chalk it up as preferences and let it go.

And quit making and bumping these threads. All the arguments are just people confusing and conflating the question.

>dragons exist
>magic exists
>People who fight without armour and have a long live also exist because of a weeaboo fightan magic

How autistic are you to not understand that?

I should have used John Carter like I originally intended. No one but goons wore armor in that, did they?

I'm triggered by just about any unrealistic armour, be it female or not.
This includes overdetalized armour with absolutely retarded decorations for the puprose of looking "cool".
Here's the example. Anyone drawing this should be stabbed in the guts, ass and throat and left bleeding.

>The human body exists and that it can get killed pretty easily by some simple pointy things made out of metal

And yet in fantasy the human body survives ridiculous amount of punishment and survives absolutely unrealistic situations and this is all okay.
BUT HELL NO IF THE BODY IS NUDE, THAT'S BADWRONG, GOTTA VIRTUE SIGNAL MORE

If all they need is their fightan magic to survive then no one needs armor. If the men use armor to survive and the women don't then it's inconsistent.

How autistic are you to not understand that?

Secondly, armour such as spess marines' ones and anything else fitting in the same niche might not be actually effective in out sad, bad, real world...
But it looks protective, without triggering you with most obviously vicious flaws. It looks like armour.
So it's a pass.

>And yet in fantasy the human body survives ridiculous amount of punishment and survives absolutely unrealistic situations and this is all okay
Depends on the level. Depends on how the game handles these kind of things. After all they are abstractions, but some games like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game take wounds very seriously. In D&D a low-level fighter can still get killed by a bunch of goblins and a high level fighter is still wearing it because this is his means of negating received damage.

Lastly, no one would be triggered if the chain mail bikini-type armours were used for actual purpose ingame too.
Those wyches know exactly how lame their armour is, but they're wearing it for style and rely on their grace to evade blows. Not on that "armour" giving magical +7 bonus to AC and additional +9000 bonus to Nerd rage.
If only everyone were like those wyches...

>If the men use armor to survive and the women don't then it's inconsistent.

Because you made it inconsistent already. You have wizards, you have magic, you have giant lizards and but it suddenly bothers you that people without armor inconsistent you autistic fuck.

Like anyone is going to take you seriously and suddenly believe you that you SUDDENLY care about consistency.

Realistic Armour and Bikini Armour are perfectly fine existing beside each other.
Gotta problem with it?
Its magic. I aint gotta explain shit.

If you say your setting has real armor for men and magic bikinis for women, that's fine. That's consistent within the setting, it acknowledges and explains the strangeness.

But if another setting has huge impractical armor for men and skimpy impractical armor for women with no explanation why, then it triggers my autism.

So according to this user, every non-magical fighting guy is supposed to run around with max DEX because nobody bothered to invent some basic protection against ordinary threats, these don't exists and every monster and animal got replaced with dragons and demons.

people who want realistic female armor and not magical slut armor are fags

I just don't like the way most of it looks.

-or autists

Or both.

>Isn't the point to have fun and not be historically realistic peasant simulator?

Depends entirely on the tone of the setting, contrary to what some people might believe not all RP experiences are separated from the general themes of the narrative. If I'm running or playing in a more grounded setting, even one with magic, I'd raise an eyebrow at slut-armour if it doesn't have some sort of excuse, but at the same time if we're going full high fantasy where the theme isn't at all about grit or realism then I'd be far less perturbed.

All reasons can be compressed into the following.

> stop liking what I don't like.

It boils down to this. Pretty much all settings are unrealistic.

But women in pseudo-realistic armor is my fetish

I allow fantasical WoW armor in fairly grounded settings, i just make a point to have everyone point and laugh at them for wearing it, and immediate skepticism from quest givers and NPCs

my player actually likes it, since beating up smug punks is pretty satisfying, and being able to accomplish something you were told you couldnt brings a smile to their face

what about helmets?

...

not sure if that's a woman

Getting fantastical WoW armor in something like Pathfinder would be OP beyond belief. +90 Strenght, +100 Endurance, +300% Weapon Damage, +500armor class, Bonus: Onhit: Cause Lightning Strike for 20,000HP damage to enemy

I'd conquer the world in one of those things.

At that point it's a similar concept to a knight overloading himself with ornamentation to show off, but having enough skill to still get the job done even when his over-plate robes, hoods, cloaks and fashion fetishes get in the way. Nice enough idea for a character in decently grounded fantasy settings.

With the amount of estrogen there is in people's food and water these days I don't think it really matters.

...

They can wear them but not in the character art.

...

>Anyone drawing this should be stabbed in the guts, ass and throat and left bleeding.
People who can't draw actually act like this.

...

Now if the actual concept was realistic that wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb.

my party consists of a mix of normal-ish armored people and people with ridiculous armor

they are an odd group, but their track record speaks for itself

...

>People who can't draw
you mean most people?

Because they envy the ability to draw shitty arts?

plebs
or draw at all

...

Most people can draw, they just can't draw well

...

Let me tell you something, being triggered by shitty arts is actually anything but envy.

I use "can't draw" and "can't draw well" to mean the same thing, myself.

And yet that's easily better than any art you can make

...