Talk:Fantasy Armor

From 1d4chan

Wow, this article is pretty damn good. Nominating it for the Awesome template. --S-Class (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel the historic greek "muscle cuirass" deserves a mention as a historical type 01 or 02, one worn by men infact! I think adding a picture at the bottom with some text would be enough, but I really don't know how to do it.

...Daggome it. I put a lot of effort into completely re-writing the entire middle segment, and now it's gone. Nuts. What even happened? --SpectralTime (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Just browse through the history at the top right to see what happened and find your text. --Thannak (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Social Commentary in this Article[edit]

It appears we are going to have to hash out whether the sections of commentary on possible sexism regarding armor and the long section on real life armor(whose presence is somewhat puzzling to me on a Fantasy RPG armor page. Shouldn't real life armor have it's own page?) is necessary and helpful on what is ostensibly a Tabletop gaming wiki. The sections seem to be more aimed at preaching against the evils of sexist neckbeards and insinuating that skimpy fantasy armor should be removed from gaming than actually providing information on tabletop gaming. I'm pretty sure that this wiki is not the place for these kind of discussions and demagogy. -- (talk)

Well, it's a part of tabletop gaming, unfortunately :/ While it has nothing to do with stats or anything, it is related to some extend. Second, while I do see your point that political discussions shouldn't be a part of tabletop gaming in general, it is at the moment, and I think it's important to have them - The way settings and works of fiction evolve is through discussion, and having discussions to evaluate things we like and don't like in public spaces like this one means that many can see the arguments from differing angles. What this exact discussion lacks is a connection to tabletop gaming, which is kinda problematic, but since it discusses fictional settings, which is /tg/ material, it still fits.
Also, I'm happy we can get to discuss this. I like that a lot more than waging war with the "edit" button :3 TheWiseDane (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it could be argued that it's isn't that big a part of tabletop. I can say with certainty, for instance,that I have seen many more instances of media satirizing female armor than I have real-world examples of such. The trend has largely fallen out of favor since the early 1990s.--Asorel (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Asorel, you are both full of it and engaging in some very harshly-slanted ideological demogogery of your own. That said, the current thingummy is still a mess, and I will fix it. --SpectralTime (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not in a position from which I may objectively comment on how "full of it" I may be. However, you cannot honestly accuse me of demagoguery when I have not contributed a significant amount of content, inciteful or otherwise, to this specific article.--Asorel (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
You've run around smiting every little article that articulates a viewpoint you regard as "politically correct" or "tumblr-y" for a while now. And, to that, sir, I say that if I have got to live with Derpysaurus's weird little rants on every page he can vandalize about how the Imperium of Man is a paradise with no problems and goddamn subhuman xenos should be grateful for being exterminated, you might, theoretically, have to live with the idea that there will be opinions espoused on this wiki that you, personally, do not agree with. --SpectralTime (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
First, I have not "smited" a single article. I have undeniably done my share of pruning, but I have strived to keep my edits minimal. And this doesn't make me a demagogue, as I have not produced deliberately provocative content. All I have tried to do with the offending edits is make the pages apolitical. If what you mean is that you think I have been heavy-handed, well, I can't stop you from having an opinion. And there's nothing stopping you from editing the pages yourself—it is a wiki, after all. Finally, with regards to the example you cited, the two situations do not appear to be comparable. I don't know who derpysaurus is, but by your own admission his edits were vandalism. In contrast, my removals have been of political content that was a permanent fixture of the pertinent article. I don't need you to agree with me, and I certainly don't need you to like me, but I would prefer that you voice your complaints from a position of accuracy. --Asorel (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I take one look away, and everyone's going at each other's throats... Well, I've let AssistantWikifag know about these recent disputes, and I trust him to make a final decision on whether or not politically charged content should be allowed within the wiki for any reason. --Newerfag (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This article exists to illustrate the basics of something that has become well established on the subject at hand. It outlies the issue, people's thoughts on the subject and a bit of historical context. It does not say that every game company that makes artwork with chainmail bikinis needs to be fined into bankruptcy and it's employees locked up in stocks so that children can pelt them with rotten vegetables. Is it biased? Possibly. But this is a loaded subject and even if it is, simply blanking large sections of it by claiming "IT'S ALL PROPAGANDA!" and blanking all that has been established is not productive. --A Walrus (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the broad points of your article, and was attempting to edit for tone and style. And that "real world" section was pretty much unsalvagable, simply because, even today, we've never had the kind of gender parity most fantasy universes have and discussing it is largely pointless. I'd like to revert to my version... but I'll defer to your will in this matter. Related note, anyone else imagining Asorel walking past a pet store while loudly going on and on about how dog-ownership is a much-exaggerated myth? --SpectralTime (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I simply expressed my own experiences with the subject. Unless you're suggesting that your subjective experience with the ubiquity of Female Fantasy Armor is somehow more valid than my own, equally subjective experiences with such, I'm not sure what your point is. Furthermore, if you're trying to take the high ground, going out of your way to belittle other users, rather than discussing the article itself, isn't winning you credibility in that regard.--Asorel (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Actually, it could be argued that it's isn't that big a part of tabletop. I can say with certainty, for instance,that I have seen many more instances of media satirizing female armor than I have real-world examples of such.".

You clearly aren't looking hard enough. I'm pretty sure female fantasy armour is still a thing.

(I've tried to include a wide variety of entertainment mediums, from videogames to advertisements to anime to tabletop, to illustrate the point with these links. IIRC, all of them are from relatively modern or upcoming products)
(no need to read the articles if you get so scared and riled up whenever you see someone dare to argue against sexism. Looking at the pictures should be enough to get the point across that female fantasy armour is indeed still a thing)

Kingdom Death (tabletop/board game)
Comic Books
latest Dragon Quest video game
Latest Fire Emblem video game character
One Piece manga recent character
Visual novel gender flip
Anime Tabletop (I think. All the colors blinded me)
War Machine Tabletop (note: As noted by the blog, this was one of the most positive examples. The other examples are even worse)
Doujinsh Fighting Game
Advertisement re-used all the time for some reason
More Comics
Browser game

And I estimate that's like, 2% of the examples I could post if I really wanted to post them all (maybe less. Lost count long ago). And I haven't even begun to hit up google image search or the other blogs I know of that look into this stuff.

Not included: Sisters of Battle, because they aren't a modern nor recent product. Zing! ...but seriously, if I did include them, they'd fall under the "Only better in terms of relativity" category. TiamatRoar (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

SoB wear full power armor, they hardly count. Also, it may be argued that the mere fact that you need to go looking for examples is proof in and of itself that this trope is not as pervasive as you claim. The examples that you did post aren't exactly large-audience AAA titles, either.--Asorel (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"the mere fact that you needed to go linking titles"

How the heck else am I supposed to point out examples? Is that seriously the best retort you could come up with? wait, I'm trying to weigh if "THey're in full power armour. They hardly count" is better or not (WH40k is FANTASY in Space, you know. All analogies apply... to the point where this website parodies and lampoons it often, even). Or heck, even "they aren't AAA titles". ....cripes, you only said three sentences yet managed to have three horribly nonsensical arguments in them. Well, I wish I could be that brief and to the point, I suppose (sans the nonsense, of course)

I wasn't aware that warmachine, Fire Emblem, and Dragon Quest (two of the most popular videogame series in Japan) weren't mainstream. Do you want me to bring up Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Dungeons and Dragons, Castlevania, World of Warcraft, pretty much any MMO in existance, (at this point I'm going to have to shoot for both mideival and non-mideival make-believe titles because you're asking for mainstream titles and at that point, given your skewed and biased criteria of what mainstream is as long as it fits your own biased world view, I'm clearly going to have to reach out for other things here, because there aren't THAT many stories that take place in the middle ages in the first place).

At this rate now you're just making crap up thta defies logic or reason. I don't even see the point in arguing with you anymore if these are the types of arguments you're going to come up with. Though I will happily cast in my vote with those undoing your edits because just because you type a lot doesn't make your logic behind them correct. TiamatRoar (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that when Asorel said ""Actually, it could be argued that it's isn't that big a part of tabletop. I can say with certainty, for instance,that I have seen many more instances of media satirizing female armor than I have real-world examples of such", he meant that it's become so commonplace that nobody makes a big deal about it anymore. It's just a fact of life, like railroading GMs and the like. As for the "Real World" section- well, the article's name is Female FANTASY Armor, so its relevance was debatable at best to begin with. In any case, the personal attacks on other editors for their viewpoints is completely uncalled for and I advise that we all hold off on further edits until AssistantWikifag (or possibly Wikifag) weighs in on the matter. Right now, everyone's just getting too worked up and letting their opinions get in the way of their judgment. --Newerfag (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I still fail to see where it has been established that these long opinion sections have any relevance with tabletop gaming or /tg/ culture. Its defenders have stated to drag video games and webcomics into the mix which really are subjects that should be immaterial to the matter as they are /v/ and /co/'s wheelhouses respectively. No matter the arguments or who feels morally superior to whom the fact remains that these are blog pieces that do not add to tabletop gaming or represent /tg/ culture or projects(I have never seen /tg/ rail against female fantasy armor or address it specifically in any fan projects. Most fa/tg/uys are kinda perverted to be honest and tend to mock PC opinions). The real life armor section could be useful but it needs to be in a separate article as real life armor has no real bearing on fantasy armor that is making no effort to be realistic. There are many places that this subject would be fine and even encouraged to be discussed but 1d4chan is not really one of them. -- (talk)
True enough. On that note, the Armor page is particularly threadbare and is in need of actual info about real world armor. Compared to (for example) the Sword page, it's pathetically small. The real life armor section would be somewhat better suited there, I suppose--Newerfag (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
...Also, I sorta attacked Asorel because I thought he was you failing to log in, I guess that means I owe him an apology and you a... well, I stand by what I said, but the vitriol was unnecessary and unhelpful. --SpectralTime (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You may have any opinion of me that you like. I have not engaged in demagogy or agenda pushing with my edits. I only wish for this wiki to fulfill it's purpose of providing tabletop gaming information, documenting /tg/ projects and culture, and being a repository for writefag and drawfag work that would otherwise be lost forever. I do not want this wiki to turn into another front of the endless culture/social wars that have engulfed so many other formerly useful sites. The example of Rpgnet springs to mind. That site used to be a excellent resource for tabletop gaming but now seems to mostly exist to police badthink among its users and promote games based on ideology and not merit. They spend so much time railing about other issues that the tabletop part seems to have faded to a secondary concern. I don't even necessarily disagree with all their opinions but there are places to discuss these things and 1d4chan is not one of them. Once you open the door to these types of discussions then the extremists of both sides will quickly turn every discussion or article that is even vaguely politically/socially charged into a personal battlefield. It would be a tragedy for this wiki to succumb to that.-- (talk)

A Not-So-Modest Proposal[edit]

Now that I think of it, why don't we just merge this whole page with Armor? It's not notable enough to deserve a page all to itself and that way we could focus more on what the actual armor is like instead of using our 21st-century sensibilities to judge armor made hundreds if not thousands of years ago. If anyone has trouble accepting the varieties of armor that exist in RPGs, kindly direct them to the MST3K mantra ("it's just a a game, stop taking it so seriously) and tel them to keep their sociopolitical claptrap to themselves. --Newerfag (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be more informative and address's concerns far better than trying to whitewash an article that is simply too politically charged for its own good. --Newerfag (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the best course of action would be to create a Female Fantasy Armor thread on /tg/ using a chainmail bikini and a chainmail mankini as an OP image, and let the page echo whatever happens next. Honestly the main problem of this page is its too 1d4chan, not enough /tg/. The original intent of the page has been entirely lost beneath the complaints and lack of humor. --Thannak (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, either solution sounds good to me. Maybe both. I dunno. I tried cutting the politics out to leave the humor, but it regenerated like a sponge or late-term DBZ villain. --SpectralTime (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I get the feeling that the humor itself might be feeding into it somehow- it's just one of those things where a lot of people either miss the joke or simply get offended by it anyway on account of how politics is still too tied up into it. If you want to do the thread thing, go ahead- just try to be sure it's not misinterpreted as an imagedump thread, as I've seen a lot of them end up that way. --Newerfag (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be preferable to simply de-politicize, then merge into the regular armor page. There are too many different /tg/ boards to get accurate feedback, and in any case the only ones who would respond would be the ones who have a strong opinion on the subject one way or the other. Additionally, if we set a precedent for running everything by /tg/ before editing, productivity on the site would grind to a halt.--Asorel (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if the page needs to be compressed before merging, I would recommend cutting out the "categories" section. It doesn't provide much in the way of useful information, and the entire thing is really just an example of someone taking this subject much more seriously than is necessary.--Asorel (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I liked the categories.--Emerald Claw (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that this section has nothing to do with eating young children.--Emerald Claw (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made my change[edit]

Hope it's acceptable. --SpectralTime (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Male armor pieces[edit]

Aren't we drifting too far outside the subject now? The original beef of this article was the tradition of women wearing armored suits which cater more to questionable aesthetics than functionality (Which is in a fantasy setting which means that this entire flubdubbery is about as sensible as our arguments against Space Marines and their storm shield-sized pauldrons, but I'll violently throw that aside), not OHH BUT MEN WERE SEXUALIZED TOO. Tactical Mehren (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree, but those plate-armor codpieces were still pretty funny. Besides, this is going to end up as a "Sexy Armor" sub-section of the armor page eventually, probably. Be good warm-up. --SpectralTime (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


Change page name to "Fantasy Armor". Group into male and female categories. Put it in the meme category. Change sidebar comic to this, since its...actually funny.

Yea or nay? --Thannak (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • chuckles lously*, Sure why not. I love this idea!Evilexecutive (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And moved. Now it's time for the hard part. Good luck, all of you. --Newerfag (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

i got it started. my writing isnt funny or good for alot of it because it just an outline, but its a step int he right driection. ill come back to it in a few hours to make it better/funnier. should we delete most of the talk page now? most of it is irrelevent to the current page.--Kapow (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep it for now. I feel we're going to need it. --Newerfag (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

oh shit lol. i didnt read the sections above this one. so we are getting rid of the content on fapplate/bikinis and turning it into a generic armor page? if thats the case i should return the introduction to the generic one that someone else wrote and probably fold the four Fs into the minimalist armor description. is that ok? ima go ahead and do it and if it sucks someone can revert it and i wont be mad or anything--Kapow (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

fuck it ill just delete that whole part. it didnt make sense format-wise anymore--Kapow (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There was talk on integrating this fully into the existing Armor page, but I think the "4 Fs" can go for now.--Asorel (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

On that note, it would be wise to revise the gallery as well. All the pic in it were from real world armor, and while they were interesting to see the page isn't about them. Displaying examples of the more common fantasy armor styles would work better (and not just the "bare minimum", that would essentially set us back to where we started). --Newerfag (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)