5e isnt even D&D....

[wotmaniac]

So let's decide that we are no longer talking about Earth in medieval England. We're talking about a fantasy game.

because a women is in armor? Ever heard of Joan of Arc?

exception does not disprove the rule

[Whatever]

http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/

Worth skimming pretty much all the way through, if you're looking for some good examples of women in armor (even has some sci-fi stuff).

[nockermensch]

In the example, I can't really tell the difference between "manga" and "fantastical realism".

The big eyes and the whimsical/cute angle. Both styles are very silly and appeal to very silly people, but the manga example seems to be at peace with its inner silliness, while the fantastical realism (there's not enough air quotes to go around that realism) is pretending to be serious. "I'm not silly at all, see me scowling! Grr."

[Leress]

So let's decide that we are no longer talking about Earth in medieval England. We're talking about a fantasy game.

because a women is in armor? Ever heard of Joan of Arc?

exception does not disprove the rule

A better example would be the Onna bugeisha of feudal Japan. Even then, it was for village/town defense. It later expanded, but it still had restrictions.

Wot is right Shad.

The big eyes and the whimsical/cute angle. Both styles are very silly and appeal to very silly people, but the manga example seems to be at peace with its inner silliness, while the fantastical realism (there's not enough air quotes to go around that realism) is pretending to be serious. "I'm not silly at all, see me scowling! Grr."

As Shad pretty much said manga is the same as comic. Hell, there are manga with the photo "realistic" female armor: Claymore, Berserk, Lodoss War. I think this doesn't look good if the art director doesn't know about art.

[nockermensch]

The big eyes and the whimsical/cute angle. Both styles are very silly and appeal to very silly people, but the manga example seems to be at peace with its inner silliness, while the fantastical realism (there's not enough air quotes to go around that realism) is pretending to be serious. "I'm not silly at all, see me scowling! Grr."

As Shad pretty much said manga is the same as comic. Hell, there are manga with the photo "realistic" female armor: Claymore, Berserk, Lodoss War. I think this doesn't look good if the art director doesn't know about art.

Oh you.

But yeah, Berserker has awesome realistic armor for the most part. I know about manga being a media, not a style, etc. When people say "manga", they're usually thinking about 80's and 90's style action/erotic anime, which is how they were first exposed to that media.

[Previn]

So let's decide that we are no longer talking about Earth in medieval England. We're talking about a fantasy game.

because a women is in armor? Ever heard of Joan of Arc?

exception does not disprove the rule

Exception?

Strabo (100BC), Plutarch (102BC) Dio Cassius (49 AD), (Tactus, 60AD) all record the existence of women warriors in northern and eastern cultures with great regularity. Roman accounts of battles record finding bodies of female warriors on the battlefield. Thirty captive Gothic warrior women were paraded in front of Emperor Aurelian in 283 AD.

During the Roman Empire, women fought in the public arenas, both as free women and as slaves. They competed in the opening of the Coliseum in AD 80. According to Juvenal, it became fashionable for women of the nobility to train and fight in the arenas until Emperor Alexander Severus, in AD 200, issued an edict which banned all women from gladiatorial combat. While the Romans do not appear to have left records regarding women in their own ranks, period historians frequently mention women in the ranks of their enemies, especially those to the north of Italy.

Agnes Hotot of House Dudley (born approximately 1378AD) took up arms in the place of her ailing father and bested her opponent in a mounted duel. The family coat of arms show a woman in a helmet, hair disheveled and breasts exposed (apparently she exposed them after the duel to humiliate her opponent).

In the 14th century, Sir Richard Shaw wrote of fighting and besting a Flemish knight who, when the armor was opened, turned out to be a woman whose identity was never discovered.

The Order of the Hatchet was founded by Count Raymond Berenger of Barcelona in 1149. He wished to honor the women who fought in defense of the town of Tortosa against an attack by the Moors. One of the honors accorded to the members was precedence over men in public assemblies.

The Order of the Glorious St Mary was founded by Loderigo d’Andalo of Bologna in 1233. It was the first religious order to grant the title of `militissa’ to women.

In 590AD, a warrior nun named Chrodielde attempted to overthrow Leubevre, the abbess of Cheribert. War ensued between the two and the Frankish king Childebert had to intercede. Reportedly it took great effort for the king to bring Chrodielde and her army of locals under control.

In 1265AD, the abbess of Notre-Dame-Aux-Nonnains, Odette de Pougy, challenged Pope Urban IV. He wanted to build a church on land which she thought belonged to the abbey. When he ignored her objections and attempted to proceed with the building, she responded by leading an armed party to drive off the work crews. Two years later, she did it again. Although he responded by excommunicating the entire abbey, the church was not built until after her death, 14 years later.

The problem of warrior nuns became so pervasive that in 15th century Bologna a law forbade citizens from loitering near convents for their own protection! Various popes established decrees forbidding women from engaging in martial combat or wearing armor, again in an effort to reduce the power of these warrior nuns. This is one of the decrees which were used against Joan d’ Arc. In 1563AD, the Council of Trent established that bishops had authority over nuns and their abbesses and could enforce it with military means, if necessary.

Women are recorded as being the armies of both Emperor Conrad (1191AD) and Count William of Poiters (1101 AD).

During the 3rd Crusade, Imad ad-Din and Baha al-Din (who apparently rode with Saladin) recorded their impressions of both Muslim and Christian woman warriors. They mention a ‘woman from over the sea’ who arrived in 1189 with 500 horsemen and sufficient support staff and who rode with her troops. They also mention seeing other European women who fought, some of whom could be identified at a distance and others who were only known as women once their bodies were examined. In 1191 they mention a female archer during the siege of Acre who was responsible for a number of deaths before she was overwhelmed and killed.

Inez Suarez sailed from Spain to Peru in 1537AD to search for her missing husband. Upon learning of his death, she settled in Cuzco and re-married. She is recorded as fighting with him in his wars against the Arucanian natives.

In 1521AD, Cortez had both native and European women in his army. His wife, Maria Estrada, is recorded as being one of them and to have participated in the fighting. Beatriz de Pardes is also recorded as taking an active part in the fighting in what is now Mexico.


I'm sorry, but women fighting in armies and/or leading them isn't even a remotely isolated incident in medieval Europe.

[Leress]

Oh you.

Hey, it still fits Jon's definition of photo "realistic" armor.

But yeah, Berserker has awesome realistic armor for the most part. I know about manga being a media, not a style, etc. When people say "manga", they're usually thinking about 80's and 90's style action/erotic anime, which is how they were first exposed to that media.

See, that is kinda the problem when there is a discussion about things like this. It assumes that everyone is using the same slang the same way.

[nockermensch]

Oh you.

Hey, it still fits Jon's definition of photo "realistic" armor.

So... realistic = what you can actually make in 3D? So, since I already saw Deedlit cosplays, her armor is realistic!

But yeah, Berserker has awesome realistic armor for the most part. I know about manga being a media, not a style, etc. When people say "manga", they're usually thinking about 80's and 90's style action/erotic anime, which is how they were first exposed to that media.

See, that is kinda the problem when there is a discussion about things like this. It assumes that everyone is using the same slang the same way.

"manga" is pretty much useless as a style definition because it's too shallow. You can imagine a cheap art director telling a bunch of cheap artists to do something more "manga" and pretty much guess the results: bigger eyes, spikier hair, the use of the cheapest visual tropes (huge sweatdrops, anger veins, chibis, etc).

It's cheap, shallow and sad, but also expected when "fantastic realism" is used to actually mean "something out of a 90's marvel comic book" and "photorealism" is a shorthand for "that very same comic book style, but instead fetish wear, use this photo of a fantasy full plate to draw her armor."

[Stubbazubba]

-Snip-

Bravo. I learned something on the Den today.

[shadzar]

So this would be culturally appropriate, right? Well, all except for the part that it wasn't culturally appropriate for a woman to fight in that time period's military forces.

So let's decide that we are no longer talking about Earth in medieval England. We're talking about a fantasy game.

because a women is in armor? Ever heard of Joan of Arc?

exception does not disprove the rule

you are missing the complete quote. you jsut grabbed the part after i was bitching at him using a product MORE popular than D&D as an example of "bad".

i have added it back from the article itself above where the ideas were connected, but he broke into paragraphs.

as others have shown, what is culturally appropriate is not what he thinks it is.

lets take Greek for example... Athena, among her titles was just warfare...so yeah chauvinistic ideas such as a women in armor or even fighting are not what he thinks, just because he thinks women should be silent, walk 3 feet behind their man/owner, or just be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen as that is a woman's place.

to think women wouldnt wear armor is stupid. they think a pair of tits will protect them from swords when they must defend themselves?

medieval England, since that is what we are talking about. doesnt have the slut waifs of today, but then women had to chop wood for fire and other such things that require strength save for the nobility that had people dress them since they could not. women were as hearty a men, and werent stupid, because they had to survive too.

looks aside, women of that time are, unless nobility, ALL farmers daughters and pretty much Elli-May Clampetts.

why didnt you find woman armor then.. probably because mostly one-size-fits-all.. and women wore the same armor as men. archeologists looking probably search for boob shaped breastplates and cant find them, or tales of women outside of presented above, but maybe the women just werent given glory like men were because they were subservient.

there is NO proof that women did not fight in medieval England, nor is there proof they didnt were armor. this is just supposition because mass evidence that they did, of the nature mentioned earlier (boob-plates, women gloriously hailed) has not been found in vast numbers. likely because men are looking for the evidence.

take the articles final image and see there is a woman in filed plate.. and NO boob-plate.

also look to eastern culture where women bound things such as their feet, and there are plenty of stories of women binding their breasts to fit in as men..it isnt just some fictional creation.

ergo, there is NO rule that women werent culturally appropriate in an army or military. its just the chauvinistic ramblings of an uneducated wanna be artist, with not even the simplest of research skills as ALL his article show.

[wotmaniac]

My point was that the vast majority of professional warriors were men, and is a fact that continues to today's battlefields across the world. And there is a specific reason for that -- basic anatomy&physiology. That isn't chauvinistic, or misogynistic, or whatever -- it's just a simple biological fact that men of our species are better physically equipped for the demands of combat. And that's why there are more male combatants than female (like, by several orders of magnitude). Anything else would just be fucking stupid.

Were there female combatants in some capacity back then? Now? Sure; and it's okay to recognize that. However, the tone you have now taken makes certain assumptions and implications ... and I'm so sick of this fucking politically-correct overly-romanticized bullshit that keeps being crammed down our throats. I get it already -- now let's move on.

[JonSetanta]

Speaking of moving on isn't it strange that now, in modern America, we do not allow female military combatants on the battlefield as actual soldiers?

In some ways we're regressed.

[Stubbazubba]

I believe we tried it and found that it messed up with morale and actually encouraged male soldiers to risk their lives to be chivalrous too often. Basically, it was a threat to the regular strict discipline that needs to prevail in a combat unit.

@wotmaniac; I'll agree that physiology plays a part, but I'm guessing the way different sexes are treated from their infancy also plays a part; boys absorb the traits of competitiveness, physical demonstrations, and basically being more physical from the culture they grow up in, while women are dissuaded from those traits and encouraged to develop socially and such instead.

[wotmaniac]

@wotmaniac; I'll agree that physiology plays a part, but I'm guessing the way different sexes are treated from their infancy also plays a part; boys absorb the traits of competitiveness, physical demonstrations, and basically being more physical from the culture they grow up in, while women are dissuaded from those traits and encouraged to develop socially and such instead.

I'll not argue with that ... however, "nurture" isn't the whole story. Our actual brain chemistry is different.
So the 2 kinda go hand-in-hand.

[shadzar]

I believe we tried it and found that it messed up with morale and actually encouraged male soldiers to risk their lives to be chivalrous too often. Basically, it was a threat to the regular strict discipline that needs to prevail in a combat unit.

and yet ancient rome used gay couples as a preferred choice because they WOULD be more likely to defend their fellow man and watch his back in battle...which won them half of the known world for a time....

also least anyone forget in this discussion that woman are the bigger defenders in the majority of the animal kingdom for those animals, including humans, that nurture their young, it is the females that protect them from ALL dangers.

so medieval women not fighting were probably at home working (see WWI, WWII women in tank factories) to keep the house up and take care of the family.

who else was left to do it if the men went to war? kids taking care of themselves? (reminder kids at this time was single digits. old enough to bleed, old enough to breed as often girls were tried to be married around age 12 to have more chances to give birth to more kids over their 30 year lifespan.)

[fectin]

You;re thinking of the Sacred Band of Thebes, not Rome. And Alexander the Great steamrolled them anyway.

[wotmaniac]

Damn it all to hell, shadzar ....
Alright, first of all, let me say this again:

My point was that the vast majority of professional warriors were men, and is a fact that continues to today's battlefields across the world.
[...]
Were there female combatants in some capacity back then? Now? Sure; and it's okay to recognize that.

What part of that did you miss? What exactly are you trying to argue with?
Just because Rome, or Thebes, or who-the-fuck-ever (though, I think that fectin is right), happen to have done something doesn't mean that the philosophy behind it wasn't fallacious or otherwise flawed. Okay -- why has this practice, if it was so awesomely super effective, not shown-up in any significant volume any where else in fucking history? I'm not talking about niche exceptions do to extraordinary circumstances -- I'm talking about as a fucking S.O.P.
Enough of this Exception Fallacy bullshit already -- I feel like I'm being trolled (and still not thoroughly convinced that I'm not). Go fap to your pet trope on your own time.

You;re thinking of the Sacred Band of Thebes, not Rome. And Alexander the Great steamrolled them anyway.

To be fair, he did that to a lot of people. After all, he was Alexander the Great ... and not, you know, Alexander the Mediocre.

[virgil]

Aside from this very awkward turn of conversation, what the fvck is the point of going on about this? Are you trying to use this as a reason to categorize something as fantasy because there's armour made for a woman?

[shadzar]

The Cleric, the Paladin, and Multisysteming

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... isysteming

This also allows us to mix and match the subsystems that are unique to the core four classes. The ranger, for example, could give access to some of the fighter’s subsystem and to some of the rogue’s skill system. The druid could offer both divine spells and skills. These classes would then feel mechanically like blends of two core classes.

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=257384#257384

3 rules....
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... 3/20120320

The important thing about class mechanics is not simply that they be different, but that the mechanics of a class produce the best and most iconic experience of playing that class. It's OK to re-use mechanics between classes

like WPs/NWPs/feats/skills, but not so much. again see character points in 2.5 and the basic concept of class abilities and see which shouldnt be things to define a single class, but something ALL should be able to do, and dump them into a general pile for people to select.

yeah this was already said TomLaPille...and done before with Player's Options under TSR and AD&D 2.5

just dont do something dumb like say:

Rogue only abilities package
Rogue shareable abilities package

there still doesnt need to be a rogue, as these are things ANYONE should be able to do.

you got the right idea about how most classes ARE just multiclassed to begin with. Paladin is a fighter/cleric, etc... so just make the system with the minial core classes and enough functions for those classes to be chosen by various characters of that class, then let the multiclass system create the offshoots such as bard,paladin, ranger, war wizard, etc... as the players see fit to create. but make it so that you arent buying "rogue package" and have tot ake them all as if it were multiclassing, but leave the system open enough to dump ALL abilities into a pile with some sort of point system so someone doesnt even have to take fighter or a named class, and can make Whositsawhatsit out of the abilities they want to use, for the type of game they want.

again i say see CPs in 2.5 for a start, and work from there. the ONLY good idea that came from PO's were the racial and class abilities that you could buy and make your own race or class. then people will stop bitching about being TOO tolkein that dont like it, and those who WANT tolkien can just play the races as presented.

and there still isnt need for a rogue or thief class! its skills ALL adventurers should be able to use and learn. see 2nd edition and such where EVERYONE had a chance to use those skills, just the "thief" was better, and get rid of the "better at it" class. nothing a thief does except the acrobatics really makes it need its own class...and then the swshbucklers can exist within the realm of fighter if there is some sort of acrobatics to fighting that GIVES an advantage along the lines of backstab or as in 3.x, SNEAK ATTACK BITCH!

[CatharzGodfoot]

My point was that the vast majority of professional warriors were men, and is a fact that continues to today's battlefields across the world. And there is a specific reason for that -- basic anatomy&physiology. That isn't chauvinistic, or misogynistic, or whatever -- it's just a simple biological fact that men of our species are better physically equipped for the demands of combat. And that's why there are more male combatants than female (like, by several orders of magnitude). Anything else would just be fucking stupid.

Were there female combatants in some capacity back then? Now? Sure; and it's okay to recognize that. However, the tone you have now taken makes certain assumptions and implications ... and I'm so sick of this fucking politically-correct overly-romanticized bullshit that keeps being crammed down our throats. I get it already -- now let's move on.

Saying that you're not being chauvinistic or misogynistic doesn't make it true. I know a number of women who are more "physically equipped for the demands of combat" than most men I know, and almost certainly more effective in combat than a sexist armchair internet warrior.

The primary things that kept women out of combat are pregnancy and sexism.

[John Magnum]

The argument that grunts will rush out and die because of chivalry is offensively facile. The army is very, very, very good at getting troops to behave exactly how they're supposed to in combat. When it suits their purposes. Basic training has a very specific level of effectiveness if it can do everything it does today, but it CAN'T erode idiotic chauvinistic urges toward self-destructive chivalry.

[OgreBattle]

So then, how much cleavage do we want

[Fuchs]

How much realism do we want? I'd not worship realism too much, that way lies dieing from infections, save vs. scurvy, and so on. At the very least light or no armor should remain viable as cheesecake.

[wotmaniac]

I know a number of women who are more "physically equipped for the demands of combat" than most men I know, and almost certainly more effective in combat than a sexist armchair internet warrior.

Exception Fallacy strikes again!

The primary things that kept women out of combat are pregnancy and sexism.

Actually, there's a whole lot more to it than that.
1) U.S. Army Regulation says that a Combat Arms unit (infantry, armor, and artillery) and Special Operations units are subject to as much as 72 days of continual operations away from garrison. Basic hygiene standards for women demand that they garrison at least once every 28 days; and for good reason ... it's a serious fucking health issue.
2) I male could max-out the physical fitness standards on the female chart, and still fail to meet the male standards -- and in my 7 years, I still saw a much higher percentage # of females ejected for failure to meet physical fitness standards. What gives?
3) Mixed units empirically really do suffer from a break-down in discipline and bearing (at least compared to the male-only units). That's just all there is to that.
Unless you have an AD card or a DD214, I wouldn't really expect you to understand at all; but by the same token, you also wouldn't really have much room to talk.
4) I don't care what may or may not be out floating in the wilds; but an infantryman's combat load (all crammed in to 1 bag that gets strapped to their back everywhere they go) is actually well over 100 pounds (mine, as a combat medic, was often in the 120 pound range). Based on average height/weight, that really narrows down the range of people who can reasonably be expected to carry it effectively.

I will give you this though -- today's battlefield is very non-linear, and so doesn't really conform to what has been the traditional structure. But that still doesn't change the nature of the jobs -- it just changes how often the "rear echelon" will have to take cover.
I'll say this (and many of my peers have said the same thing): if a female can meet the exact same standards that their male counter parts, then I'm all for them doing literally any job in the military (and in 7 years, I met exactly 2 that could).


Now, could we please just leave this pointless derail lie?

[ModelCitizen]

How much realism do we want? I'd not worship realism too much, that way lies dieing from infections, save vs. scurvy, and so on. At the very least light or no armor should remain viable as cheesecake.

I know this is half joking, but there is an actual mechanics problem here. There are a lot of unarmored fighter- and rogue-types in fantasy fiction that D&D can't represent without telling them to put some clothes on. Instead of telling people to wave away realism if they want to look like the Pathfinder iconics, it might be better to set the rules so that it's easy to build a character who doesn't care about armor.

For example, in Star Wars Saga you don't add Dex directly to your AC; your AC is the higher of your Reflex defense or your bonus from armor. They fucked up the level scaling (because it's SW:S and that's what it does) but there is a point at the intersection of the curves where neither Boba Fett nor Luke Skywalker is doing it wrong. Maybe because Luke's Dex bonus is one point higher, maybe because Jedi get +2 to Reflex and Bounty Hunters don't. I don't know, the point isn't how SW:S actually handles it, the point is how it could work. If use Reflex as your minimum AC rather than adding Dex to AC, and you get the math right so it's easy for a player to build for one or the other to be higher, then you can have an unarmored rogue, barbarian, or swashbuckler and it's not a big deal. You don't have to tell them to "refluff" their chain shirt as a ninja suit / bear pelt / body oil / leather thong and skull pasties / whatever the fuck they actually want to wear.