LurkerFAQs,
Active DB,
DB1,
DB2,
DB3,
DB4,
DB5,
DB6,
DB7,
DB8,
DB9,
DB10,
Database 11 ( 12.2022-11.2023 ),
DB12,
Clear
Last Post: 7:12:41pm, 03/02/2023
ellis123 posted...
Women would be burned at the stake for heresy/witchcraft for wearing armor. Historical precedent is not how to go about this.
Pretty sure that this whole thread is about using real history to inform fantasy. Not sure why you're picking out my post in particular (unless it's just because it's making a point you don't like).
Compsognathus posted...
Armor like that was pure vanity. The dick didnt go in it and it probably was more of a hazard than actual protection. The people wearing this were likely nobility who weren't actually expected to do much combat.
Everyone who wore full suits of armour was nobility. At least in the high middle ages. And nobility would definitely fight.
Different societies also have very different norms. Just because we would think "that's just vanity, it would have no place in battle", that doesn't mean they'd think the same way. A lot of warrior societies would definitely display things in battle for the purpose of showing off, and boob armour you see in post #29 is pretty mild in that respect. Although other aspects of the suit do seem a bit odd.
Come to think about it, a lot of fantasy armour is absolutely filled with stuff that's completely ridiculous and would make it impossible to do anything. Boob armour is probably the least impractical decoration you're ever likely to see in a fantasy game. Weird that it's the one thing people complain about the most.