This isn't so self-evident. The purpose of armor is to protect the wearer's body, bikini armor is made to expose as much skin as possible. Outfits such as post #775318 and post #710982 just can't be considered armor.
Posted under General
This isn't so self-evident. The purpose of armor is to protect the wearer's body, bikini armor is made to expose as much skin as possible. Outfits such as post #775318 and post #710982 just can't be considered armor.
I wouldn't consider those two posts bikini armor.
The purpose of bikini armor is to pretend to be armor while exposing as much skin as possible. While it requires willing suspension of disbelief, it's still intended to be armor.
I'd support the implication because if I search armor on Danbooru, bikini_armor is part of what I'm looking for too. It's kinda standard for female warriors to wear bikini armor.
The base example I'd give of bikini armor is the female warrior of Dragon Quest. (e.g. post #775751)
The metal parts must make it clear it's supposed to be armor of some sort, at least. Otherwise, it probably shouldn't be tagged as bikini armor.
+1 to the implication.
The "magical properties" go against "tag what you see".
I said that I don't consider some posts under bikini armor as armor, meaning that there are exceptions.
If you say that those exceptions shouldn't even be in bikini armor, then +1 for the implication.
S1eth said:I said that I don't consider some posts under bikini armor as armor, meaning that there are exceptions.
If you say that those exceptions shouldn't even be in bikini armor, then +1 for the implication.
Right, if a bikini is clearly not armor then it definitely shouldn't be tagged as such. At the very least the thing has to be metal or something, no matter what size it is.
Arrei said:
At the very least the thing has to be metal or something, no matter what size it is.
That's what the Wiki says, and I agree. The thing is that this goes against S1eth's first example of exception. I say it's still armor, no matter how skimpy or ineffective it might appear to be.
I suppose there has to be a limit on that, too. I mean, if it ends up being little more than pasties made of metal we can't really call that an armor or a bikini in any sense.
But if it still looks like armor, then it's armor, yeah? The first image S1eth gave was pretty clearly not armor, but the second still looked like it. (The top, at least, the bottoms were just underwear.)
Arrei said:
I suppose there has to be a limit on that, too. I mean, if it ends up being little more than pasties made of metal we can't really call that an armor or a bikini in any sense.
I don't agree. If it's all cloth except for a metal ring or two tying the things together, it doesn't belong, but if there are metal discs covering the nipples, it's at least trying to be armor.
You mean something like this: post #257917 ?
I also question whether armor refers to body armor (torso, breastplate), or if gauntlets, greaves and pauldrons imply armor.
Updated
S1eth said:
You mean something like this: post #257917 ?
There are no strings or anything attaching the top pieces together, nor is there anything tying the bottom panel on. That wouldn't qualify as a bikini anyway, so it's a moot point.
Perhaps I misspoke what I meant; I was thinking of things that would qualify both as bikini armor and as a micro bikini.
I also question whether armor refers to body armor (torso, breastplate), or if gauntlets, greaves and pauldrons imply armor.
I don't see any reason why the latter set shouldn't be included as armor. Perhaps not the helmet, as I wouldn't think of a bike helmet as "armor", at least not in the fantasy/adventure sense.
sgcdonmai said:
Perhaps I misspoke what I meant; I was thinking of things that would qualify both as bikini armor and as a micro bikini.
I say it wouldn't be prudent to tag that as armour. There's a certain lower limit below which it's simply impossible to distinguish make-believe armour from simple ornamentation. If it's at least pretending to be made out of reasonably thick metal plates, is pointy and edgy etc., then you could say it makes an attempt at being an armour. But metal pasties could just as well be an exotic outfit.
Bottom line: only things that are recognisable an armour (never mind the effectiveness) should be tagged bikini_armour, and thus an implication is in order. If it's just tiny pieces of metal, tag it as something else. Perhaps pasties.
I think that the Soldier (dq3) is probably a good guideline for what the minimum necessary to be considered "armor" is.
post #844463 is a good example of what her armor is, post #849756 would still qualify since its the same outfit, only smaller.
But anything less "armor" than that probably shouldn't get the tag.
sgcdonmai said:
Examples?
I can't think of any examples to bring up right now, but it would be difficult to judge since ornamental armors were easy to distinguish since they were, well, ornate and not designed to be practical. That applies to practically every fantasy armor so I wouldn't know how we could create a system, or really why we would bother, to distinguish between ornamental, or dress armors, and regular fantasy armor.
Fencedude said:
I think that the Soldier (dq3) is probably a good guideline for what the minimum necessary to be considered "armor" is.post #844463 is a good example of what her armor is, post #849756 would still qualify since its the same outfit, only smaller.
But anything less "armor" than that probably shouldn't get the tag.
Yeah. It gets armour points for having a helmet and shoulder pads. If it it were only the latter form (which also lacks the former's tasset ), I wouldn't consider it an armour anymore.