Danman804

My dream mod: http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/1018999-comprehensive-ultimate-floating-island-playerfollwer-home-wdlc-content/#ipboard_body Oh to have a house like this....I know so many homes like this exist, but most if not all of them don't have DLC content I would like to see.

Forgot to add that any DLC content is welcome as long as above requirements are met: multiple adoption capable home is welcome as long as you either put it in a separate wing to lower FPS hit or something similar. Anyone interested? You would possibly have the eternal gratitude of the entire skyrim nexus community with such an achievement.

So, I have searched high and low for a good house/player home that will fit my tastes, and came back empty handed. I must have tried 40 different places, to no avail. What I am looking for is a player home that could also incorporate some Hearthfire (oven, planting) as well as any other DLC you see fit, in a secluded high-flying sky forest-paradise island with beautiful scenery of skyrim in a right location (a pond or lake on it would be nice). The house should NOT be: - Either entirely dwemer or solitude architecture. It should be cozy and comfortable with some flair for style, not dreary and barren. Both of these architectural elements can be incorporated as a small part of the home, but not as the main style of the place. Some telvanni elements (levitation circle, some mushroom architecture etc) is fine. - Being entirely devoid of loading doors. While it's nice to have everything in one cell, the amount of hoarded items in containers and followers will crash most rigs for sure. Therefore, there should be SOME separate loading areas, or at least optional file to make each rooms separate as user sees fit. Think underground bathhouse and the optional file to separate each room in separate cells. What the house should have: - Fully navmeshed, companion/spouse friendly. - Hearthfire oven/churn, and fish hatchery located on the said pond on the floating island (either make it optional hearthfire version or the main file) - On the same vein, some cows and chickens as well as goats in a cattle pen, along with multiple apiary and a grind mill. - VERY IMPORTANT: Separate companion area with pool/bathing space and beds (either a cavern or well-designed sanctuary of that sort). Preferably enough to house and bed 5-10 followers. - LIBRARY. With enough bookshelves to house over 1000+ books with unlimited books mod. Also a fireplace and reading lounge that gives it the cozy library feeling. - Usual amenities: Alchemy, enchanting, smithing areas, all separate and tastefully designed without feeling too much like someone just slapped a bunch of containers and items together. - Greenhouse/in door garden - AND/OR outdoor garden all enough to plant 50 or more items. - Separate museum with central circular configuration (think main lobby of college of winterhold except filled with mannequins and display cases as well as racks) and connecting wings to display separate and unique items (daedric wing, unique item wing, jewel/gem wing, etc) - Master bedroom w/ double bed, and guest room with single bed. - Treasure/gold vault that has an air of opulence not just a bunch of chests and safes. - As mentioned above, separate, high-flying forested/watered (pond) floating island in a good location, accessible only by someone (and their followers) with the key to the place or dragonblood (think sky haven temple blood ritual). - Most crucially, be aware of the FPS requirements - loading doors and good awareness of how this kind of house will perform in an average rig used for skyrim is vital. Some people pointed out the Halls of Dovahdor as being pretty much this, but I felt it was too moddy (hoarded chests, awkward placement of the library) as well as being prone to CTD going from one wing to another not to mention being FPS intensive when in the main hall (lowest was 16 from the throne). I do realize this is a pretty heavy request - if anyone is willing to take up the torch, I would be very grateful, and I am sure everyone else is also. I think many people are tired of living in Deus Mons.

I am trying to comb the internet for any clues - but they all seems somewhat lackluster. If anyone has an idea I would very much appreciate it.

You mention NMM each time so I wonder if you cam run by double clicking the tesv.exe aplication without getting an error? Also can you run without the dinput8.dll by renaming it to like dinput8.TST? If your tesv.exe is corrupt then steam should have detected that and replaced it unless you have disabled steam some how. You could do an integrity check How to check cache integrity on Steam? : V - Skyrim I did rename dinput8.dll to dinput8.tst, but the game runs apparently without scriptdragon like it's not functional at all. I also did the file integrity check twice - no dice. For those just looking at this page, I have updated to the latest patches for the game and latest version of scriptdragon just few days ago, so script dragon should work, but it isn't. The error states "Can't load scriptdragon.dll update to latest version". I am sure some other people are having similar problems? Anyone know the solution to making this work?

As I have said, I have all the latest versions. I did as instructed and put all the files in bin folder to the game directory containing the launcher.exe. I try to start via NMM and get that error message.

I am getting the 'Can't load scriptdragon.dll, update to latest version' error after trying to launch skyrim from NMM. Problem is, both my game and script dragon is upto latest versions as of today. Does anyone have any experience dealing with this? I couldn't get anything shifting through the internet except 'delete script dragon'. I would love to, except I can't use the 'non-combat skills don't make you level' mod if I don't have script dragon. If anyone can help me to get script dragon to work, or find another mod that will allow me to keep non-combat skills from leveling me, I would be very grateful.

Has no one actually replied to this message? I am having the same problems. Anyone?

This might be a good reference for one. See the no-nonsense presence and armor. Although that armor could be better covering the leg with more fitting outfit.

Hm. Speaking personally, while I like the idea of giving people wings, I don't like the idea over overly large wings. A size between Elbow-span and Arm-span for the wingspan sounds good to me. What's your opinion, Dan? Wings will be nice, but they must be implemented with an image that inspires 'strength' and 'paragon' instead of 'frail' and 'angelic' in modern sense. In that sense, compare image 1 and 2 and you get the idea spot on. Edit: There won't be any problems making them beautiful, but pretty in our sense of the word is pretty much not befitting. I have personally known some women who by their very presence commands an almost patriarchal, Augustinian respect despite the fact that judging by their facial features they could pass for a cute 14 year old. It's extremely hard to pull off, so that's why I think starting slow and easy with certain things would be a good idea. Nords would be the logical starting point, but let's think about ways to make them seem 'above' mortals in a way that inspires awe and respectful deference bordering on awe struck fear. Flaming white or dark hair may be? :) Some more muscle on them bones might also be good. Facial expression should also not be of one that looks naive or helpless but one that is focused, power-wielding and once again, almost oppressive in a sense. I am going to try and find an image that more closely fits this idea. I think you might be able to do so as well. Let me know if you find anything. In some ways, the one of the old nord heroes such as the one women out of three who originally faced alduin (can't think of her name out of top of my head) is much closer to real Valkyrie - her character, her demeanor ,etc. She should in fact be even tougher than that. Also, weapons should be battle-hardened but still powerful and have the feel of 'powerful super-mortal force'.

I wanted to stay away from this thread, the amount of "Troll-magnetism" is just too high. But I want to say that this guy (or girl?) Is on right track. First post lacked any sort of pictures, it was all about what it should not be, and it was written in hate, inducing rage in reader and making people confused. When I tried to search google with "Valkyrie", I only ended up seeing tons of anime pictures. Soo.. It's not easy finding the "Right" thing you want, as you only said what you don't want. :biggrin: Not really, just the fact that there is time and place for everything. We do need to know what to avoid to get an idea of what should be, and no matter what someone would like to think, those google anime pictures are really just giving off heavily adolescent fantasy material feel for any one serious about portrayal of mythology to take seriously. Like I said, the contrast between 1st image and 2nd is a good starting point. What can we do from there on? What pictures? OP has no pictures. 2nd post after mine.

I wanted to stay away from this thread, the amount of "Troll-magnetism" is just too high. But I want to say that this guy (or girl?) Is on right track. First post lacked any sort of pictures, it was all about what it should not be, and it was written in hate, inducing rage in reader and making people confused. When I tried to search google with "Valkyrie", I only ended up seeing tons of anime pictures. Soo.. It's not easy finding the "Right" thing you want, as you only said what you don't want. :biggrin: Not really, just the fact that there is time and place for everything. We do need to know what to avoid to get an idea of what should be, and no matter what someone would like to think, those google anime pictures are really just giving off heavily adolescent fantasy material feel for any one serious about portrayal of mythology to take seriously. Like I said, the contrast between 1st image and 2nd is a good starting point. What can we do from there on?

I don't think you understand how your careless expression of limited opinions, as well as insulting attempts at trying to justify such shallow sentiments, led you to be treated that way because you were called out on your carelessness. You really need to watch what you say before really in all honesty, childishly making such weak comments trying to defend your careless comments. I cannot be responsible for how you present your petulant attitude towards other's comments when you can't handle what it is saying because of what it's saying, not because it was directly against you specifically. You got pricked because of your own lack of understanding, not because someone was directly going after you. The way you reacted really sounded like a weak knee-jerk reaction, and is dripping petulance with every other reply you make. I am sure some of the modders had similar ideas, but I think what we got so far is good enough for a starting point.

Again you seem to be misreading catastrophically... Neither me, Strokend or hotemochick have ever said that it either have to be feminine OR gruff. We are all saying it needs to be something in between. I don't think you even know what you are talking about at this point. You just ran against your own words when you said "If you wanted to describe the image to an audience who would never see it, but give them the sense of her being a warrior, you'd have to exclude the part of her being beautiful." that by all accounts is at least implying and showing incompatibility between your idea of beauty and power. Wrong guy, I'm the one who used the audience line, not Zaldiir. Taking the meat out of a meat sandwich? Really? What does beauty have to do with a soldier? How is it the war aspect of him? It's more like the Lettuce on a burger. A person may always make a burger with that lettuce, but suddenly making it without doesn't make it less of a buger. It still has the buns and the patty. I was working by your definition here. You argued that beauty meant femininity meant weak and fragile. At this point, I don't really have the patience to read through the rest of it, so I'll just say this: It's your mod request, not mine. When you supported the second image I used to pull more information out of you, I assumed you wanted that form of beauty. I even further guessed it would take position somewhere between the Imperials and Nords. However, if that is not what you want, I'm presently at a loss for what you do want, and any modders may be as well. Good luck in this, I do look forward to seeing it being made, but at present I intend to become just a watcher here. At the very least, I'll give myself a chance to look through things more carefully before I post again. Let me clarify once again. The beauty I speak of is not solely about 'modern' sense of beauty. That is what I would reject, but let us compare the 1st and 2nd image, and try to understand what I am trying to say about what to reject and what we should aspire to. 1st image is what I would call wall-flower-like feel of Valkyie. Ethereal, fragile, dolled-up version that is more fitting for a barbie doll instead of real and original portrayal of Valkyries. 2nd image gives off much more vibrant, powerful, and imperious feel that much better fits the idea of Valkyrie. As a modder, if you feel that 2nd image is what you can realistically go after as a starting point, I would appreciate your efforts. What I am attempting to convey here is that we must avoid at all costs such attempts at making these valkyries look at some kind of anime-whack off material, wall-flower cr@p they call valkyrie to begin with. Maybe from that point on we can look even deeper into how to bring the image much closer to its original image. Your idea for 2nd image has merit - I hope we can see something out of that. Try to pursue more power-inducing feel rather than overtly emphasizing modern sense of feminity at the expense of presence of power like the first one (it really does, no matter how much anyone would like to believe otherwise - perception needs to influence both the wielder and the viewer for it to really matter). The idea is really ambitious, so we can take one step at a time.

Again you seem to be misreading catastrophically... Neither me, Strokend or hotemochick have ever said that it either have to be feminine OR gruff. We are all saying it needs to be something in between. I don't think you even know what you are talking about at this point. You just ran against your own words when you said "If you wanted to describe the image to an audience who would never see it, but give them the sense of her being a warrior, you'd have to exclude the part of her being beautiful." that by all accounts is at least implying and showing incompatibility between your idea of beauty and power. I don't think you are capable of understanding the one making really catastrophic and short-sighted misunderstanding is you who is very much contradicting your own words with your tone of voice opposing and giving lie to statements you make. You say you never meant something this way, while following up with statements that are clearly implying otherwise. I don't think you can really grasp what you yourself is trying to say, while I am outlining and clearly explaining again and again what I mean with examples that may or may not elude your sense of what is and is not. You don't address what I mentioned, but goes back on your word again and again. Mine stands on the idea that this is seemingly impossible, but still very much a valuable possibility that may not be correctly perceived by others with much more limited view of what is being portrayed in these old works of literary and traditional treasures. You are attempting, and going around in circles, trying to justify how your present view should be best imposed upon these ideas when they are clearly out of your league seeing as trying to explain them in your own terms is making you run around trying to cover your own words. I suggest you broaden your horizons about the perceptions of what I am hoping modders are going to portray here. You are running in circles here.

lol

Calling something a Hyperbole and trying to say that somehow excludes it from core meaning of a mythology is like saying you need to exclude 'hyperbole' of a person's presence and perception they exude in favor of viewing them in a 2 dimensional way. It seems you seriously misunderstand what does and doesn't matter, and also what not to call superficially capable of being disregarded vs. what cannot be. You don't take out meat from a meat-only sandwich and still call it a meat sandwich. That's a really weak way of trying to deflect the issue when you obviously don't know the exact purpose of hyperbole literary device that are used across mythologies to their contemporary audiences. Do you think Beethoven was trying to impose some kind of artificial, false mirage of illusion of his ideas when writing the 5th symphony? By your reasoning, perhaps hyperbole in such art is merely an illusion to mask something that is different while the real intent is actually to accurately describe something that cannot be so easily perceived by the human sense due to limitations of our experience and point of view. I have already explained why your view of law and tactical aspect in terms of femininity is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you go back and read it again. Once again, what's not feminine about Imperials? They have their own brand of such presence, and you so casually disregard them as if your own views automatically exclude their character from everyone else's. I don't think I ever said they are supposed to look like some thing along the lines of Herma Mora clone. I also never said the second image is EXACTLY what they should be like - only that said 2nd image is MUCH better than the 1st, which as I said we must take pains to avoid. We must exclude the part about being 'beautiful' as in modern-sense-model-beautiful. Yes, in that sense, something must be excluded. But that does not in any way detract from original intent of this request to ask for something closer to the original portrayal of these warrior-gods. Your general tone that tries to say either feminine-or-thor-and-gruff is, once again (tired of repeating things you are incapable of understanding) VERY shallow way of viewing what is feminine or not. Go read some of the excerpts from original norse poems. Edit: Trying to embody this idea into a race is exactly why this is so difficult. But that's exactly the kind of condition where great innovative breakthroughs happen - when seemingly impossible becomes realized. When I said it is going to be tough, I wasn't saying that out of courtesy.

Apparently you haven't been listening to a word I said. When did I say it was acceptable for you to look at them through the modern view of 'beauty' when written accounts of them by norse of ancient times were clearly the opposite? What makes you think your standard of 'beauty' is even remotely close to theirs, or how the view of them in ancient times for those same images were even remotely close to your own? If you by any chance told them of your ideas about how you viewed those Valkyries, I think they would split their sides laughing. This is exactly the kind of myopia I have repeatedly spoke against, but you just can't get it into your head. Edit: Your idea of 'ancient' valkyrie depictions are all from 19th century on by the way. Did you even bother to do any serious research? Again. Chill. All you seem to be doing is arguing against the modern view of beauty, but you have yet to provide any information regarding how the Norse viewed beauty. You seem to think that they had a totally different view than we do now, but I highly doubt it. But of course, no one can really prove how they viewed beauty. Take a strong, beautiful woman of today, remove the make-up, and you most likely have a woman who would be thought to be beautiful in the Viking age. Of course, the perception of beauty is a subjective matter, so you could really argue all day and not get any further. Sounds easy enough on the surface, but still deflecting the issue with 'it's all subjective'. Some of the differences in element is really more close to black and white, which you cannot so easily sweep aside with relatively cheap move of condemning difference to 'subjective irrelevance'. If you look through even the rudimentary summaries about Valkyrie Lore online, (for starters, see the entries on wikipedia or do more serious research about old norse poems and stories) only very occasionally are they described as 'fair' or 'beautiful' in a way of 'attraction', rather, one is more reminded of idea about people beholding almost imperious image of madonna-like image or Athena-like image of Gods who happened to be of female gender. Kind of respect and awe rendered to god like figure who is both an embodiment of divine acceptance and judgment is closer to their image than shallow feeling of 'modern day model-eye candy' type of depictions we are prone to seeing. Just look at some of their names - 'dark death', 'war', 'power', 'axe-age'. Not exactly wall-flower type of 'feminine' idea we imagine today. These entities are not exactly mary or elizabeth we're seeing here. I kind of doubt some of the more 'sacreligious' point of view commonly espoused in modern day is capable of grasping these ideas, but I am sure some modders are up to the challenge of rising above cheap ideas about 'goddesses' and 'femininity' that are as short-sighted as they are shallow.

Apparently you haven't been listening to a word I said. When did I say it was acceptable for you to look at them through the modern view of 'beauty' when written accounts of them by norse of ancient times were clearly the opposite? What makes you think your standard of 'beauty' is even remotely close to theirs, or how the view of them in ancient times for those same images were even remotely close to your own? If you by any chance told them of your ideas about how you viewed those Valkyries, I think they would split their sides laughing. This is exactly the kind of myopia I have repeatedly spoke against, but you just can't get it into your head. Edit: Your idea of 'ancient' valkyrie depictions are all from 19th century on by the way. Did you even bother to do any serious research? They were clearly inspired by Romanticism and nationalism of that era seeking to distort the original ideas about what Valkyries really are. Try to do some more serious fact finding before b ching.

Hmm? That's pretty easy to do actually. They're not meant to be percieved as a bikinimail clad s!@£, and yet that's how many people percieve them. emochick and I were both stating that "Beauty" would be nice along with the warrior look, as long as you played it right. You're right in that a lot of people misunderstand the meaning of beauty to be sexy; others yet misunderstand it to be cute. However, there are people who understand the meaning of "The beauty of combat"--This is what we're aiming for. Some people see combat as barbaric. Just hacking and slashing at everything possible. Beautiful combat is not just hacking and slashing. It's when you apply a form of art to your combat techniques. To actually use techniques, even. A Nordic warrior looks entirely gruff, dirt across his face, no shame about scars, and warpaint coating it. His hair is likely unkempt, and he has a lot of muscle. Look instead at an Imperial warrior. Imperials are an offshoot of Nord, and yet they aren't gruff in their appearance. Sure, they may have scars, even dirt, but they aren't some musclebound oafs. They put order into their combat. Their hair is combed, brushed, or ponytailed. They have the look of a warrior, but they show it with grace. The Nord care about battle before law, whereas the Imperials care about law before battle. Yes, some Nord will braid their hair, but otherwise it's just left flowing; the hair on Imperials typically goes back, with only a few letting it just flow naturally. I know, hair is only a small part of the picture, but it's the easiest available example of Man to Man comparison (Mer are too fragile). I'd imagine the Valkyries to be somewhat Imperial like: law before battle. They may a little less concerned with law than Imperial, but it's a good standpoint for comparison. That, however, is exactly where the real idea of valkyrie conflicts with our ideas about their essence. The idea that law and raging combat form some kind of dichotomy, or especially the idea that she cannot be truly entirely beautiful as a Valkyrie if she does not have that essential character of order and law in her bearing is precisely why we cannot fathom the idea that brutal and gruff combat in women (or female demi-gods) cannot be truly beautiful. This is skyrim, and namely norse-inspired land with its comparable myths, and it seems we just can't get past the shallow idea that there MUST be some 'beautiful' form of order and constraint upon the female valkyries to make them complete, when in fact they were just as brutal and powerful as their male asgardians, well respected precisely because they were able to stand on their own two feet without being supported by constraints of who they 'should' be, and thus looked upon as an almost idealized form of female nord role model. The idea that these women must have some kind of 'refined' or 'ordered' quality to them to be truly seen as beautiful is a truly an exercise in self-deception - it pretends to understand the deeper qualities of beauty and feminine role in norse-inspired mythology when you are in fact indulging in an even deeper series of hypocrisy by calling such self-imposed stereotypes as 'deeper beauty', congratulating yourself for such 'insightful' views, all the while ignoring and flat out desperately denying the idea that if what is seen today as truly 'masculine' was in fact the norm of the ways back then, for men and women alike, no matter how difficult it is for you to swallow and accept such thoughts. In fact, we have so degraded our view of masculinity and femininity that we desperately lash out against such 'masculine' form of behavior from Valkyrie as 'unrefined' or 'not beautiful'. I for one see nothing overtly masculine in a valkyrie that does not require your brand of 'order' and 'tactics', which is actually what all warriors are required to know. The idea that nord men are supposed to be brutish, unthinking warriors is also flat out wrong - a concentrated, unlimited, and raging force focused upon one individual against an enemy is in actuality one of the pinnacles of tactical clarity and concentration that requires a honed and ironically disciplined mind of the utmost quality. We are deeply mistaken if we think we can somehow reconcile our reluctance to attach modern form of masculinity to Valkyrie without distorting their essential character as understood in the beginning of their mythology, or its norse-inspired lands of skyrim. What we view as overtly masculine form of behavior is in fact the defacto norm of that mythology and society upon which skyrim is inspired by. Even so, no, especially because of that, Valkyries were beautiful and terrible messengers of battlefield. Your observations and interpretations are ultimately a self-deceiving attempt at trying to fragilely impose modern myopic views about ancient mythology upon the myth itself, whose only saving grace is that we might just be too ignorant about the ancient people to truly understand their concept of beauty and power embodied within these mythical figures of Valkyrie. We can't put pretty words together and pretend things are not the way they are, or paint stripes on a pumpkin and call it a watermelon. What we are trying to create here is a truly, as close-to-orginal as possible Valkyries, not overtly feminized and wall-flower like images of Valkyrie that seems to appeal to people with only modern sense of what the myths of norse people should be. Think second image of the second post here, and NOT the first image of that post, and we get the idea. We should also not tolerate trying to 'tie-down' or otherwise 're-interpret' the ideas of Valkyrie to what may be easier to swallow for other people. It is we who should adjust our thinking to become more comfortable with the idea of 'overtly masculine-valkyrie-by-modern-standards', not the other way around. By doing so, we can really talk about creating an authentic, serious portrayal of these mythological figures whose real grace and strength is in many ways unfathomable to people with degraded sense of modern day myopia. Edit: Having a few scars or darker presence doesn't make a figure any more really look 'war-hardened' or 'masculine' in a real sense. Our feelings about how we view these figures must be at least a little more deeper than that.

I believe by her carelessly shooting her mouth off at things she barely understands with laughably undue sense of 'know this' attitude kinda brought it on herself. Most things are two-way streets, and you should not expect anything less if you don't know any better. That being said, the main problem here is that it is so easy to fall in to a misconception about what exactly essence of Valkyrie entails with out doing so on purpose, as she demonstrated quite clearly. The sticking point is that it is so easy to superimpose the relatively modern image of Valkyrie there by inadvertently screwing up the images we are trying to bring out, because it is very difficult for us with our point of view about female warriors to imagine them in a way they were not intended to be perceived. The key is to break through that misconception, done willingly or not, and portray the Valkyries in such a way as to stay true to their role as grim reapers of old. Let's keep brainstorming here, I think we already have a couple of good points (aside from that image from Valkyrie profile which we must avoid, but that's still a point nonetheless if only to know what we should not do).

'Bud' you are acting like you just got pricked in your soft spot. Sensitive issue to you? As much as you would like to think so, I am afraid you need to be reminded that it takes two to tango to a tune. Just because YOU would like those two to be separate and distinguishable doesn't mean instincts and views of the other gender is subject to your own interpretations. You need to be able to exert that image onto others, and no matter how you try to emphasize that 'beauty' and 'cheap sexual fantasies' are not the same, it can be readily viewed that way by another gender much more easily and it is far more difficult than you imagine for them to be persuaded otherwise. If you float around like a fairy with sparkles and glowing wings, don't be surprised when another party views you as such. Innate beauty and strong ideas of power needs to exert themselves, not just act in whatever way you want and expect everyone else to be persuaded to your own little tune. You talk about mustang, but what you are presenting is more like a mini coup painted in pink and flowers. It really shows your separation from reality and favoring your own little fantasies that is far detached from reality. If you think you can live off in your little fantasy where everything you want and wish for is how others are supposed to view you, than know that others are just as capable of doing so on their own terms. What you wish for to be 'beautiful' and 'dignified' at the same time may not necessarily be what you want. You might wish people view someone doing whatever they want as how you would view them, but the cold reality is that you won't get too far simply trying to insist that your shallow view of 'beauty' is what other people should think of it as. Real beauty and power embodied within the concept of Valkyrie is quite far from cheap concept your think of as 'beauty' on your own terms. Very ironic you think you actually know something about the dynamics of perception or 'beauty' when the first idea you presented was quite shallow to begin with. This shallow concept of beauty is exactly what we are trying to avoid here. Anyone up to the challenge? I might even throw in a septim or two if that's allowed :)

With all respect, Hotemochick1992, those two ideas are mostly mutually exclusive. You cannot be an object of cheap sexual fantasies and grave, dignified and powerful demi god at the same time. You can't have your cake and eat it too, no less than a man would have trouble being seen as a 'whole man' if he wants to be taken seriously amongst his peers as an equal but struts around in a drag queen outfit. In terms of this not being a modern phenomenon, I would expect this to be at least partially true thanks to the fact that modern mass media will take anything it can make into popular imagination (i.e. lowest denominator) for the sake of entertainment and cheap laughs. Contrary to what we see today, past portrayals of Valkyries were, as feminine as they were, more inclined to 'mystically powerful' and 'sacred grim reapers' vs. 'overtly feminine' and 'hyper sexualized' of today. Valkyries are not 'glowing, soft, angelic beings' as we dream of 'angelic' today. Remember real angels, as least according to most texts, were in fact just as if not more terrifying than demons i.e. with six heads, flaming tails, numerous arms and pretty much a nightmare incarnate (except for the fact that they are....angels). We tend, in a very shallow way, to imagine 'good' and 'sacred' as something 'fragile', 'feminine' and 'aversion to violence stereotype'. This is possibly the single greatest BS - they are 'Angels' precisely BECAUSE they are more terrifying than their enemies, and wields such presence that runs counter to all the 'feminine' idea of 'good' and 'angelic' we have today.

By Lore, a Valkyrie is just an angelic warrior, typically wielding a spear or lance. They were directly below Odin, making them just as deadly and up there as Thor and Loki. Here's an image of a more proper armor: As you can see, there's the winged helmet, a plate mail complete with heavy pauldrons, and it actually goes all the way down into a skirt. The boots are very tall, but rather than gauntlets she has bracers. On the back of her plate mail are wings; this would not be necessary but could just come as a form of "cape" attatched to the armor. Here's another image for an alternate form: Her pauldrons are a lot smaller, but still a signifigant presence. Rather than a fullblown skirt, she has a pseudo-cape flowing from the base of her platemail cuirass. In this image, she is shown with full out gauntlets. Either set of armor is good, and even having both (The pseudo-cape could be the male's form of armor for it) would work--A bodyarmor with large pauldrons and no sleeves or a bodyarmor with light pauldrons but full sleeves, as well as bracers or gauntlets. NPC-wise, Valkyrians could be both male and female. While by Norse Lore Valkyries are only females, this is because they are not a species. If they were to be represented as a species, they'd be Asgardians, or whatever the heck you call them, and there most certainly are male Asgardians. Prime example: Thor, Odin, Tyr. If you ever attempt to make them a full out species, you have to include males, otherwise there's a giant plothole. They could still have long hair, flowing capes, and wings, just their armor (if the secondary t ype, at least) would be smoother, without those additional plates over the breasts. The first cuirass would just flatten out the plate present there. This does not, however, mean that males have to be common. One's enough; nobody said the ratio of female:male can't be 9:1. Males only need be included because, frankly, people are going to be asking for them as a playable race, and a female-only playble race is just asking to be ignored. Furthermore, female-only armor will net you plenty of complaints from me, since you're asking for full-sized platemail outfits. Almost no armor whatsoever deserves to be female-only or male-only to start with. That first image is PRECISELY what I am talking about AVOIDING. Second image, on the other hand, is much closer to what I am imagining as a proper valkyrie. Most of the 'lore' about Valkyries that modern day society portray them as is in fact twisted and corrupted beyond all measure by people who would rather fantasize about female warriors being feminine and weak rather than their real and original characters. Your presentation of them as 'angelic' in a modern sense is precisely what we are tryign to avoid here. These valkyrie are not wall-flower decorations or eye candy like the first image presents them as - almost ethereal and fragile - looking girls who look like they were ripped from twisted japanese child-fantasy land and animated porn. They should have their own brand of strength and mystical mandate-driven presence that belies their power as virtual grim reapers. These women (or sometimes men) are warriors, fighters, and messengers of death, not really objects of cheap fantasies. Yes to your second image, absolute no to the first one. It's not really about skirts or anything - it's more that first one is exactly the kind of image we need to dispell about valkyries: That they are some kind of ultra feminine-fragile and ethereal beings too often mistaken as 'angelic' and so forth (as in, modern idea of 'angelic' that means they are fragile, mystical and have the general presence that pegs them as anything but violent and neigh-sadistically terrifying in their ability to exert power and violence, which is what they were originally). I never said they had to be only female. As for having both genders, sure. We should however think them mainly as female with sprinkle of male gender spread throughout. Let's try to imagine them as character of their original mythology - powerful and (by degraded, posh modern standards) masculine, but still demonstrating their own kind of strength and grace that inspires fear and awe. They should have the kind of depth and gravity that rises above cheap fantasy-making feeling given out by the first image and more closely related to power wielding spirits of soldiers more closely followed by the second image.

No, this is not anime mod request, nor is it a request for any of those tear-inducingly cutesy cr@p of overtly feminine and possibly pedophile attracting, Vaseline draining tired series of adolescent whack off materials. If you don't like what this is requesting, go request something more to your taste in the forum. With that clarification, let's discuss how to introduce Lore-Friendly but still above-and-beyond style of Valkyrie items and possibly NPCs into skyrim. If you think about it, the idea of Valkyrie is so compatible with Skyrim that it boggles the mind why developers left it out. The only plausible explanation I could find is that 'Shield-maidens' in skyrim were the limit of how much 'feminization of warriors' devs were willing to take along (aside from obviously 'wild' forsworn'). However, it is my opinion that we can still introduce the concept of 'Valkyria' into skyrim without being too overtly feminine or feeling out of place. To introduce Valkyries that are dignified, sacred, graceful yet still exuding an air of power and warrior spirit is something I think we can agree is sorely lacking in Skyrim. Let me make something clear: This idea is very much NOT about introducing Valkyries as some kind of twisted eye-candies. In fact, it is a very difficult job to introduce such concept of female warriors that exude their own brand of strong, steadfast presence while still bringing out the appeal of 'sacred angels' and 'messengers of gods' feel that Valkyries are known for originally. They are essentially grim reapers, beautiful and terrible, but at the same time welcoming form of death that lifts up worthy soldiers to Valhalla. Anyone up for some challenge? Think Olfina in Whiterun, albeit with more warrior feel, then you get the idea.