Aliasing pauldron → pauldrons
Link to alias

Reason:

Given that they're usually found in pairs, the plural form seems like it would be more appropriate, as well as matching with the other kinds of subtypes of armor that are all tagged in the plural.

To me, the order wouldn't matter. +1

Also, spaulder A-> spaulders.

There are armor sets that feature only one of either word, and we prefer singular over plural in certain cases. I'm willing to argue that this is such a case.

Siral_Exan said:
There are armor sets that feature only one of either word, and we prefer singular over plural in certain cases. I'm willing to argue that this is such a case.

It's more ornamental to only have one instead of a pair, I would think.

Furrin_Gok said:
It's more ornamental to only have one instead of a pair, I would think.

Maybe, maybe not. I've seen warriors with armor on only one arm before.

Like this.

Flipped and approved

parasprite said:
Flipped and approved

What about spaulder(s)?

Another thing: Since both pauldrons and spaulders are pieces of plate armor, should both of the implicate plate_armor?

Furrin_Gok said:
It's more ornamental to only have one instead of a pair, I would think.

It actually isn't. Having a suit of full platemail was historically pretty expensive. It was pretty common for functional suits of armor to lack a pauldron in the opposite side from your shield-arm. (... Or on the same side as your shield-arm? I can't recall which it was, but logically it seems like they would have had your armor sans pauldron on the shield-arm.) Either way, asymmetrical armor is not only functional but historically accurate.

LumenSageAlexander said:
It actually isn't. Having a suit of full platemail was historically pretty expensive. It was pretty common for functional suits of armor to lack a pauldron in the opposite side from your shield-arm. (... Or on the same side as your shield-arm? I can't recall which it was, but logically it seems like they would have had your armor sans pauldron on the shield-arm.) Either way, asymmetrical armor is not only functional but historically accurate.

I would think it's harder to shield the same shoulder holding the shield, and easier to protect the other shoulder.

Furrin_Gok said:
I would think it's harder to shield the same shoulder holding the shield, and easier to protect the other shoulder.

If this guy had a shield, he would've held it with his left hand.

BlueDingo said:
If this guy had a shield, he would've held it with his left hand.

He looks like he doesn't, though, and only exposes one side to danger. That's why that's the only side armored.

Furrin_Gok said:
He looks like he doesn't, though, and only exposes one side to danger. That's why that's the only side armored.

The armor is on the attacking arm to stop the enemy from chopping it off. The other arm would hold a shield for overall defense. The shield on one arm would counterbalance the armor and sword on the other arm. Shield arm and armored leg forward (notice he's only wearing one greave?), sword arm and bare leg back. Maximum protection from minimal armor.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Generally you only expose one side to an enemy in your front (if you consider your 'front' to be the direction in your direct line of sight). The side that's more heavily armored is effectively your 'back' in a group combat situation, and it is slightly easier to defend against your side (which would be your anatomical back due to your positioning) than from behind, hence the heavier upper armor being on the side you present mostly behind yourself.