Awesome! It's unfortunate that they're only compatible with the base clothes, but it would obviously be way too much work to add animations to all of it.

Thanks for these! 

Please include a link to the LPC base assets in your attribution instructions.

"Original LPC character design by Redshrike."
isn't the lpc base asset only cc-by-sa and gpl, not regular by? if that's the case, wouldn't this and any other asset on the site that is derived from the lpc base have to be licensed under the same?

i'm asking because i am working on a collection of cc-by and oga-by lpc assets, as i make games using a closed source engine, so gpl is out for me, and -sa seems incompatible to me because derived sprites/tiles are "locked" into the executable by the engine i use. i don't have a problem with sa wanting edits to be put back into the commons, my issue is my engine references tiles and sprites from within the executable, not an external png. my understanding is that breaks sa by preventing sa assets from being "shared alike"

i have not been able to find an lpc base asset on here that is not sa / gpl

Some authors have agreed to license their contributions to the base assets under CC-BY and to waive the DRM clause (i.e. license their contributions OGA-BY) : https://opengameart.org/content/liberated-pixel-cup-lpc-base-assets-spri... . 

FYI, CC-BY also prohibits the use of effective technological measures (i.e. DRM), just like CC-BY-SA, see https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-revised-base-object-kit#comment-91914

FWIW, my personal opinion is that distributing the art in readable/DRM-free form alongside your executable should satisfy the rules of the CC licenses, even if your code is closed-source or otherwise uses DRM. For example, include the assets in Program Files alongside the executable (even if the executable also bakes the assets) or if that's not possible, include a prominent link to download a tarball containing all the art assets. The license only precludes you preventing others from exercising their rights (i.e. to adapt the artwork), so as long as they can still readily do so, there should be no restrictions on how the executable itself is structured. This is not settled case law, but it stands to reason. By analogy, nobody understands the GPL to mean that your executable must contain the uncompiled source code... just that the source can be accessed by anyone who wants it. 

Obviously Eliza and others have a different interpretation, and this has been argued extensively elsewhere on the forums.