Principle Two: woman characters should not be there solely to be fought over or rescued. Some woman characters who are being rescued are fine so long as there's no implication that being in trouble or being rescued makes a woman sexy.
You've gotten it all wrong. Those women are being rescued because they're sexy.
That kind of leads me to my favourite trope-buster from a con where a pretty princess was said to be abducted by a dragon. And when the party stormed into help, they had to realize that the princess and the dragon (a jesterful copper draggy) had planned it all along because she was sick of the political intrigue at court and needed aid of competent people for her investigations.
So yeah, a picture of THAT would be quite nice.
Fot the 4e pics: The first is a big win, the second would work fine for me if you covered the belly up since she seems to be in a dungeon and is wearing leather. The Mother of runes is awesome! Characters like Wynne from DA:O are truely needed in our artworks (and I wouldn't even call her "unattractive" just because she's old)
I'm OK with presenting male and female characters as having some mechanical differences (at least in some races), as long as they are balanced (so, men can be stronger and women more dexterous and/or maybe healthy). If there's no mechanical difference, it's ok for me. At any rate, not every society (not even good ones) needs to perceive men and women as identical or even equal. A culture here may think that men are superior, while other, farther away, may think the opposite, and even most other societies would perceive both genders different but equal (in those societies all the warriors or even most of the adventurers can be men, while women are better rated than men in more scholarly tasks or as adventurers that don't rely on physical strength, which can have mechanical basis or not). As long as it's clear that this attitude comes from the in-game people, and not from personal beliefs of the developers, I'm fine.
As for the issue of showing women's bodies, I'm basically against chainmail bikinis and the like. If someone wants to look sexy, she would have to look in control of her sexuality or, conversely, be a slave or prostitute in an evil (or not so evil) society (on the other hand, having males in the same situation under female villains would be only logical), but not being caught in her underwear just because the characters will have more motivation. Non sexual reasons for looking sexy can be varied, though: acrobats of both genders tend to be barely clad so they can work better, divine characters (or even warlocks) whose patrons are related to sex or beauty can be seen with very few clothes (again, it would apply to both genders). Some cultures can see no need for clothes and may see excessive clothing as cumbersome and even as plainly wrong, especially if they are very close to nature (some barbarians in the real world fought rome naked, and primal characters can have a touch of that, although I don't picture it as something sexy). On the other hand, armors are made to cover the body as much as possible to protect it, so if you are wearing armor, you better do it well. Remember to put out your armor from time to time, though. There are some DMs out there, though, that penalize you by throwing an encounter at your face whenever you put it out to sleep.
In short, there are a lot of reasons for women (and men) to be lightly clad. Some (like the sex deity), while perfectly logic and fit for a character concept, are a bit out of place as the norm for NPCs in most settings, unless the DM wants a more sexual (I won't say mature) overtone. Some 'primitive' cultures wearing little clothes, or characters wearing provocative clothes in an appropriate social occasion, are all right, and representation of these women doesn't have to be necessarily sexy. There's a difference between a lamia's breasts and a fighter with a diminutive bikini chainmail (the latter is sexier most of the time, even when the first is almost always completely naked)
i want nothing but hot chicks in skimpy armor. i am not interested in overweight chicks covered up in plate mail. its sad that a fantasy has to get turned into reality. maybe they can make the 'burger king campaign guide' for that kind of thing
i want nothing but hot chicks in skimpy armor. i am not interested in overweight chicks covered up in plate mail. its sad that a fantasy has to get turned into reality. maybe they can make the 'burger king campaign guide' for that kind of thing
I all want is for female clothing to make as much sense as male clothing. A female fighter should be in mail suit not a chainmail bikini unless the male fighter is just gonna wear a chainmail jockstrap (but let's face it not all men are a brave as Conan). Sexy, skimpy outfits would make sense for classes that rely on things other then raw STR, Rogues, Bards and Spellcasters would be more likely to show some skin then Fighters, Paladins and Rangers.
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
I all want is for female clothing to make as much sense as male clothing. A female fighter should be in mail suit not a chainmail bikini unless the male fighter is just gonna wear a chainmail jockstrap (but let's face it not all men are a brave as Conan). Sexy, skimpy outfits would make sense for classes that rely on things other then raw STR, Rogues, Bards and Spellcasters would be more likely to show some skin then Fighters, Paladins and Rangers.
I can certainly agree with much of that sentiment. Idk if "Rogues, Bards and Spellcasters would be more likely to show some skin then Fighters, Paladins and Rangers" is accurate. I agree that bards are likely to; the bard class is largely about performance, mood, and appearance. However, I don't think that rogues and spellcasters are as likely to show more skin. Rogues are probably likely to be covered from neck to feet, with only their joints exposed for the best possible agility to protection ratio. Spellcasters, by contrast, are rather free to deal with the fashion of their culture (well, maybe not the cleric; religious orders often have uniforms, and clerics are heavy armor users). Depending on how magic is handled, they may need a host of tiny pockets for spell components (or just to wear a spell component bandoleer sash), but that can be sewn into robes, pants (imagine cargo pants, only with spell foci and components in the pockets), dresses, etc.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
I all want is for female clothing to make as much sense as male clothing. A female fighter should be in mail suit not a chainmail bikini unless the male fighter is just gonna wear a chainmail jockstrap (but let's face it not all men are a brave as Conan). Sexy, skimpy outfits would make sense for classes that rely on things other then raw STR, Rogues, Bards and Spellcasters would be more likely to show some skin then Fighters, Paladins and Rangers.
I can certainly agree with much of that sentiment. Idk if "Rogues, Bards and Spellcasters would be more likely to show some skin then Fighters, Paladins and Rangers" is accurate. I agree that bards are likely to; the bard class is largely about performance, mood, and appearance. However, I don't think that rogues and spellcasters are as likely to show more skin. Rogues are probably likely to be covered from neck to feet, with only their joints exposed for the best possible agility to protection ratio. Spellcasters, by contrast, are rather free to deal with the fashion of their culture (well, maybe not the cleric; religious orders often have uniforms, and clerics are heavy armor users). Depending on how magic is handled, they may need a host of tiny pockets for spell components (or just to wear a spell component bandoleer sash), but that can be sewn into robes, pants (imagine cargo pants, only with spell foci and components in the pockets), dresses, etc.
I know what you mean about Rogues but you might be thinking a little to realistically, since the game doesn't overtly differentiate over the amount of protection provided by a leather jacket vs a leather halter top (we're not talking about HarnMaster here lolol) and yes I know the books gives a set image of what leather armor looks like, but the golden rule of "nothing is craved in stone" allows one to have a bit more leway and play a more Fantasy (vs Historical) game. So with that in mind, a player with a female Rogue may very well take the halter top as it will allow them more role playing oportunities (i.e. aid with flirting or the added destraction of a bit of clevage) then a leather jacket would.
So therefore art of a female Rogue in a somewhat skimpy leather vest , bodice or halter top can be as appropriate as art of a female Rogue in a full on studded leather jacket.
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
what does sense mean when even the rw article of clothing is only there for style reason??
torn shirts...... holey jeans ...... and open toed shoes that you cant even wear to the workplace.
practical armor for both men and women, and if it has exposed flesh such as the mid section, the male must have a sixpack and the female must be hawt. scars are optional.
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
I all want is for female clothing to make as much sense as male clothing. A female fighter should be in mail suit not a chainmail bikini unless the male fighter is just gonna wear a chainmail jockstrap (but let's face it not all men are a brave as Conan). Sexy, skimpy outfits would make sense for classes that rely on things other then raw STR, Rogues, Bards and Spellcasters would be more likely to show some skin then Fighters, Paladins and Rangers.
I can certainly agree with much of that sentiment. Idk if "Rogues, Bards and Spellcasters would be more likely to show some skin then Fighters, Paladins and Rangers" is accurate. I agree that bards are likely to; the bard class is largely about performance, mood, and appearance. However, I don't think that rogues and spellcasters are as likely to show more skin. Rogues are probably likely to be covered from neck to feet, with only their joints exposed for the best possible agility to protection ratio. Spellcasters, by contrast, are rather free to deal with the fashion of their culture (well, maybe not the cleric; religious orders often have uniforms, and clerics are heavy armor users). Depending on how magic is handled, they may need a host of tiny pockets for spell components (or just to wear a spell component bandoleer sash), but that can be sewn into robes, pants (imagine cargo pants, only with spell foci and components in the pockets), dresses, etc.
I know what you mean about Rogues but you might be thinking a little to realistically, since the game doesn't overtly differentiate over the amount of protection provided by a leather jacket vs a leather halter top (we're not talking about HarnMaster here lolol) and yes I know the books gives a set image of what leather armor looks like, but the golden rule of "nothing is craved in stone" allows one to have a bit more leway and play a more Fantasy (vs Historical) game. So with that in mind, a player with a female Rogue may very well take the halter top as it will allow them more role playing oportunities (i.e. aid with flirting or the added destraction of a bit of clevage) then a leather jacket would.
So therefore art of a female Rogue in a somewhat skimpy leather vest , bodice or halter top can be as appropriate as art of a female Rogue in a full on studded leather jacket.
I was thinking more about the traditional dungeon-devling rogue when I envisioned rogue gear, but I can certainly see a less realistic outfit. I mean, Indiana Jones is basically a dungeon-delving rogue with a scholar background, and he doesn't adventure in gear that would be considered practical for protection purposes. Plus, a catburglar style rogue would definitely want to sacrifice protection for stealth and the ability to quickchange into casual clothes to hide in a crowd.
I do think the PHB should give a few examples of each armor. Let each one have a "historical," "practical but stylized," and "fantastic" depiction. That way each player or group can choose what they want.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
When a female (and male) character has to use armour, if the armour isn´t magic, it has to be realistic, like one what would be used in the real world. A armour like from manga/anime "Saint Seya" only would be used by gladiators where lack of protection is intentional. The no magic armours shouldn´t be so ..beatufil. They are created to suffer combats and hits (but the magic ones could repair itselfs).
I admit if I want play a female "monster" PC like dracoborn, shifter or half-orc...I don´t need the most beatiful faces, but I don´t want ugly ones (with stupy jaw of primate). I wish a female face of a girl who I could kiss. And my intention isn´t talking about comics or strip cartoons for adults of genre furry(=anthropomorphic animals).
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
