Community

williamhm75 wrote:

Stealy Dan your not the only one waiting for a hot drow tranny, though id prefer a hot tiefling tranny but thats just me

I don't know about "hot", but if you want Drow trannies you've got your choice of three here:

_Jayne_Cobb_ wrote:

I don't know about "hot", but if you want Drow trannies you've got your choice of three here:

I remember those shims, and you're right, they are very substandard trannies.

DecepticonX7 wrote:

Hadn't realized that Astrid's Parlor was the art forum, guess I'm off-topic here then. Oops.

It isn't. It's just a board for gender issues, so it has it's share of threads about how women (and men) are portrayed. I think it would be a good idea if you dropped by, that way, you wouldn't have to listen to so many people insinuating that you were gay, or posts like this: 

Subedei wrote:

I love how the people complaining about sexism in RPG art are almost always men.

Of course, the main complaint on Astrid's have shifted from “women don't care about it” to “only women care about it”, with supplementing comments about how D&D is a game for boys , so it's always nice to get alternative male viewpoints. A lot of us girls have more or less given up answering certain posts, because their style makes it obvious that comments from people without a dick will just be ignored as 'biased' (ironically), so I'm always glad to hear the opinion of a guy who cares about the issue, even if I sometimes disagree with them. 

Nope, being totally serious. While I agree that there's nothing wrong with sexy, there's no way in hell someone would go into a swordfight while showing off her bare belly like that.

I disagree (told you so :P ). It depends on the circumstances and the amount. What I consider a good picture (save for the heels, and the 80ties-aspects) Show

The thing here is, she's not (as I see it) supposed to be armoured, she's walking in an open landscape where she don't have to worry about branches and narrow, rough dungeon walls scraping her arms and legs, she's muscular instead of anorectic, her breasts have a reasonable size, and her clothing is not made of metal. To me, you have to take things like that into consideration. Is it armour or not? Does the situation call for a more covering outfit? Does it look uncomfortable? What's the situation? How does the body look? What kind of other art is there? How are the boys portrayed?

On the other hand, the girl on the 4E cover was enough to make me reverse my decision to buy 4E. She's in an environment where covering yourself makes sense, the outfit itself looks uncomfortable and restraining (as several female members of Astrid's pointed out, her boobs would spill out if she moved too rapidly), her pose is stupid, and it's sad that we've had two covers for the PHB, and despite having reversed the gender roles (from male caster/female warrior to female caster/male warrior), they still both featured a (relatively) hot human woman posing with her boobs shot forward, and an unsexy monstrous man

I do like a lot of the interior art though. I don't consider the outfit on page 297 to be armour, but if it is, it's one of the more interesting forms of it. There are images in the PHB I don't like, but this is not one of them. It's also positive that the art features more natural women (or dwarves). And that quite a few of the female casters appear to wear dresses, a garment that was practically banned for women in 3E, despite plenty of men in robes. It's contradictory, but dresses (and every other garment that don't leave a huge amount of skin bare) seems to an object of hate and scorn for many male gamers. Apparently, women aren't proper women unless they 'show' or 'prove' that they're women , which is seemingly done by showing as much as possible. This thread has it's share of that too:   

malkav666 wrote:

Hiding every part of a woman that would make her identifiable as a woman is not the route to sexual equality. It is the route to censorship. Id rather a few folks be offended than to never get to look at art that is pleasing to the eye, or at all provocative, just because someone for some reason thought it inapropriate. Screw them, they can just be offended.

So I'm glad that WotC have brought (some) femininity back

ViolenceJack wrote:

My wife has a full suit of plate armour. It's made for her. It looks no different than a man's armour might. My wife is also quite tall, so it's not even any different sized. I could wear it, so could a lot of men.

Not much of an argument, considering that it's made by somebody from the 21st century and he's basicly copying designs from earlier medieval armor types. Armor were never intended or designed for women, if they were, on the rare occasions, worn by women, they were still men armor. There's just no culture or traditions behind armor for women, unlike men. So saying that the armor for women is the same that's for men is just wrong. Although I do realize that breast cups in them make little sense, or a lot of other things, but if armor had centuries of history of being made for women, they would look very different than men armor. Most fantasy pictures are basicly going wild with the idea...