|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 5:59AM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
I actually wish that D&D took a bold step and placed in the spotlight more females than males. Something like a 3:2 or a 2:1 situation. If you think about it, it would solve their problems: 1) They would get enough characters to have a huge spectrum of female bodies, personalities and savior/victim situations. No one can say they would be sexist then 2) They could have very sexual (but please, not objectified) females that stand as exceptions in a sea of strong heroines and interesting female NPCs that are not so sexual. If you have 10 Brienne-like characters (females that are kickass and you don't see in gratuitus showering scenes) for each Haley Starshine (sexualized, but not objectified. Of course, stick comics are hard to objectify, but she does the idea well enough) no one can complain. 3) They would attract more females to the game and make the ones that already play it a lot more welcome 4) Hopefully, males won't complain about points 2 and 3 5) I would also have D&D contribute to fix the general sexism that fiction, and fantasy fiction have in general, specially when seen a group A couple of other things: 1) Human society should be, probably, 90% egalitarian. That is: more than the current society. It is not just about who is superior, it is also about who can do what. In 90% of human kingdoms, there should be no indication that gender (or human race or even sexual orientation) have any impact on your skill to perform any task, the kind of stuff you might like ( prostitutes for both sexes for the win) or the personality you could have. This is not nearly as hard to pull as it may sound. Just imagine your initial character concepts without determining their gender, then roll a die. 2) There should be some societies that are very sexist. And in those societies it should probably be clear that either those characteristics are wrong and the story should make that somewhat obvious (drow, goblinoids), or real big differences in the genders of those races exist that lead to that distinction (medusa). Actually, it doesn't really have to be lampshaded every time, but bonus points if you do.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 15, 2012 - 3:44PM
#82
|
|
|
If there one thing the art director should put on his wall, it's "aim higher". Yes, sex sells, and yes, if your characters are nothing more than 1 dimensional caricatures, the books will sell, for awhile. But, you'll miss all the sales you could have had if you had attractive interesting multifaceted characters.
A lot of people are trying to argue based on exact amount if skin showing, but it isn't that simple - context matters. An angry barbarian surprised in the shower is going to be scary, not sexualized. A fully clothed courtesan is going to be sexy, though they have nothing revealing on. So let's not talk about how much skin only - lets talk about range of characters. If a female traitor, female guard, and female judge are all portrayed in the same poses, with the same emotions, and the same body types, you're losing out the opportunity to aim higher. You can still draw beautiful people who are in different poses, different body types, and different expressions.
I guess in summary, it's fine if every character description starts with "strikingly beautiful ", but let's strive to have the last 6 words in the description be interesting and novel. It's your Job to have interesting art - lets aim for interesting and attractive.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 7:48AM
#83
|
|
|
.What about the healer who wouldn't last one day alone in the woods by herself? What about the rich artificer who has her constructs do all the work and hasn't done a spec of manual labor in her prissy little life? Or the ally thief who made it day by day by picking pockets and running instead of fighting? Or the tinkerer with her hair tied back with a random piece of twine who chose her outfit based on it being comfy and having an obnoxious amount of pockets for all the gadgets she makes?
An excellent point. I also liked the post by Z on the first page and the comparison of Red Sonja pictures. I think it's less the outfit than the pose which makes the pic "ok" and "not ok" when it comes to blatant sexist pics.
However, I'd like both sexes to be presented in varying roles and ways. Both men and women in distress, in full mail, etc. And if the customers want it, *both* sexes presented in sexy ways...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 2:28PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2012
|
I gotta say my personal oppinion is that in general you can expect slight differences in male and female representation. not to offend anyone, but IN GENERAL guys are physically stronger than girls, while girls are IN GENERAL more flexible than guys.
what i will object to, in art especially, is if the clothing has no basis in practicallity. heavy armor should look restrictive. light armor should still provide sufficient coverage of vitals. every PC-looking character, regardless of gender, should look like their assisting the party and look confindent doing it (unless everyone in the picture is terrified of the dragon looming over them, of course). every NPC-looking character should look mundane without being boring. as many said in this thread earlier, stick to medieval clothing sceems (skeems?).
both genders should be equally represented throughout each book. i also think that there should be an emphasis on non-human races, but this isn't the thread for that discussion. there should be an example of an "average" member of both genders for each race, and then an ultimately even mix of the two between the classes and side art.
thus far in DnD the races have been labled as even, but i think it would give a stronger feel to the game if some races were Patriarchal (male-dominated) and some were Matriarchal (female-dominated), with a few that are equal-opportunity races. while this would make some people feel like they can't take a certain race because of their characters gender, i beleive this creates more roleplaying options for characters in general. much like Drizzt was an underdog from the get-go because he came from a Matriarchal society, you could have something similar from a different race. how this influenced the character has so much RP potential. did the underdog rise against the culture of their race, or did they except it blindly? or are they the dominate gender of their race, and if so do they agree with what they were tought?
ultimately, as long as the clothing seems mostly understandable, i have no issue with art of PC's showing some skin. the keyword here, though, is understandable. i mean from the PC's standpoint, not the Player's.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 2:49AM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
that's fine and all, but it becomes a problem when every or most every female character is conceptualized to make showing skin 'understandible from the PC perspective' by default. One can always 'justify' things by saying "oh, she's a sexy rogue/bard/other social class, confident in her sexuality and who knows how to use it" or "She's a wizard - extra layers would just get in the way", but the trick gets old and obvious fast - if the majority of female characters the artist choose to represent are characters who would choose to show themselves off for the viewer, then titilation has again been put in front of any other concerns.
So it isn't sufficient that sexy characters be given in-context justification, if such justification is used as an excuse to pander to the prurient interests of a presumed hetero male audience. You need a range of characters - a range of body types, facial features, skin tones, fantasy species, personalities, and outfits.
Necromancy: Friendship is MagicSpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 7:09AM
#86
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
You need a range of characters - a range of body types, facial features, skin tones, fantasy species, personalities, and outfits.
There's a world of difference between "a leather bikini in winter, really?" and mandated quotas.
We just want our moms, girlfriends, daughters, nieces, etc. to thumb through a book without either us or them being embarrassed by Gratuitous Babe Art. We do not need illustrations of some guy in a wheelchair traipsing around a kobold lair in the name of "inclusion".
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 9:04AM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
There's a world of difference between "a leather bikini in winter, really?" and mandated quotas.
Who said anything about quota's or wheelchairs? Quotas are only necessary if your artists or your art directors aren't doing their job right in the first place.
And if the only complaint is "bikini in winter?", that makes it sound like the answer is to have all of your female character art be bikini babes in summer, and no, that doesn't make it better, because it's still putting titilation above any other artistic goal. Only now it's even worse, because not only are you restricting what the female characters you'll show are and what their clothing is, you're also limiting where they're allowed to be.
The problem isn't how "realistic" the art is or isn't in a fantasy game. The problem is art that's going out of its way to pander to sexual interests in the first place.
And as for variety, D&D allows for a wide variety of characters. The art either reflectis that variety or it's failing.
Necromancy: Friendship is MagicSpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 9:26AM
#88
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
This article about Comic Books is probably relevant: www.comicsalliance.com/2011/09/27/starfi...Who said anything about quota's or wheelchairs?
Slopes tend to be slippery.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 10:48AM
#89
|
|
|
I'm a bit nonplussed at the question, "Would you let our daughter go out in that?".
First of all...yes. I would. She is, just like the character depicted in the article picture, an adult. It's her choice.
Parents have been having conniptions over what their kids are wearing for ages.
I wouldn't want my daughter go out and fight a beholder! Good lord!
But if she's facing death and dismemberment on a daily basis I'm hardly going to lecture her on cleavage.
D&D is a cinematic experience.
One only has to consider modern movies to see what is expected in our fantasy imagery, especially in adventure movies. What we see is sexy people doing exciting things.
It's escapist. Escapist fantasy, at that. Conan is in a loincloth, oiled up, and kicking ass. Sonja is showing leg and cleavage while dispatching hordes of baddies. It's escapism.
Purposefully seeking out "ugly" characters (Orcs and Dragonborn aren't ugly enough?) to try and achieve some kind of P.C. balance is silly. Anyone who remembers the 90s should know where runaway Political Correctness will get you.
Nothing is stopping any player from creating a hideously scarred character, or an obese fighter...these have even been portrayed in D&D art. But these kinds of characters stand out for a reason. They are an exception. Their appearance that sets them apart from the 'norm' in the world. Thus it is also rare in the depicted art.
Sexy is empowering if you own it.
All the female players in my various groups (and they outnumber the men) portray their characters as beautiful, powerful, actualized...and yes...sexy. They scour through the artwork of D&D to find just the right beautiful image that they want to have on their character sheet.
The folks at Wizards do a good job at portraying strong females that, often, are also attractive. Seldom is there any blatant humiliation or submission implied in their portrayals of men or women heroes.
We get enough reality all week long. How about we enjoy our fantasy as the escapist, cinematic experience it can be?
Quoted for truth.
I would like for women in the game to be depicted in ways faithful to the ancient and medieval cultures in which the core D&D setting is based.
I would dislike the women being displayed is trashy garb, unless the garb were appropriate to the setting; for instance, a tavern wench should dress accordingly.
I like this idea, but it is difficult to apply it to adventurers.
There weren't many female warriors in medieval Europe apart from Jean D'arc, and there were no female magic users. But we still want female adventurers in our games, and that makes it difficult to be faithful to history.
Historicity is tangential to a discussion of DnD, IMO.
History was full of really crappy things that have no business in DnD. DnD is a fantasy world in which men and women are generally considered equal. That sentence is more than enough to eradicate any need to rely on history as a guide for DnD fashion.
This article about Comic Books is probably relevant:
www.comicsalliance.com/2011/09/27/starfi...
Who said anything about quota's or wheelchairs?
Slopes tend to be slippery.
No, they don't, actually.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 22, 2012 - 12:39PM
#90
|
|
|
Which is why a slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
Chain mail and leather bikinis (both men and women) should just go away period, they defy logic (they won't protect anything), and are certainly uncomfortable.
Anyways really nothing new to add to the topic other than to say, if your going to show a picture as a the first question the art department should mull over is will the people playing the game want to be these characters or just have sex with them. If the answer is the second probably should toss that picture out. I can only think about one exception to this rule and that would be supernatural creatures that represent lust in some way (succubus, incubus, or nymph).
|
|
|
