# Nudity in RPG books?



## Sir Elton (Jun 20, 2004)

This is a valid concern.  How do all of you feel about nudity in your RPG books?


----------



## Zaarastara (Jun 20, 2004)

Nudity does not bother me in role-playing books, so long as does not express a purient interest in sex and is tatsefully rendered.  However, one person's "tastefully rendered" is another person's "pornography."  

Although it is goes against the positive liberty aspect of my beliefs, if I had to choose whether to include nudity or not include nudity in a role-playing book, I would have to side with not including nudity.


----------



## elforcelf (Jun 20, 2004)

As a pagan we belive in sex and nudity as a good thing not bad like the others think.So more sex and nudity.elforcelf.


----------



## Shag (Jun 20, 2004)

I'd like to see Larry Flynt and Gary Gygax team up for something.

Hustlers and Dragons!

Yeah I have a Level4 Pimp with a +2 Unholy Caddy and am Specialized in the bitchslap.

"Dem Orcs cut up my beeotches!"

hahahahah


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Jun 20, 2004)

You mean Hustlers & Dragons, right?

I think nudity has a definite place in D&D, simply b/c it has a definite place in life. I can't stand Western prudishness when it comes to the human body and sex. We're supposed to be the most sophisticated society in the world yet we cringe and cry when a little teet is shown. Gimme a break!


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jun 20, 2004)

www.valarproject.com

c'mon...ya'll had to know i'd chime in eventually with that....


----------



## alsih2o (Jun 20, 2004)

Zaarastara said:
			
		

> Although it is goes against the positive liberty aspect of my beliefs, if I had to choose whether to include nudity or not include nudity in a role-playing book, I would have to side with not including nudity.




 Why?

 All through history the choice has been for nudity. 

 Remember, all the cool kids are born nude!


----------



## Sigurd (Jun 20, 2004)

*Your Poll is incomplete & Biased*

There should be a choice between :

Nudity is evil! It shouldn't be in our RPG Books! FOR GODSAKES, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

I don't mind Nudity so much as long as it is non-sexual.

Or you should not make fun of people with the first option. My experience that role playing games with nudity & sexual overtones tend to:

 1: take up too much time with the sexual element (surprise)
 2: make some players uneasy - dont forget this is a role playing game where you still interract with another real person. I don't want to say debased things that a debased creature would have to say -- and I dont want to role play badly. This is a no win situation if all the game elements are not organized to releave it.
 3: I think it makes it harder to include more people. Not simply "FOR GODSAKES, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!". Do you want to kiss away the under 18 market and make it difficult for stores to stock your product?
 4: Lend fuel to those who criticize D&D

I think you have to add an option that says " I prefer the traditional implied sexuality with no nudity. "

I am not a bible belter but neither do I believe you should make fun of them - if their view of god includes a view of sexual correctness who are you to make them a characature. I think you should modify the first option


I didn't mind the nudity in Empire of the Petal Throne -- but there was also a great game there. The drawings were stylistic and not colour.

I guess the greatest danger is that publishers use T&A to sell D&D. I think that leads to bad gaming books.


Sigurd


----------



## SteelDraco (Jun 20, 2004)

I'd rather they didn't have nudity in books most of the time.

I work at a gaming store. We have a fairly strict policy that if there's nudity in a product, we bag it and put a mature label on it. That means that people can't casually leaf through it, which is how we sell a good chunk of our gaming products. It's inconvenient for us, and the customer.

Further, I just don't think nudity adds anything significant. I mean, that's hardly the purpose of a gaming book. If I want to look at that sort of thing, I'm not going to head for my gaming bookshelf. I have the Internet.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 20, 2004)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> All through history the choice has been for nudity.
> 
> Remember, all the cool kids are born nude!



 So THAT'S what my problem is...curse being born with a comfy shirt...


----------



## Dogbrain (Jun 20, 2004)

elforcelf said:
			
		

> As a pagan we belive in sex and nudity as a good thing not bad like the others think.





Typical religious bigotry.  Believe it or not, neopaganism did not invent sex.  Likewise, contrary to your prejudices, "the others" do not universally condemn sex nor nudity.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jun 20, 2004)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> Remember, all the cool kids are born nude!




Jerry Fallwell was born nude.  Savanarola was born nude.  Therefore, nudity leads to narrowmindedness and religious intolerance.


----------



## wizardneedsfood (Jun 20, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> So THAT'S what my problem is...curse being born with a comfy shirt...





Yeah, and I came out in my slick wanna be skater shorts too. No wonder I'm such an emo kid.


----------



## resistor (Jun 20, 2004)

I don't have a problem with nudity that's non-sexual is the author/publisher feels it contributes to the product.  However, I doubt there are many situations where it does: including nudity opens a whole new can of worms by cutting out younger players, possibly limiting which stores will carry it, opening itself to criticism from fundamentalists, etc.

So, while I don't personally have a problem with it, I don't think it's a good plan in most instances either.


----------



## megamania (Jun 20, 2004)

So long as its not every image and not done just to be done I'm fine with it.  To much uptight moral bible thumping bothers me BUT I don't wish for immature kids to just get DnD to see the pictures.  As with everything-  moderation is required.  Use common sense.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 20, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> Typical religious bigotry.




Please avoid both religious comments and insults.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jun 20, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Please avoid both religious comments and insults.





"As a pagan we belive in sex and nudity as a good thing not bad like the others think." gets no moderator response.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 20, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> "As a pagan we belive in sex and nudity as a good thing not bad like the others think." gets no moderator response.




No response like "avoid religious comments"? Dogbrain, you were the "and insults" side of the equation. I thought that was pretty clear, but my apologies for not making it more explicit. Frankly, when someone posts something you consider offensive the right thing to do is to alert moderators, NOT to post angry insults or rhetoric yourself. It's a different approach from places like usenet, but it works quite well here.

In the future, when you wish to discuss a moderator comment please do so in Meta or by email instead of posting in the same thread.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 20, 2004)

Nudity of any kind doesn't bother me BUT there is a time and place for everything, define nudity?  I ask because it means different things in different places, in SC pastees (nipple cover) and a thong is not nude, just a thong is just topless (indecent) not nude (you just got to love the law).  

BoEF had nudity but the subject matter in the art was not what I would call art and while the book is not bad as rules the nudity within subject matter is. 

What I am saying I guess is if done right, in a pleasing manner, there is no problem.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 20, 2004)

Sigurd: the way I interpret the poll, you could fit the second option fairly well. All of your issues are sex-related (except maybe the fourth - which deals with "other people, not us"), the second option says "no sexuality", I think it fits the bill. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

 Anyway, my opinion is that nudity in RPGs should not be artificially inflated, nor artificially reduced. There should be just as much nudity in art and descriptions as the setting should have. Since I believe that the current situation is slightly unbalanced in favor of "correctness", I chose the fourth option.


----------



## Elrik_DarkFury (Jun 20, 2004)

The three following elements and everybody would be happy about nudity in DND.

a)Not only-guys playing group, but many female players also(prety looking female players who play female pc's-not ogre barbarians  ).
b)A scenario full of nudity,sex and spicy stuff.
c)And a really strict DM to achieve a "deep immersion" role playing  .



_________________
The Wizard


----------



## Jaws (Jun 20, 2004)

I voted no nudity. So far what I have seen in RPGs, the majority of the nudie art has been poor to awful. If you are going to have it in your product, at least hire artists who have talent and put time into it.


Peace and smiles 

j.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 20, 2004)

I have no problem with non-sexual nudity. Sexual nudity bothers me, whether on not that is the major purpose of the supplement or game. (I did _not_ run out and buy _Book of Erotic Fantasy_ for example.) 

Implied sexuality plus nudity also does not bother me. So, I suppose you might use the term 'graphic nudity and sexuality' in describing what I dislike.

The Auld Grump, who removed four accidentle double entendres while writing this... Bah!


----------



## hellbender (Jun 20, 2004)

While I am not bothered at all by nudity in rpgs, I am bothered by the fact that nudity and/or sexually explicit books such as the Book of Erotic Fantasy and the adult themed Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds have gotten ALL rpg material at my local game shop put under lock and key because of parental concern. To me, this is a huge step backward for the rpg industry. I do not blame the parents, either, I think most of them are just trying to do what they think is best for their children, although there are always people who jump at the chance to be offended by whatever comes along. They do have a right to be concerned when they see something like the Book of Erotic Fantasy next to the PHB and the DMG. While Valar have every right to publish such books, as does WoTC or anyone else, I honestly don't see where the portion of people who will buy the book is proportionate enough to the people who will be turned off by it, or the young people (i.e. new blood to the hobby) that will not be allowed to play because of these publications.

    Who is right and who is wrong? I don't know. It has nothing to do with your religion, birthdate or phase of the moon, just how you feel about the subject personally and how nudity/sexuallity in rpgs affects our hobby as a whole. I must say that it is a bit odd asking a clerk to get me a DnD book because there are three titles that got them all banned. Luckily the Eberron book was up front when I went last and hasn't been banished yet.

  And Ogrork the Mighty, I think you mean American prudishness, not Western. Try visiting Europe sometime and watching television. The most interesting things are on primetime.



hellbender


----------



## Psion (Jun 20, 2004)

I took your first response but hate the way you phrased it (which will undoubtedly bias your poll if you were hoping to get any meaningful information out of it.) Nudity isn't "evil", but I would just as soon do without it so I don't have to worry about creating an uncomfortable environment for anyone at the gaming table. I especially object to gratuitous nudity unrelated to the topic (ooh, a book on fighters and weapons... good place to pop in a pic of a topless chick! Puh-lease.)


----------



## Wombat (Jun 20, 2004)

While I have nothing against nudity in art, per se, I do find that most game art that uses nudity is, to be kind, tacky.

Such art tends to be badly done (poor drawings, hokey photoshopping) and mainly there for purile interests.  While there may be bare-chested barbarians, males are rarely drawn as 3rd rate cheesecake; females often are, even when they are clothed.  

So to my mind it is not a problem of nudity vs. no nudity, but rather good art vs. bad art.  And overall there is far, far too much bad art in rpgs.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 20, 2004)

hellbender said:
			
		

> I do not blame the parents, either



I do. When I was 12 and I started playing, my parents took the time to have a few sessions with us and didn't pass judgement on the game until they thoroughly tried it. I don't think that parents who won't take more than 5 minutes to "protect their child" are doing their job very well.

 I am aware of the fact that the existance of products such as the BoVD and BoEF may contribute to forming a negative opinion towards the entire game in the minds of parents. I think that this fact is stupid and unfair, because shunning RPGs because of the BoEF is not unlike shunning the entirety of literature because of Larry Flint. I think that accepting this fact as a given and refraining from publishing mature-oriented material is _not_ the way to go. This is a problem with society, not with RPGs.


----------



## Deimodius (Jun 20, 2004)

Mmmm.... 3.5 Nymph...


----------



## Thanee (Jun 20, 2004)

Elrik_DarkFury said:
			
		

> The three following elements and everybody would be happy about nudity in DND.
> 
> a)Not only-guys playing group, but many female players also(prety looking female players who play female pc's-not ogre barbarians  ).
> b)A scenario full of nudity,sex and spicy stuff.
> c)And a really strict DM to achieve a "deep immersion" role playing  .




*sigh*

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 20, 2004)

I'm pretty much a:
"Nudity of any kind doesn't bother me."

but I voted:
I don't mind Nudity so much as long as it is non-sexual.

Simply cause I usually error on the side of caution.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jun 20, 2004)

There are far too few choices on this poll.

My personal feeling is that there could be appropriate images involving various levels of nudity.  In the current culture, it shouldn't show more than T&A, but something akin to showing someone in typical Egyptian royal garb, which tends to be see-through, could have a place.

The trick is, most fantasy artists have a hard time seperating the porn from their art....


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 20, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> (ooh, a book on fighters and weapons... good place to pop in a pic of a topless chick! Puh-lease.)




I couldn't agree more if I tried...   The only way I could see this, as being believable is if they’re talking about a class or PrC that believes there skin is all the armor they need or something along these lines.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 20, 2004)

First of all, those are some of the most biased and ridiculous poll questions I've ever seen...

Second - I don't want sex and nudity (or gory violance, for that matter) in most of my D&D products because:

1. By and large, fantasy nudity tends to be gratuitous and tacky, and adds no value to the product. 

2. Frankly, I don't want to be associated with people who get excited over strategically torn chainmail bikinis and cheap elf porn by virtue of playing D&D.

3. I like to be able to read my gaming materials anywhere I go, without feeling uncomfortable because there's a woman with a 10-year old kid sititng next to me on the subway or on a park bench and I'm flipping through something with pictures of a thing with twelve breasts cutting someone's heart out, followed by someone dressed in bondage gear with several pounds of nipple piercings.

4. I don't know anyone who'll be turned off the game because it has no sex and nudity, but I know plenty of people (women in particular) who would be, if I showed them a PHB filled with art that looked like it was done by Boris Valleyo.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jun 20, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I took your first response but hate the way you phrased it (which will undoubtedly bias your poll if you were hoping to get any meaningful information out of it.) Nudity isn't "evil", but I would just as soon do without it so I don't have to worry about creating an uncomfortable environment for anyone at the gaming table. I especially object to gratuitous nudity unrelated to the topic (ooh, a book on fighters and weapons... good place to pop in a pic of a topless chick! Puh-lease.)




Ditto.

Like to add I've raely seen nudity in a gmaing product that worked.  Every piece I see I always get this visual of an aritst with the maturity of a 5 year old yelling I want to see boobies.  It fits at least in pictures like for the nymph or sucubus but other than that its usually doesn't fit the product or its content, and the use of "mature" content usually just shows a distinct lack of maturity.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 20, 2004)

Or a book on amazon fighters. 

Anyways, I also voted 2nd but think 3rd, altho sexual nudity should be reserved for adults and therefore has no place in regular RPG products.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. "As a [censored, since religion does not belong here] we belive in sex and nudity as a good thing not bad like _the others_ think."

As a non-[censored, since religion does not belong here] (I am actually [censored, since religion does not belong here]), I am obviously among _the others_, so this statement is quite obviously false. qed.

Not everything is black and white.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 20, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> P.S. "As a [censored] snip.




That part of the discussion is over please don’t try to reinstigate it.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 20, 2004)

Of course. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Elephant (Jun 20, 2004)

I voted option 2.  Tasteful nudity is OK, but I don't play D&D for an interactive porn session.  Frankly, I prefer other avenues for indulging my sexuality.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 20, 2004)

[Bob Geldof]
I don't mind if you're nude
I don't mind if you think it's rude
I don't mind if I can see your flute
I don't mind at all

I don't mind if there is blood
I don't mind if there is not
I don't mind if there's a lot
I don't mind at all
[/Bob Geldof]


----------



## hellbender (Jun 20, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I do. When I was 12 and I started playing, my parents took the time to have a few sessions with us and didn't pass judgement on the game until they thoroughly tried it. I don't think that parents who won't take more than 5 minutes to "protect their child" are doing their job very well.
> 
> I am aware of the fact that the existance of products such as the BoVD and BoEF may contribute to forming a negative opinion towards the entire game in the minds of parents. I think that this fact is stupid and unfair, because shunning RPGs because of the BoEF is not unlike shunning the entirety of literature because of Larry Flint. I think that accepting this fact as a given and refraining from publishing mature-oriented material is _not_ the way to go. This is a problem with society, not with RPGs.



Zappo, I respect your outlook and I am not arguing your point, but offering my view here. 

I started DnD at 12 as well, back in 1980. My dad bought the Deities and Demigods book for my birthday and he was a little concerned at the cartoon nudity, but overall, he was not bothered by the book or the game in general. 

Fast forward to now. I go to my game shop and I can see the BoeF right in there with the DMG, PHB and the MM (and other books), which is locked in a display case. On the surface, it is packaged the same way (designed to look like an old tome). Hardly the same as going from the Classics section of the bookstore to the area with the wrapped magazines that says 'must be 18 and older to purchase', meaning that this book is integrated right in there with all the other rpg material. If this wasn't a concern, why is it already being locked up? I would not blame parents for not allowing their children access to the game until they are older. You might not let your little Billy buy the book, but Tommy's parents might not care or pay attention and I hardly blame parents for trying to shield their children from books such as this until they are at least old enough to understand the implications and consequences of sex itself.

If the BoeF turns away one new gamer, it does a disservice to our hobby. And you can blame parents for this? While I see your point of view, I hope you see mine as well. It is hard to blame a parental unit for the 'if it walks like a duck' syndrome with the books designed in a similar manner and all wedged together into the same locked case. When Jane Austin goes full frontal, I will agree with you, but until then.....

hellbender


----------



## hellbender (Jun 20, 2004)

Elephant said:
			
		

> I voted option 2. Tasteful nudity is OK, but I don't play D&D for an interactive porn session. Frankly, I prefer other avenues for indulging my sexuality.



 Precisely, I heartily agree with you here.

hellbender


----------



## Seeker95 (Jun 20, 2004)

The poll as written is crappy.

It makes objecting to nudity in RPG supplements sound puritanical.  If you are going to make a poll, make it such that all the choices are valid.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 20, 2004)

I'm for appropriate nudity, and the sorority girls agree. 

Nudity has always had a place in art. It can showcase an artist's ideal of beauty, it can display a certain 'primitivism' in the subject. Both have a place in D&D -- the stunning beauty of a nymph or an angel, or the savage semi-humannness of a monstrous humanoid or unclad beast of the wood.

Nudity can be gratuitous -- the typical chainmail bikini would become free-floatin' jubblies, and there's not a good reason for that. However, I'd use that to help educate me on the book, since art is a pretty big requirement for me. If the nudity is pointless, it means the book won't be baught.

But I'd much rather have a nipple than these 'conviniently placed strands of hair and a bit of shrubbery in the dungeon' kind of situations. If it's got clothes, show it with clothes. If the PC's would see everything in it's alltogether, show it like that.


----------



## hellbender (Jun 20, 2004)

For the record, I didn't vote that nudity is evil, I agree that there is an intrinsic artistic value to some nudity. But there is a big difference between nudity and sexual themes. I honestly have a hard time (no pun intended) in seeing why Playboy is so bad and lumped in with more, shall we say, revealling periodicals. 

   Back to the topic at hand...

h


----------



## RavenProject (Jun 20, 2004)

I think nudity in core D&D is a bad thing because of the same reasons mmu1 wrote. However, I'd like to have more mature supplements. I'm talking about nudity even the BoVD failed to portray. No, no senseless and unneeded skin and sex for the sake of it but logical nudity in context of the artwork.

Look at the illustration of the "cauldron" on page 119 in the BoVD. Above you see zombies floating out of it naked but the undead in the front of the picture, that has just been spewn out like the others and is standing in front of the machine wears some kind of cloth to hide his genitalia. This makes no sense and  is laughable in a book intended for mature audience. I always think monsters should be kind of a shocking thing and the political dreissing of even the most bestial and vile of creature runs afoul of that idea.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 20, 2004)

Some people can't seperate nudity from sexuality.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Jun 20, 2004)

I voted #2 as well.  As long as a game doesn't dissolve into a personal tabletop porn session, it's fine by me.

Sex & sexuality can be part of the roleplaying experience, but it should by no means dominate it or enforced, esp. when it may be an unwelcome element for some participants.  Plus, IMHO, I really see no need whatsoever for rulesets that focus on it: it's something that can be a pure roleplay element in the game, if so desired.

While on this topic:

My g/f was invited by a group at a game store (which has since closed down, but not for reasons related in this tale).  This group placed a more historically-oriented GURPS game.  However, this game was also quite mature-themed, to say the least.  So mature-themed that it was mandatory, apparently, for all characters to actually have points spent on some sexual quirk/aspect/skill/trait/etc.--it was not optional per player, but mandatory, apparently.

Well, my g/f attended a few games, and she enjoyed them, but life got in the way & she wasn't able to attend regularly.  After a few calls from one of the members of the group (who was upset that she couldn't regularly attend, and didn't really just accept her reasons for not showing but rather tried arguing against them), she decided to quit attending.  Her main interest in the game was the more historically-oriented setting, but IIRC, it seemed that the sexual aspect was actually focused on more instead.

Interesting to note that a while after this whole mess occurred, we chatted with a few freinds who regularly gamed at that store as well.  Turns out that said group wasn't liked much at all by many of the regulars, as it was.


I dunno--IMHO, it seems a bit less mature to focus on sexual elements in a game, and even to implement mechanics & a system around it rather than just dealing with it purely as a roleplaying (& rule/mechanics-free) element.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 20, 2004)

I'm with Seeker95.  The choices offered in this poll are extremely poor, especially choice #1, which is a condescending sneer at people who would rather not have nudity in their RPG books.


----------



## der_kluge (Jun 20, 2004)

Yea, the poll is really pretty awful with regards to the choices.

That said, I think that nudity in RPG books is basically unnecessary.  And I think when we're talking nudity here, I think everyone is specifically conjuring up images of naked nymphs prancing around in forests.  That, certainly, is a very traditional image that would make sense in an RPG product (assuming the book was about Fey, obviously), but I think a lot of gamer's opinions on nudity would be slightly different if the typical nude image in an RPG book were of a naked dude.    I suspect there would be more resistance to that than of the other.

As we get older, and have kids, we are going to start rejecting products that have nudity for nudity's sake.  I specifically did not purchase a product about Faeries because of the graphic images the book presented within, and on the cover.  The images in that book (and the publisher escapes me ATM), crossed a very distinct line, and I felt like that book would be inappropriate should it fall into the hands of my daughter some day.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 20, 2004)

I'd vote for "Yes please, but only if there's a point to it."

E.g.: 
- Nymph & Succubus -> Yes, please!
- Random NPC -> No, thanks.
- Brothel -> Sure, why not?
- Sacrificial Altar Victim -> What's wrong with the traditional white virgin robe?

 -- N


----------



## techno (Jun 20, 2004)

Seeker95 said:
			
		

> The poll as written is crappy.
> 
> It makes objecting to nudity in RPG supplements sound puritanical.  If you are going to make a poll, make it such that all the choices are valid.




I agree. The poll is biased and does not present a complete range of responses. I prefer to keep nudity completely out of my RPGs, but I do not think that, in and of itself, it is evil (as option 1 states).


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 20, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I took your first response but hate the way you phrased it (which will undoubtedly bias your poll if you were hoping to get any meaningful information out of it.)




Yeah, I think everyone understands what his opinion of his own first choice is.

Personally, I voted the first choice for nothing close to his stated reasons.  _Personally_, I don't mind nudity in my roleplaying products.  However, there are larger concerns, such as what others feel about nudity appearing there.  I'm particularly concerned about how outsiders might react to it. 

Take a look at the some of the things that have happened to comics books at the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund site.  In some areas, all it takes is for a local official to decide that a crusade against "obscenity" in roleplaying games will help his reelection chances, especially in areas where roleplaying has a stigma attached to it.  

Yes, this might seem strange to some, but you'd be amazed at how many of these lawsuits against comic book shops have been won by the officials.  I know businesses have been ruined because of these crusades, and I think some store owners/employees have served jail time (although I'm not certain of the second).  Yes, some of the comics involved are far racier than anything in the RPG industry (including the BOEF).  Still, I personally would want to keep this safe unless _necessary_ for the product.

I'd rather not see anything of the sort hit the roleplaying industry.  I'd prefer the "better safe than sorry" approach with only the occasional, appropriate product pushing the boundary.


----------



## Ibram (Jun 20, 2004)

personaly I dont mind nudity, but I dont buy RPG books for... personal entertanment reasons.

Do I think that a BoEF is a bad idea, no.  But I'm not going to buy it, but thats because I'd never use it in a game.  My games have involved scantily clad women before, and PC's have even had sex (but I left it at the old "branch tapping on the window" bit).  I dont realy want to get into the details of such an encounter.

For RPG books in general I dont think that it belongs.  Scantily clad women are one thing but I dont want to catch a glance of Regdars short sword while I'm thumbing through the PHB.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 20, 2004)

I think I like the way 1E did it.  Semi-nudity (the naughty bits covered to the viewer's eye), and applied pretty much where it made sense.  That's thinking with others in mind.  Personally, I don't really care.  I actually find tight-fitting clothing or a bikini more appealing than actual nudity.


----------



## Gez (Jun 20, 2004)

I couldn't vote _"Nudity of any kind doesn't bother me"_ because, "any kind" sorta implies "male nudity too", and that would be just ugly.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 20, 2004)

techno said:
			
		

> I agree. The poll is biased and does not present a complete range of responses. I prefer to keep nudity completely out of my RPGs, but I do not think that, in and of itself, it is evil (as option 1 states).



 Exactly.  I don't think that nudity is evil, and can sometimes even be artistic.  However, I am against nudity in RPG books for a few reasons, such as...

If nudity were present in RPG books, many stores would choose not to carry said books.
Many parents would ban their kids from playing RPGs if nudity in the books bacame a more common occurance.
There's no guarantee that the artist would make the nudity tasteful.  More likely it would just be soft-core nymph and elf porn designed to appeal to the fanboys.
I don't feel like hiding my RPG books every time my young cousins, nieces, and nephews come over to visit.
Quite frankly, there's not much reason for nudity in RPG books.  Yes, I know that creatures like nymphs and succubi resemble seductive women who wear little clothing, but I don't think that pictures of said creatures need to be any more explicit than the "wet t-shirt" versions found in the 3.5e Monster Manual.

So, I picked choice #1, despite the insulting nature of it.  This is just a general statement, though; I don't object to nudity in such products as the BoVD or BoED because such products are clearly labeled as being for mature audiences.  Heck, I'm a fan of artists such as Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo, whose artwork often features nude women, but I'd rather that nudity not become a part of RPG books.  Nothing more revealing than chainmail bikinis, please.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 20, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> Ditto.
> 
> Like to add I've raely seen nudity in a gmaing product that worked. Every piece I see I always get this visual of an aritst with the maturity of a 5 year old yelling I want to see boobies. It fits at least in pictures like for the nymph or sucubus but other than that its usually doesn't fit the product or its content, and the use of "mature" content usually just shows a distinct lack of maturity.



I think I'm joining the chorus here (really hated the phrasing on #1, but picked it anyway). 

Besides, offending parents and female gamers (almost any woman who wouldn't object in general would want equal time male nudity, and, well, I don't want to see any of that) seems like a bad move if you're trying to grow the hobby.


----------



## hellbender (Jun 20, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> I couldn't vote _"Nudity of any kind doesn't bother me"_ because, "any kind" sorta implies "male nudity too", and that would be just ugly.



   I think that has to be one of the oddest reasonings on the subject that I have heard yet. Does male nudity really _bother_ you? I can look at ancient Greek and Roman (or various paintings through the ages) art and sculpture without being repulsed by the occasional male member or questioning my own heterosexual orientation. The idea behind art is the artist's execution, interpretation and skill, not the stimulation factor, unless, of course, the material is meant to stimulate the audience (I honestly do not believe that the occasional breast or nude picture here and there in a book like the Monster Manual is meant as stimulation, merely as artistic representation and interpretation). Portraying a nude (or semi-nude) human body serves many purposes, not all of which are sexual.

hellbender


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Jun 20, 2004)

As long as it's not a real explicit picture of people gettin' their freak on, it's cool by me.  Adds somewhat, sometimes... like with Conan... scantily-clad women are a big part of the setting.


----------



## Gez (Jun 20, 2004)

One can't be humorous, heh?

Well, it's not _really bothering_ me, but I don't want to look at it.  I don't find a male body to be beautiful or interesting, so the lads can keep their clothings, thanks.

And erotic arousement/disgust isn't relevant here. It's cultural. Maybe that's because society is machist, but I'm used to see, in life or in art, nude or scantily clad women, and clothed men.

So call me a chauvinist pig if you want, but I'm used to see the naked female body often in art, even non-erotic art; while the naked male body, nearly never.

And if you think that it's odd, you can read this article by the German photographer Wolfgang Tillmans, explaining all the trouble he had exposing photos of nude male, compared to how easy it is to get photos of nude women published.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Jun 20, 2004)

RPG books are shooting for the young audience - even though a large portion of gamers are now over 18. It's not in their best interests to have anything remotely sexual in their books. 

But I have an easy time separating nutidy from sexuality. So I wouldn't object to my kids having books with some tasteful nudity in them.

But it might not necessarily be in the RPG company's best interests to include any nudity at all, since a lot of parents are a lot less liberal than I am, and if they see a naked breast on a gaming book it'll get snatched away and the game forbidden.


----------



## Henry (Jun 20, 2004)

I didn't vote, but if I did, it would be somewhere between #1 and #2.

I don't like nudity in my gaming products, just like I don't like lots of blood and gore in my gaming products. Violence, and scenes of action, no problem. Scantily clad women or men in scenes where it warrants it (someone mentioned succubi and brothels), no problem.

Outright nudity, like outright blood and gore, and excessive profanity, creates barriers between fellow gamers as well as product availability. If I am in an all-male group of roughly the same age and prefences, it might not cause a problem. But what when a female gamer joins, and picks up your "Book of Brothel Diseases!" ? What when "The Extended Succubus Handbook" is introduced to your fellow gamer's 11-year-old son, and he tells his non-gaming mom? _"Dad let me look at porn over at Uncle Bob's house?"_ It may be OK, it may not be.


----------



## Blue Sky (Jun 20, 2004)

I voted #1 for two reasons.

1. I'm the standard puritanical American, and I believe nudity should be regulated... 

2. For similar reasons stated above, I think we should consider not just our own views on nudity, but the people we're around as well.  I don't wanna have to hide my books when my family or more... reserved friends come over.


----------



## Fieari (Jun 20, 2004)

I voted #2, but wanted to vote #1.  The wording put me off way too much.  I think that if I could change my vote though, I would.

Nudity isn't -necessary-.  I was thinking in terms of nymphs and mermaids... but even there, you don't HAVE to display the salient bits... tasteful immersion in water or the stereotypical profoundly placed lock of hair/bush/tree branch/melon/folded arm,etc can be very well done, and I think that in this kind of work, where the purpose isn't to titilate or stimulate, that such simple obscurations are appropriate and tasteful.


----------



## MDSnowman (Jun 20, 2004)

Nudity in RP products doesn't bother me, never did. That being said too much of it is just stupid... anyone who's been the the FATAL site can concur on that. 

Even mature themed products like BoVD don't bother me. (I am not going to lump BoEd into that... there is nothing mature about it, it's a glorfied guidebook to paladins.) I honestly think that D&D has been stuck in the kind of kindergarten morality of silver age superman comics for way too long and I appauld any setting that challenges those moral absolutes.

I _am _ bothered by products where sex and sexuality are the book's sole topic of discussion. Not only does The Book of Erotic Fantasy set back roleplaying as a hobby by going too far (and ruining it for companies that draw the line at the occasional nipple or chainmail bikini), as a DM can you honestly tell me that there is enough sex in your campaigns to require an entire book on it?!?!

That being said I didn't write nasty letters, proclaim that the end was neigh... I just didn't buy the book. Something I think that people undervalue value sometimes. Why give somethign attention you don't think it deserves by debating and discussing it to death when you can have your opinion and spend you money on something else. 

Like anything else in the real world nudity and sexuality in RP is a matter of degrees, the nudity and mature themes (as long as those themes do not have a laser focus on sex) don't bother me. Other people's comfort levels are elsewhere... if there is anyone to watch out for in a discussion like this its people at either extreme.


----------



## James Heard (Jun 20, 2004)

I don't have any problems with nudity, all of my favorite books from my teenage years had nudity in them. I don't have a problem with my FLGS bagging up game books to hide their naughty contents either, because most of the time my FLGS doesn't carry anything but the most standard gaming books anyways unless someone orders them and then doesn't show up for them - and if anyone said anything about a gaming book I'd likely be able to walk over to the art books and comics and show much worse than nudity without looking very hard. Heck, they sell anime too. Tentacles anyone? Blech. The only thing I don't particularly want is the front cover looking like a porn mag, because that would make it rather harder to explain walking around the park reading it.


----------



## Oni (Jun 20, 2004)

Nudity doesn't bother me, I'm not going to be offended by such things flipping though a book.  The caveat to that is that I'd rather if it's going to be done that it actually have something to do with the content or feel of the product and not just be there to get attention.  

That said, I think it's something that publishers need to be careful, as they might be shooting themselves in the foot with regard to sales and the reputation of the industry (and thus it's future health as well), not everyone is as accepting of such things.


----------



## random user (Jun 20, 2004)

I voted #1 even though nudity doesn't bother me in any way.  I just don't think it's necessary for most RPG books.

I liken it in some ways to movies.  Sure, you can add nudity to any movie, but it just doesn't fit into most movies.  Imagine trying to jam a nude scene into The Matrix or into Shrek (yes I know that movie is aimed at kids, that's the point).  Though nudity doesn't bother me, I just don't think it helps those movies.

On the other hand, I didn't have a problem with shower scene in Starship Troopers.  It fit in.  (It's been a couple years since I've seen it, so my memory is a bit hazy on that one.)

So, I guess I wish there had been an option like "Nudity is fine as long as there is a good reason for it."  If you have a RPG book that deals with nymphs or succubi, sure, make them nude.  If you have a sourcebook for generating players or towns or an economic system, I don't think there should be random nudity in it.  (Even if you were to have a section of townbuilding for a red light district, I question the need to have actual nudity, though, I guess it depends on what the scene was depicting... I can see nudity being evocative here, but I can also see it being gratuitous, depending on what exactly was being depicted.)


----------



## Henry (Jun 20, 2004)

random user said:
			
		

> Imagine trying to jam a nude scene into The Matrix or into Shrek (yes I know that movie is aimed at kids, that's the point).  Though nudity doesn't bother me, I just don't think it helps those movies.




They DID jam a nude scene in The Matrix Reloaded, and no, it really didn't help there, either.


----------



## subbob (Jun 20, 2004)

Echoing many others, your poll is biased and doesn't provide adequate choices.  I chose #1 for the following reasons:

-- In order to grow the gaming industry, it is necessary to market to children as well as adults.

-- In my opinion, I can think of no instances where the presence of nudity would enhance the product.

-- If you want nudity, there are plenty of other places to get it.


----------



## CrusaderX (Jun 20, 2004)

Try to come up with a better poll next time.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 20, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> If nudity were present in RPG books, many stores would choose not to carry said books.
> Many parents would ban their kids from playing RPGs if nudity in the books bacame a more common occurance.
> There's no guarantee that the artist would make the nudity tasteful.  More likely it would just be soft-core nymph and elf porn designed to appeal to the fanboys.
> I don't feel like hiding my RPG books every time my young cousins, nieces, and nephews come over to visit.
> Quite frankly, there's not much reason for nudity in RPG books.  Yes, I know that creatures like nymphs and succubi resemble seductive women who wear little clothing, but I don't think that pictures of said creatures need to be any more explicit than the "wet t-shirt" versions found in the 3.5e Monster Manual.



Dark Jezter got a critical hit on the nailhead.


----------



## Sir Elton (Jun 21, 2004)

Thanks you all.  It's nice to know the results of this poll.  It will be up a couple of more days.

 Now, suppose someone is going to do a D&D supplement on the Mycenaean Greeks. Lets suppose that his integrity forced him to be truthful about the Mycenaean way of life.  Now what if some of those essential things the Greeks did, they did in the nude?  Say like farming?  Or fighting?

 However, in all honesty, I truly believe that I cannot be dishonest in showing how a particular Culture, in this case Greek Culture, lives.  In other words, I cannot be _culturally bigoted_.  It's well, wrong to think that way.  Especially if you knew how the Greeks lived their lives.

 Thanks everyone who responded.


----------



## Laslo Tremaine (Jun 21, 2004)

I voted #1 even with the horribly biased wording.  Many people have already commented about it, so I will just agree with those who have also voted (or wanted to vote for #1).

There is something I do want to discuss though, and I hate to pick on Gez, but he was the vocal one...



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> Well, it's not _really bothering_ me, but I don't want to look at it.  I don't find a male body to be beautiful or interesting, so the lads can keep their clothings, thanks.
> 
> And erotic arousement/disgust isn't relevant here. It's cultural. Maybe that's because society is machist, but I'm used to see, in life or in art, nude or scantily clad women, and clothed men.
> 
> So call me a chauvinist pig if you want, but I'm used to see the naked female body often in art, even non-erotic art; while the naked male body, nearly never.




I am *very* tempted to run a follow-up poll, that asks basically the same questions but divides the responses into male vs female nudity.  I would bet that a large percentage of the responses would say that female nudity is OK, but male nudity is not.  I guess I just want to point out the hypocrisy on some people's part (ie, "i'm not a prude, nudity is great, oh, except when we're talking about nude men, and then it's not ok...")

I personally would be quite happy if I never saw another naked female breast again in my life, but I'm certainly not going to deny someone the opportunity.  In the same vein, I think there ought to be a tad bit more beef-cake in gaming art, but I'm not holding my breath for it.

I still remember the furor that the cover of Dragon #294 made when it came out.  Many people were deeply offended by it, and all it showed was a bare male chest...


----------



## dead (Jun 21, 2004)

I don't mind nudity (or violence for that matter) if it's in context. For example, the stuff in BoVD seemed to fit; but in the follow up, BoED, they seemed to *force* blood and nudity in there.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 21, 2004)

hellbender said:
			
		

> Zappo, I respect your outlook and I am not arguing your point, but offering my view here.



I understand your point of view perfectly; I've found that it is shared by a good portion of gamers, too. It has a lot of merit. Mature material (both in the sexual/BoEF sense and in the graphical/BoVD sense) will not bring the doom of the hobby, but it can certainly turn away someone - or someone's parents - from it.

 However, if we want to talk about economics/number of players, there is also a not indifferent number of people who will find such material attractive. Most of them aren't perverts, either. Some good members of these boards got into D&D precisely because it was controversial at the time. IIRC, Col_Pladoh said once that D&D sales _increased_, and not just a little, during the witch hunts. Only hard data from TSR archives could tell us the truth here, but I think that most people realize that controversy sells.

 From the moral point of view, we can obviously only have opinions and not a "truth". Mine is that sexuality and its depiction, from the MM nymph to hardcore porn, is not a topic of morality, but rather one of personal taste and/or of education.

 What _is_ a topic of morality, though, is whether a subject should suffer and accept the consequences of a wrong for which it has no responsibility. And in doing so, perpetuate that wrong. In my opinion, this is simply unacceptable under any circumstance.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 21, 2004)

As for the male nudity vs. female nudity debate, uhm... Michelangelo's David is ugly? ...and an orc isn't? Because the first is nude? Nevermind, I think - I hope - I'm just not getting the joke.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 21, 2004)

Personally, I don't mind nudity if and only if it is appropriate for the game and the subject at hand.  If its an illustration of a succubus tempting a paladin, then a flash of breast is not out of place.  Done gratitously though, it just seems juvenile and pointless.

If I want porn I do have the whole internet, ya know.  There's even elf porn out there.


----------



## Elrik_DarkFury (Jun 21, 2004)

*







> sigh*




*sigh*

_________________
The Wizard


----------



## Elrik_DarkFury (Jun 21, 2004)

Elf porn?
I hate elves.

___________________
The Wizard


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 21, 2004)

I want some -male nudity-.  I am tired of nothing but jiggly boobs.


----------



## Angcuru (Jun 21, 2004)

I dont mind nudity in RPG books as long as it is not nudity for the sake of nudity.  If I'm thumbing through a book and come across an artfully done nude of a succubi, nymph, harem girl, etc., I'm perfectly OK with it if that's the subject matter at hand. However, if I'm reading a book on combat feats and suddenly see a bare-chested Amazon warrior raising a battleaxe above her head for no other reason than to display her ample bosom for all the world to see, then it's pointless and doesn't belong in the book.


----------



## heimdall (Jun 21, 2004)

My thoughts are pretty simple. I was introduced to the game when I was 6 by my dad. My oldest is now 6 and sees me with the gaming books and is naturally interested as it appeals to his creativity, imagination, and desire to pretend to be a hero. Do I want my gaming books accessible to him? Absolutely. Knights, wizards, dragons, the stuff of myths is appropriate for him to recreate. If nudity is in there, I have to ask myself if that's something he should be dealing with and I'll always err on the side of caution here. Case in point, he's not allowed to touch my White Wolf books as a whole because some of them do have images and content inappropriate for one of his age. I'll be asking the same question when he's 10-12, which is when a lot of my friends first began playing the game.


----------



## Sir Elton (Jun 21, 2004)

heimdall said:
			
		

> My thoughts are pretty simple. I was introduced to the game when I was 6 by my dad. My oldest is now 6 and sees me with the gaming books and is naturally interested as it appeals to his creativity, imagination, and desire to pretend to be a hero. Do I want my gaming books accessible to him? Absolutely. Knights, wizards, dragons, the stuff of myths is appropriate for him to recreate. If nudity is in there, I have to ask myself if that's something he should be dealing with and I'll always err on the side of caution here. Case in point, he's not allowed to touch my White Wolf books as a whole because some of them do have images and content inappropriate for one of his age. I'll be asking the same question when he's 10-12, which is when a lot of my friends first began playing the game.



 okay.  Your a good parent, Heimdall.


----------



## Sir Elton (Jun 21, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> I want some -male nudity-.  I am tired of nothing but jiggly boobs.









 Would this do?


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 21, 2004)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> Would this do?




lol, yes, thank you. XD


----------



## Zaarastara (Jun 21, 2004)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> All through history the choice has been for nudity.
> 
> Remember, all the cool kids are born nude!




Only because my 3 year old son occasionally plays in my gaming room and I don't want him coming in contact with that type of material for a few years yet.  

I have been collecting gaming books since the early 80s.  Saturday night my 15 year cousin was looking over my gaming books.  Of all the titles I own, which takes up two six-foot tall units with five shelves each, guess which item the boy spent the majority of the night rifling through?  Yep, the Book of Erotic Fantasy.  Of course, it could have been the excellent writing he was looking at, but I would hazard that was not the case.

I'm all for nudity in certain cases and don't have an issue with it in the right circumstances.  Hell, I've even argued both sides of American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudut more times than I care to recall.  Still, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that a gaming product is better simply because of the inclusion of nudity. 

From a marketing standpoint I would think that you reduce the number of consumers of your product by including nudity. It gets rid of the under 18 crowd and I think they spend a decent fair amount of money on gaming material.  I could be wrong.  I'm a grad student in history and political science, not economics.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 21, 2004)

While non-sexual nudity does not bother me, I am concerned at certain inconsistencies in the way certain sections of the community are under-represented. I recall reading of a recent survey which showed that the most under-represented group on U.S. tv are women aged between 35(40?) and 60. IMO the same is true for fantasy artwork.

I know we’re talking fantasy but a fantasy world must have children and middle aged people in it! Male wizards can be shown as wrinkled old grey beards but females are, in my experience, inevitably young, attractive, and usually sport an unfeasible décolletage. There are very few ugly, or middle aged, or elderly people ever portrayed (in this respect, again, men fare better that the ladies).

Bottom line, all fantasy artwork is unrealistic:
Armour either does not actually protect (the chainmail bikini) or is unwearable because of bulk or design (see the Complete Warrior).
Children do not exist.
Witches are hook-nosed, wrinkled old crones, unless they are dancing naked in the full moon!
All barmaids are young, attractive, and wear low cut blouses (but the barman can be old, fat & bald).
There is a sudden transition of the female form from young and attractive to wrinkled old crone, with no intervening middle age.
All prostitutes are young and attractive. (The few documentaries and interviews I’ve seen with workers in the ‘sex industry,’ as it is euphemistically called show that; while some of the upmarket ‘top earners’ may be young and attractive, the majority are neither).
Queens and princesses too, are attractive, history (and current events) show that this is only the case if they’ve married into the nobility.

I’m a realist, I know that youth and attractiveness sells, but lets not pretend that this has anything to do with anything more than the fact that men like looking at attractive young ladies wearing very few clothes.

GOM


----------



## Zappo (Jun 21, 2004)

heimdall said:
			
		

> I was introduced to the game when I was 6 by my dad. My oldest is now 6 and sees me with the gaming books and is naturally interested as it appeals to his creativity, imagination, and desire to pretend to be a hero.



Wow. Your son is the first third generation gamer I hear of.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 21, 2004)

I just wanted to know why some people would deem nudity in game books bad with regards to their small children, but giving them books where blood and violence is depicted extensively (just take the PHB) is no problem for their toddlers?

I also think that nudity is not bad per se; in fact, I think many pictures that do NOT show nude bodies are way more oversexed. But, well, I think that's also a cultural shift between European and American tastes/standards.

anyway, I thought the Dragon cover above was a very cool pic


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 21, 2004)

I need to chime in here. When the discussion of nudity comes up usually we are talking of female nudity. Because 9 out of 10 times it is nudity showing the female form.

As a woman I am tired of woman's bodies being used to sell everything from chicken wings to power tools. I don't have a problem if a woman poses for Playboy or other male magazines because let's be honest those magazines are selling sex. But what on earth does a woman in a thong bikini have do with a riding lawnmower? I find it distasteful because it turns woman into objects not people.

I feel the same in RPGs. Sure show a half naked lustful succubus I have no problem with that after all her job is to sell sex it would make no sense for her to be dressed like a nun. ( unless of course that is the paladin's secret fantasy ) But what is up with female characters shown half dressed? Come on why would Mialee were that stupid outfit adventuring it gives no protection from the elements and unless she took eschew materials she has no place to store her spell componets. You don't see Hennet the male sorcerer running around in bicycle shorts and nothing more.

Kenzer is coming out with the Dark Elves of Tellene a book I was looking forward to it until I saw the cover. Two well endowed half dressed female elves about to get into it. All that is missing is the mud pit. 

Sex sells is why it is done. I for one don't understand it, how many people are going to buy a RPG book just because it has a sexy cover. if you are really into gaming I would think you would buy the book or pick it up to look at it because in some way it will enhance your gaming.

I am not a prude I do not have a problem with nudity in art or nudity in appropriate settings like say the cover of a steamy novel or the cover of The Book of Exotic Fantasy. (BTW I have not seen the book are there any nude men in this or is all just woman?) But I am tired of having my face rubbed in it in RPGs, fantasy novels where the only reason it is there is to titillate boys.


----------



## smetzger (Jun 21, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> Typical religious bigotry.  Believe it or not, neopaganism did not invent sex.  Likewise, contrary to your prejudices, "the others" do not universally condemn sex nor nudity.




Yup, believe it or not the Bible has a whole book devoted to sex.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 21, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> I just wanted to know why some people would deem nudity in game books bad with regards to their small children, but giving them books where blood and violence is depicted extensively (just take the PHB) is no problem for their toddlers?




It is easy for children to learn and quickly understand the negative consequences of violence.

The negative consequences of sexual behaviors can be far less obvious.

I want my children to grow up to have well considered and developed, healthy sex lives.
I not exactly worried about them growing up to have a violence life.

Not saying that children should therefore be shielded for sexuality.  But I believe the difference between sex and violence is stark and the heightened attention to sexuality over violence by reasonable adults is quite healthy.

On the topic at hand, I don't need nudity in RPGs any more than I need D20 stats in Playboy.


----------



## am181d (Jun 21, 2004)

The correct answer is #1. Seriously. Think of the children. Specifically, think of Timmy, age 10, who's parents are very open-minded, but who's having a problem keeping a gaming group together, because his friend Bob's mom found out about that "naughty nymph" picture in the latest rulebook and has been talking all over town about the evils of roleplaying...


----------



## Faraer (Jun 21, 2004)

Is not this 







			
				Zaarastara said:
			
		

> Saturday night my 15 year cousin was looking over my gaming books.  Of all the titles I own, which takes up two six-foot tall units with five shelves each, guess which item the boy spent the majority of the night rifling through?  Yep, the Book of Erotic Fantasy.  Of course, it could have been the excellent writing he was looking at, but I would hazard that was not the case.



because of this kind of thinking and practice?







> Only because my 3 year old son occasionally plays in my gaming room and I don't want him coming in contact with that type of material for a few years yet.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 21, 2004)

am181d said:
			
		

> The correct answer is #1. Seriously. Think of the children. Specifically, think of Timmy, age 10, who's parents are very open-minded, but who's having a problem keeping a gaming group together, because his friend Bob's mom found out about that "naughty nymph" picture in the latest rulebook and has been talking all over town about the evils of roleplaying...




You mean that naughty nymph in the MM?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 21, 2004)

I strongly feel that nudity is like profanity. Both can be used to make a point and give a product a certain feel. However, a skilled writer or artists can make the same point better without use of either and I think that too often nudity and profanity are used more for shock value than for any actual augmentation of the material they  take place in.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 21, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Nudity of any kind doesn't bother me BUT there is a time and place for everything,



_Exactly_. 

The question is: why? Why would I care to have nudity in an RPG book? I don't see the benefit.

Thus, no benefit = a non-inclusion, IMO.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 21, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> The question is: why? Why would I care to have nudity in an RPG book? I don't see the benefit.



Added realism, added complexity, some people like it. Also, usefulness isn't a requirement for art.


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 21, 2004)

Laslo Tremaine said:
			
		

> In the same vein, I think there ought to be a tad bit more beef-cake in gaming art, but I'm not holding my breath for it.




I'm a happily married hetero male, but I agree 100% with your assessment.  There should be more beef-cake gaming art.  Male warriors are nearly always depicted in full armor while male spellcasters are usually in very bulky, loose-fitting robes.  On the other hand, females are often given absurd armor that barely covers anything vital, or the female spellcasters wear nearly nothing or just a few tight-fitting garments.  While I enjoy looking at the female form, I think that fantasy art should incorporate a bit more equality in the clothing selection.  If they insist on having fully covered males, then let the women be fully covered, or, if they insist on have scantily clad females, then let the men show off their bodies too.



			
				Laslo Tremaine said:
			
		

> I still remember the furor that the cover of Dragon #294 made when it came out.  Many people were deeply offended by it, and all it showed was a bare male chest...




That cover is fantastic.  I'd love to see more artwork like that.  I have a hard time understanding why people would be upset about seeing a muscular male chest.


----------



## Sir Elton (Jun 21, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> _Exactly_.
> 
> The question is: why? Why would I care to have nudity in an RPG book? I don't see the benefit.
> 
> Thus, no benefit = a non-inclusion, IMO.



 No benefit to have nudity included on a RPG based on Creative Medieval  Anachronism.  But there is a strong benefit to have nudity included on an RPG based on the Old Kingdom of Egypt or Mycenaean Greece or even Minoan Crete.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 21, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Added realism, added complexity,



Nudity in an RPG book adds "complexity"? Needless to say, I have no idea what you're talking about. (Though I can certainly understand the "realism" part when it's a setting on - as the previous example given earlier above - ancient Greece, and, uh... that's about it.)


> Also, usefulness isn't a requirement for art.



It sure as hell better be when it's in an RPG book. I, for one, certainly don't buy an RPG book for "art" (I buy... wait for it... an _art_ book for art. Go figure!).


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 21, 2004)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> No benefit to have nudity included on a RPG based on Creative Medieval  Anachronism.



Absolutely agree with you there.  


> But there is a strong benefit to have nudity included on an RPG based on the Old Kingdom of Egypt or Mycenaean Greece or even Minoan Crete.



I also agree here. To be honest, I'd be a bit surprised if anyone had something against nudity in such a historically-based supplement (assuming that the book stuck _very close_ to the actual subject matter and historical facts to ensure credibility).

It's too bad your (terrible) poll wasn't more clear - I'm sure you'd have many more positive answers and better understandings in the thread.


----------



## Sir Elton (Jun 21, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Absolutely agree with you there.
> 
> I also agree here. To be honest, I'd be a bit surprised if anyone had something against nudity in such a historically-based supplement (assuming that the book stuck _very close_ to the actual subject matter and historical facts to ensure credibility).
> 
> It's too bad your (terrible) poll wasn't more clear - I'm sure you'd have many more positive answers and better understandings in the thread.



 YES!  I'm Human!

 We all make mistakes Arnwyn.  If you think my poll is terrible then I made a mistake somewhere.  I'm a nudist, and I became a nudist so that I can break away from Pornography.  You see, I was raised to be as puritan as Byron D.  For a long time, I was against nudity in any form simply because it was too easy to get off; and I had been burned by Pornography way too many times.

 So while Byron D. seeks to protect his children from nudity and raising them to be textiles; I plan to do the opposite.  By creating an internal defense against Pornography by raising my children to be nudists will insure a healthier attitude towards sex, their bodies, and the human body in general.


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 21, 2004)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It is easy for children to learn and quickly understand the negative consequences of violence.




I disagree.  Many children have no concept of the true repercussions of violence.  They are bombarded by images on TV, movies and games, and in some cases they try to mimic what they see, even with good parenting.  Kids are often fascinated by war, guns, and blowing stuff in general.  I know I was.  Often, it's not until they become young adults that the real horror of those things actually sinks in.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> The negative consequences of sexual behaviors can be far less obvious.




Granted.  But what about the depiction of nudity, or are you classifying that as a sexual behavior?  Far too often, the discussion of nudity gets lumped into discussion of sex which frankly it shouldn't be.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I want my children to grow up to have well considered and developed, healthy sex lives.
> I not exactly worried about them growing up to have a violence life.
> 
> Not saying that children should therefore be shielded for sexuality.  But I believe the difference between sex and violence is stark and the heightened attention to sexuality over violence by reasonable adults is quite healthy.



I hope your kids do turn out well.  I don't have any children yet, but I'm personally much more worried about the opposite.  I am very worried about how they will deal with the violence they see.  On the other hand, I hope to be rather frank and open about sex when the time is right.



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> On the topic at hand, I don't need nudity in RPGs any more than I need D20 stats in Playboy.




   That would be so funny...

Miss June is a 3rd level sorceress with a 17 charisma.  Her favorite spell is Charm Person.  Her favorite band is the Darkwind Bards.  Her turn-offs are big smelly Barbarians and clueless Warrior types.


----------



## ikazuchi (Jun 21, 2004)

I replied that nudity doesn't bother me, BUT, I don't think it has a place in mass market RPG books. If we're trying to grow the hobby, things like nudity in books is a quick way to make sure parents and many people period refuse to accept RPGs as a valid hobby.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 21, 2004)

Kalendraf said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Many children have no concept of the true repercussions of violence.  They are bombarded by images on TV, movies and games, and in some cases they try to mimic what they see, even with good parenting.  Kids are often fascinated by war, guns, and blowing stuff in general.  I know I was.  Often, it's not until they become young adults that the real horror of those things actually sinks in.




Certainly at a young age this is correct.  
But my 6 year old has a clear sense of what it means to inflict harm and why it is bad.
Being fascinated with pretend violence does not lead to a lack of understanding in the wrongness, as should be clear to most anyone on a D&D website, right?    
Again, my 6 year old loves to pretend to attack me with her plastic sword or whatever.  (or play D&D for that matter) But she understands the difference.

And I agree that the rate of understanding is different for every child and that some anti-social types seem to never catch on.  So I would never claim that violence can be simply disregarded as an issue.  

But I am still confident that this reason (even if it were wrong) is why many people consider exposure of children to sexually explicit material is a much more of a concern than exposure to graphic violence.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 21, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Nudity in an RPG book adds "complexity"? Needless to say, I have no idea what you're talking about.



Speaking in an abstract way, a world where feature X exists is more complex than a world where feature X does not exist. This added complexity may or may not be desirable, of course. I never said they were _strong_ reasons. 

 In fact, I fully expected you not to find these reasons compelling. I'm not here to convince you to add nudity to your games.  I'm just trying to make you understand that it is conceivable that other people may find nudity interesting or useful (without being perverts).







> (Though I can certainly understand the "realism" part when it's a setting on - as the previous example given earlier above - ancient Greece, and, uh... that's about it.)



Hm... maybe we're talking about two different things. I am not talking about making nudity central to the game, and I don't know why you would get this impression; I am talking about recognizing that it exists. Naked people have always existed, and until we find a way to upload brains into robots, they will keep existing.







> It sure as hell better be when it's in an RPG book. I, for one, certainly don't buy an RPG book for "art" (I buy... wait for it... an _art_ book for art. Go figure!).



Again, I suspect that we're on different wavelengths. I wasn't talking about illustrations (only). When I said art, I meant _all_ art, including literature and certain aspects of RPGs. Basically, what I mean is that if I want to publish something, _anything_, including a RPG supplement, the fact that I have or have not a reason to do it is completely irrelevant to the artistic value of the work.

 In other words: you've asked why, and I've given you three possible reasons (which probably aren't valid for you, but they are valid for someone). Now forget about that, and suppose there are no reasons. The answer to your "why?" is "because I can", and the answer to "why would I want it?" is "that's a marketing problem, not an artistic one".


----------



## hellbender (Jun 21, 2004)

The naked sylph in the 1e Monster Manual and various topless and or bottomless female lineart in 1e was never that bad and I think I came through the harrowing ordeal without too many mental scars, nor do I objectify women as a result. I do agree with elf witch that there should be a reason for the nudity, and a sylph with a gauzy, see-through dress too me is acceptable, as is a goddess of jealousy/love/etc although some were a bit silly (Bast had a rack in the 1e days and she wasn't afraid to show it, for some reason). I honestly don't feel that too many rational parents are going to have a heart attack over a cartoon boob here and there, and if they do, keeping little Timmy away from every little instance of nudity is going to be a chore in itself (look at some of the covers of women's magazines at a supermarket, heck, thumb through a Cosmo or American Photography magazine and little Timmy can see the real thing). While I do not object to these minor examples, as I said, it is the truly explicit stuff that I feel is totally unnecessary and potentially turns away new players.


hellbender


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 21, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Hm... maybe we're talking about two different things. I am not talking about making nudity central to the game, and I don't know why you would get this impression; I am talking about recognizing that it exists. Naked people have always existed, and until we find a way to upload brains into robots, they will keep existing.



Yes, I think we are talking about two different things. I was assuming this thread was about nudity _in RPG books_. It is, of course, irrelevant whether "naked people have always existed" in the context of this thread.


> Again, I suspect that we're on different wavelengths. I wasn't talking about illustrations (only). When I said art, I meant _all_ art, including literature and certain aspects of RPGs. Basically, what I mean is that if I want to publish something, _anything_, including a RPG supplement, the fact that I have or have not a reason to do it is completely irrelevant to the artistic value of the work.



Yeah, I guess we are on different wavelengths. Again, I was assuming that this thread was about RPGs. "All art" is irrelevant to the discussion.


> The answer to your "why?" is "because I can", and the answer to "why would I want it?" is "that's a marketing problem, not an artistic one".


----------



## BryonD (Jun 21, 2004)

Kalendraf said:
			
		

> Granted.  But what about the depiction of nudity, or are you classifying that as a sexual behavior?  Far too often, the discussion of nudity gets lumped into discussion of sex which frankly it shouldn't be.



That is a very valid point.  
Right after the Janet Jackson thing ER pulled a scene involving the exposed breast of an elderly patient.
I bet that if the Jackson thing had not happened, the ER thing would have caused very little stir.

If my child saw Janet Jackson's breast on screen because there was a true "wardobe malfunction" and that was all, I would not have been concerned at all.

If my child saw Janet Jackson's breast because she pulled it out on stage to show off, I would have been somewhat bothered with the message of objectifing women sent out in a setting where one would expect children to be watching.

If my child saw Janet Jackson's breast because some guy ripped part of her shirt off in front of a cheering, approving crowd, I would be much more unhappy.

I'm certain there are some people who freak out over the simple sight if an exposed breast.  And that is silly, IMHO.  But I believe the large reaction to the Jackson thing was caused by the context as much as anything else.  I certainly don't believe any of this would have come from the ER thing, had that happened instead.

And if Janet Jackson wants to get her clothes ripped off in an R rated movie, then that is up to her.


----------



## Dimwhit (Jun 21, 2004)

SteelDraco said:
			
		

> Further, I just don't think nudity adds anything significant. I mean, that's hardly the purpose of a gaming book. If I want to look at that sort of thing, I'm not going to head for my gaming bookshelf. I have the Internet.




I think this sums it up. (NOTE: I only read the first page of this topic.)

Nudity doesn't offer anything valid to D&D, other than feeding the adolescent fantasies of the traditional D&D Geek.

I prefer not to have nudity in RPG books, not because I'm a prude, or because it's against my religion, but because it's not necessary, it makes some people unnecessarily uncomfortable, and...well, why? Can't think of one valid, objective reason for having it in there.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Jun 21, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Basically, what I mean is that if I want to publish something, _anything_, including a RPG supplement, the fact that I have or have not a reason to do it is completely irrelevant to the artistic value of the work.




But the topic was about how you feel about it in RPG books...

Noone is trying to take away anyone's rights to write/publish/draw whatever they want here...they are just trying to gather opinions on whether or not people think it is "appropriate" for RPG books.

On that basis, I voted no.  Or "Think of the children"...or however it was phrased...


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 21, 2004)

Well, I chose the first option since it was the only one that came close to what I think.  No, I don't think nudity is evil.  No, I don't have issue with nudity in artwork.  I think the concept of covering the statue of David's genitals is a stupid idea.  With all that said, I see no reason for it in most RPG materials other than some childish titilation factor (yes there are exceptions such as the dryad etc.).  Some people are not comfortable with it, so why make it an issue when it does not add anything to the game itself.  I think all it leads to is the continued perception of D&D and related RPGs being a male dominated game that objectifies women (notice how little discussion has been centered around naked men).  I know that isn't the reality, but that is how many perceive the game and gratuitous nudity just reinforces that notion.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 21, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Yeah, I guess we are on different wavelengths. Again, I was assuming that this thread was about RPGs. "All art" is irrelevant to the discussion.



Heh, ok, I don't think we're quite there yet. Here's an example. I draw it from my own work because no D&D product I own features nudity (reason for which I voted option 4).

 In the Abyssal Campaign (link in my sig, no big spoiler follows), at a certain point the characters will encounter a prisoner in an Abyssal fortress/prison. I wanted to emphasize the sheer inhuman cruelty of the tanar'ri towards their prisoners; one of many big and small elements I used to this end is that prisoners are stripped of all possessions and given a single loincloth to cover themselves. The afore-mentioned prisoner, when the PCs meet him, has suffered a very serious wound and he was forced to use the loincloth as a bandage; as a result, he is completely naked.

 Here are some observations: first of all, that encounter has absolutely nothing even remotely approaching sexual about it. The NPC is the portrait of misery, completely unattractive for anyone, and has lots of more important things to worry about. Second, the nudity made sense in the circumstance - actually, avoiding it would have required a bit of plot-bending. I could have done it, but why?

 Third, and this is the point, I am terrible at drawing and the adventure has no illustrations (save for maps). Does that mean that there is no nudity in the adventure? No. There is. Not in the illustrations, but in the plot. That's what I mean when I say that art is more than just drawings. 

 If I had a skilled artist, would I ask him to draw the encounter with the NPC? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a rather dramatic moment, but there are so many things in the campaign that I'd like to have a drawing of. But certainly, considerations that are purely marketing in nature would not influence my choice.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Jun 21, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Third, and this is the point, I am terrible at drawing and the adventure has no illustrations (save for maps). Does that mean that there is no nudity in the adventure? No. There is. Not in the illustrations, but in the plot. That's what I mean when I say that art is more than just drawings.




So nudity as text, then?  I can see your point there, and I think that's fine.  But I don't think that's what this poll is getting at...


----------



## Mr. Lobo (Jun 21, 2004)

*What....?*

First off to whom is nudity in RPG books a *valid* concern as pointed out in the first post on the topic?

Apparently there is a lot of concern based on the response. But *valid*  concern? Who decides that?!

Personally I think a lot of people need to get over themselves. Nakedness is part of our condition as being human. Get over it already.

I voted for the third response.

Mr. Lobo


----------



## Sejs (Jun 21, 2004)

I don't mind nudity.  Heck, I like nudity.  


However, for things like rpg art, I like the scene depicted to make sense.  That very rarely would include nudity - any adventuring type with half a brain in their head would cover up some, if not in the armored sense, than in the environmentally-appropriate clothing sense.  And for the record, it would never include cheesecake armor - chainmail bikinis and the like just make my hackles rise.  If you're going to wear armor, for crap's sake wear armor, not some peek-a-boo mail.


Anyway, personally while I don't mind nudity in rpg art, I think the industry would be well served to keep it non-sexual.  Play it safe.


----------



## Oni (Jun 21, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I think this sums it up. (NOTE: I only read the first page of this topic.)
> 
> Nudity doesn't offer anything valid to D&D, other than feeding the adolescent fantasies of the traditional D&D Geek.
> 
> I prefer not to have nudity in RPG books, not because I'm a prude, or because it's against my religion, but because it's not necessary, it makes some people unnecessarily uncomfortable, and...well, why? Can't think of one valid, objective reason for having it in there.





You don't think using images that are more graphic in content (beit violent or sexual or something else) in order to set the proper visual tone for a setting is a valid reason for nudity for instance?  

I mean let's say someone was going to do a rpg supplement based on Frank Miller's Sin City.  Would you say there is no valid reason to include any of his images of nude male or female body?  Removing that would change the tone of the setting.  

Nudity just for the hell of it may not serve a purpose, but that doesn't mean that nudity can't serve a purpose.  I mean if it is going to be used it should be done cautiously and with thought about the intended audience.  But to say there is not valid reason....


----------



## Zappo (Jun 21, 2004)

TracerBullet42 said:
			
		

> So nudity as text, then? I can see your point there, and I think that's fine. But I don't think that's what this poll is getting at...



Maybe not, but from what I can see in published material, nudity is avoided in plot and text just as much as it is avoided in illos. That's what I find annoying: the illos are window dressing, the descriptions are window dressing, but the plot, even the tiny details of it, _is_ the adventure. You don't need to make an entire plot (or an entire setting) based around nudity, it's just details, and removing nudity shrinks the set of details you can use. Maybe not a big shrinkage, but a shrinkage nonetheless. It's like painting with a slightly reduced palette.

 I could make the same argument for sexual nudity, actual sex, swearing, and graphic violence - but I recognize that in those cases the material should have some kind of warning. While I do expect a conscious parent to spend enough time with his kid to understand that there are kidsafe-RPGs and nonkidsafe-RPGs (rather than banning RPGs altogether), I wouldn't expect them to have to read through every single book their kid want.


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 21, 2004)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Certainly at a young age this is correct.
> But my 6 year old has a clear sense of what it means to inflict harm and why it is bad.
> Being fascinated with pretend violence does not lead to a lack of understanding in the wrongness, as should be clear to most anyone on a D&D website, right?
> 
> ...




Good points.  Thinking back to my own views on violence (which is really the only evidence I can expertly cite), I would say there are different stages of understanding.  There's the kid-view of violence I had which is that it's bad because it hurts people.  As I got older, say early teens, I started to understand that it's bad not just because it hurts one person, but other people as well (family, friends, etc).  When I was a young adult, the full horror of what violence can breed finally sank in.  I'm sure the ages for this vary depending on many factors (losing loved ones, etc).

When I was growing up, my parents kept me from seeing the really violent stuff, and I think that was very good parenting on their part.  And I wasn't exposed to any ultra-violent games either, mostly because they didn't exist.  For me there's a huge different in seeing games like Blood Rayne or just about any FPS that seem to glorify the carnage vs. the relatively tame stuff I grew up playing like Pac-Man.  Maybe this violence doesn't lead todays kids to be more violent, but I'm sure it desensitizes them to how bad violence really is.  D&D was probably one of the most violent games I ever played.  It has desensitized me to certain forms of violence, and thus the concept of killing monsters or killing the bad guys seems acceptable.  I'll let the psychologists among us judge whether or not that's a good thing.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> But I am still confident that this reason (even if it were wrong) is why many people consider exposure of children to sexually explicit material is a much more of a concern than exposure to graphic violence.




I too am of the opinion that children should not be exposed to sexually explicit material.  I think near puberty is about the right time to start having some frank discussions about this topic.  Given the accessibiity of porn on the internet, the topic may even need to be touched upon earlier.  Personally, I'd be far less worried about my kids seeing a few naked bodies on the net compared to some of the information carried on hate sites.

In the case of nudity, I think we Americans have created a viscious circle.  We try to hide anything with nudity from our kids, sending a message that it is wrong/bad/evil/whatever.  We also do the same thing with sex, though in that case, it is something that is best kept away from them until they can properly understand it.  However, since both topics are handled so similarly, nudity becomes forever intermixed with the subject of sex.  I know that when I grew up, this was my line of thinking, and I suspect other kids then and now arrive at a similar viewpoint.  The problem is that later in life, we tend to equate nudity with sex, which is bad for a number of reasons.  I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that a number of the sexual-devient behaviors especially ones like voyeurism are a direct result of this mental linking of nudity with sex.

I'm not sure of the solution, but dividing the topic nudity from the topic of sex seems like the logical starting point.  Handling them differently as a parent is the key.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 21, 2004)

Personally, the association of nudity with sexuality (except for the case of babies and small children) does not bother me because I don't think sex is dirty or immoral.  I am disturbed by associating sex with violence and by using sex for non-sexual commercial ends.  I am appalled by attempts by various sources to strip sex of its natural and human qualities.  With that in mind, I'm a bit ambivalent about the choices for the poll.

Would I like to see more nudity in RPG art?  Sure, but that's only because I'd like to see more nudity everywhere, especially more nude men of various shapes and sizes and colors.  Do I think nudity would add anything to an RPG book?  Maybe, depending upon the subject matter of the book in question.  If there's a chapter in a campaign setting that details love and marriage in various cultures, I'd more often roll my eyes at the saccharine, desexualized images of human romance than I would at something a bit more honest.  Would this hurt sales?  Only in the way that softcore porn hurts sales.  I'm willing to believe that a substantial percentage of roleplayers are already adults and play with other adults, so it might not affect profits that much.  Then again, you never know.

Do I think there's too much nudity in art?  No, not too much nudity, but too much of the same kind of nudity.  Too many scantily clad females in situations where being scantily clad makes little to no sense.  Too many naked or near-naked women who have the same body type, with the differences being only in hair color and texture, eye color, and whether or not she is tanned (maybe she has pointed ears if she's an elf or half-elf).  It's worse than offensive.  It's _boring_!

All in all, I don't mind nudity one way or the other, but I want more variety.  Does it mean I want everyone to be unattractive?  Certainly not.  But can we please show more ways that the human body can be beautiful?


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Jun 21, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> ...removing nudity shrinks the set of details you can use. Maybe not a big shrinkage, but a shrinkage nonetheless.




hehehe...do you guys get Seinfeld over there in Italy?  

Shrinkage and nudity are a dangerous combination.

Sorry, couldn't pass that up.


----------



## smetzger (Jun 21, 2004)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> So while Byron D. seeks to protect his children from nudity and raising them to be textiles; I plan to do the opposite.  By creating an internal defense against Pornography by raising my children to be nudists will insure a healthier attitude towards sex, their bodies, and the human body in general.




So, do you plan on giving your kids matches and gasoline so that they have a healthy attitude toward fire?


----------



## Zappo (Jun 21, 2004)

TracerBullet42 said:
			
		

> hehehe...do you guys get Seinfeld over there in Italy?



Nope. Not that I know of, at least. Damn, now I'm missing a joke.


----------



## Driddle (Jun 21, 2004)

I don't know if anyone else has already mentioned this risk, but the last time I was reading an RPG book sans clothing, my mother walked in and caught me. I was so startled, I quickly closed the book on myself. 

Lesson learned: Nudity in RPG game books hurts someone, usually yourself. Don't do it.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 21, 2004)

> By creating an internal defense against Pornography





Just the other day, some pornography beat me up and stole my wallet.

I'm telling you, this porn is just getting out of hand!


----------



## Sir Elton (Jun 21, 2004)

smetzger said:
			
		

> So, do you plan on giving your kids matches and gasoline so that they have a healthy attitude toward fire?



 Nope.   Although, if I were you, I'd not say things like that until you have researched as to why I'm going to raise my kids as nudists.  At least the physical reasons.


----------



## Sir Elton (Jun 21, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Just the other day, some pornography beat me up and stole my wallet.
> 
> I'm telling you, this porn is just getting out of hand!



 Now that is funny!


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Jun 21, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Nope. Not that I know of, at least. Damn, now I'm missing a joke.




This should be "grandma-safe", but if it's not, mods, please delete.



			
				Seinfeld said:
			
		

> Jerry: It was my fault, I told her the wrong door.
> George: I was supposed to see her. She wasn't supposed to see me.
> Jerry: So what?
> George: Well ordinarily I wouldn't mind. But...
> ...



Does that clear things up?


----------



## Zappo (Jun 21, 2004)

Heh! 

 Well, involuntary humor is still humor.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Jun 21, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Heh!
> 
> Well, involuntary humor is still humor.




Sometimes it's the best kind!

Now...back to the nudie talk!


----------



## Chupacabra (Jun 21, 2004)

Hell, there's not enough nudity in RPG's.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jun 21, 2004)

Part of the problem, as I think I said before, is that women have an extra 'zone' of 'evil naughtiness'.  A guy could be naked sans for a loin cloth or a speedo, and it wouldn't be considered nudity.  A woman just has to have a small fraction of her chest visible to be considered 'nude' by the standards of many people (even if she's actually mostly clothed).  In addition, this same are can be -almost- shown (Just so long as there's no pink to be seen) without many issues, and the impression of it against clothing is usually able to pass fairly easily.  Finally, many of the popularly 'attractive' views of women (Soft and curvy, skinny-as-fricking-hell, etc) are not very empowering (men, on the otherhand, are pretty much always at least well-toned and strong-looking, even if not buffed out -- only so many women fantisize about skinny twerp guys).  As such, it's much easier in a purely logistical manner to make a hormone-inducing female image than a male one, and those male ones can usually be seen as just a buff archetype from those unattracted.  Finally, the reproductive organs have a much stronger 'no-no' factor than the rest of the body -- one can dislay their breasts a great deal easier than one's crotch without getting arrested.  This all makes it that much harder to keep the art equal between men and women in this regard, which tends to exaggerate the social unequalities already present in it.  Indeed, if breasts weren't considered to be any different than a man's chest, it might be easier to find a good middle ground.

---

In regards to the tangent, I don't see why you'd need to go nudist to make them immune to pornography.  All it will do is take away the interest in visual sensations, so that all they'll have is the physical sensations, which are where the problems lie (STDs don't get passed on through porn, besides).  Frankly, I've found the best way to make someone uninterested is to subtly encourage it.  Go too far, of course, like my folks did (..my dad used to point out the T&A as we drove around..), and you get situations like myself -- I didn't admit that I liked girls until I was 18.  It works with other things (Fire included).  You take the mystery out of things, and they're not as interesting for a youth.  I've hunted, and yawn at horror movies and violent video games as a result.  I've played with fire like mad, as we used to have a rather nice fireplace (I even thrust my entire arm in to the flames and pulled it out again a few times), and helped with a hundred huge bonfires (yay acres).  I've got a healthy respect for fire as a result.  Extremes are rarely neccissary.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 21, 2004)

Generally, I'm not terribly in favor of nudity in RPG materials, for the reasons that mmu1 already mentioned.

 Example 1: My wife plays a rogue in our main campaign.  So she was definitely interested in seeing Mongoose's Essential Rogue, when it came out.  All it took was one shot of a poorly drawn topless elf chick for that book to be rejected.  By BOTH of us.  The picture had no context to the material...it was just there to tittilate.  And as stated by several others, I have much better resources for that sort of material, if I so desire.

 Example 2: The Book of Erotic Fantasy is a loaded sexually loaded images...but it is appropriate.  I'm not sure that I'll ever have call to use it, but it's not poorly written, nor is the graphic imagery inappropriate for the content of the book.  Having a picture of a man and a woman engaged in love-making while discussing that topic is appropriate.  Showing a naked woman with the description of the temple prostitute class?  Appropriate.  Not something I'm gaga over, but the book is what is says it is.  And just like the Book of Vile Darkness, if I had it, my kids wouldn't be allowed to read it.

 Example 3: The Nymph and Succubus from the 3.5 MM.  Skirting the edge, perhaps, but appropriate.  While they may have lascivious looks, they're not engaged in any particular activities, and their appearance is appropriate to the material.  

 That having been said, I generally would prefer no nudity in my D&D books.  I don't think it's particularly necessary, and if leaving it out allows D&D to appeal to a larger audience, then why not?   The same applies to removing gory pictures of combat or the like...their inclusion may be nice to look at for some, but their removal from the core materials allow them to offer the hobby to a larger market.

 Further, when the question of kids comes up, non parents always assume that nudity is without context...and it isn't.  A 4 year old is prescient enough to ask 'why isn't that person wearing any clothes?'  We're not talking about presenting normal people in a casual light, treating nudity as just another way of being.  We're discussing heroic and monstrous characters depicted in often exagerrated ways...and I'd rather my daughter not get the impression that being a chainmail bikini wearing vixen is what she should be shooting for, later in life.

 All things considered, I'd like to be able to offer the books to my nieces and nephews (and my own young ones) without worrying about the content.  YMMV.


----------



## James Heard (Jun 21, 2004)

I think the world might be nicer if more women grew up thinking that wearing chainmail and carrying swords while being absolute sex-kittens would be an honest goal for chasing with their careers and lifestyles. I know that part of me admits that I made a bit of an error in not sculpting my torso into Conanesque proportions in my youth, perhaps I'd run more in the chainmail bikini circles a bit more than sitting around reading ENWorld. 

Seriously though, I don't worry about my daughter seeing any sort of empowered female role models at all - even if they're wearing chainmail bikinis. It's still hard enough finding female characters for her to enjoy that aren't simpering that she's forever complaining. The important thing about Buffy for my daughter was that it was a female lead character, and I doubt that would have changed if they played up the T&A bit even more than they did. Girls ARE tittilating, women should ENJOY being sexy, but they can be other things too. Chainmail bikinis may be completely unrealistic, but I don't see the problem. My daughter watches anime all the time with people with funny animal ears too, that doesn't mean that the animal ears are what she's getting out of it.

Anyway, that's again my vote for pro-nudity. There's nothing wrong with it except what people make of it and people like to make an awful lot more of it than there really is. Everybody has genitals, get over it.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 21, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> ...(men, on the otherhand, are pretty much always at least well-toned and strong-looking, even if not buffed out -- only so many women fantisize about skinny twerp guys.




I fantasize about skinny twerp guys, but I'm weird because I like body types (size, shape, color, etc) different from mine.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jun 22, 2004)

Afrodyte said:
			
		

> I am disturbed by associating sex with violence and by using sex for non-sexual commercial ends.  I am appalled by attempts by various sources to strip sex of its natural and human qualities.





But doesn't that mean you oppose virtually each and every use of nudity in roleplaying game products, whenever it has appeared or had scant clothing used as a substitute?


----------



## Incenjucar (Jun 22, 2004)

Afrodyte said:
			
		

> I fantasize about skinny twerp guys, but I'm weird because I like body types (size, shape, color, etc) different from mine.




There's always an outlier, but it's safe to say that there's more songs about big butts than scrawny arms.

In most modern cultures, guys want to be strong (Usually in the most displayable manner), and, generally, women want men who are powerful within their own field, be it in brains or brawn or charisma (And, if possible, all of these), though later in life stability and trustworthiness starts taking the place of "Oooh, pecs!".  Power is attractive, and in our current culture, it's usually the 'manly' role of power.  Men, in turn, tend to prefer women who make their own power more obvious (Hence the Conan-esque=buff, Chainmail bikini girl=looks like she's nursing but underfed pairings) in that regard.  It's why so many men are intimidated by taller women (Myself, while I have a preference for Asian women, would certainly not mind a seven foot Amazon with a PHD coming on to me by picking me up by the collar with one hand and telling me I made an error in my physics equation and thus owed her dinner for the help, but then, I'm weird too.)

Of course, in many cultures, nudity is all but meaningless, and they can very easily seperate "Yeah, so, he's naked, so?  Looks like it's cold."  and "Oooh baby, yeah, shake it!"


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 22, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Heh, ok, I don't think we're quite there yet. Here's an example. I draw it from my own work because no D&D product I own features nudity (reason for which I voted option 4).
> 
> In the Abyssal Campaign (link in my sig, no big spoiler follows), at a certain point the characters will encounter a prisoner in an Abyssal fortress/prison. I wanted to emphasize the sheer inhuman cruelty of the tanar'ri towards their prisoners; one of many big and small elements I used to this end is that prisoners are stripped of all possessions and given a single loincloth to cover themselves. The afore-mentioned prisoner, when the PCs meet him, has suffered a very serious wound and he was forced to use the loincloth as a bandage; as a result, he is completely naked.
> 
> ...




Having played in the Abyssal campaign I agree totally that the nudity made sense. I was thanking the gawds that I had chosen eschew materials and was playing a sorcerer not a wizard in that section of the adventure.  

If that scene had been drawn I would only have had a problem with it if it had been done in a sleezy way.

There is a big difference between nudity and sex as several people have already stated. In this case the nudity really brings home the reality of how much trouble you are really in. When we were playing through this section and the DM was describing it believe me it did not come across as sexual in anyway.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 22, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> But doesn't that mean you oppose virtually each and every use of nudity in roleplaying game products, whenever it has appeared or had scant clothing used as a substitute?




If you assume that each and every use of nudity in RPG products is dehumanizing, then yes, I would.  However, not all of it is such, so I don't.  However, I'm usually sighing out of boredom rather than feeling indignant.


----------



## Sir Elton (Jun 22, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Part of the problem, as I think I said before, is that women have an extra 'zone' of 'evil naughtiness'.



 Thanks, you have demonstrated why I have embraced nudism, and why I'm raising my kids to be nudist.  I don't want my kids to live with the body shame other parents impose on their children. 



> All in all, I don't mind nudity one way or the other, but I want more variety. Does it mean I want everyone to be unattractive? Certainly not. But can we please show more ways that the human body can be beautiful?



 Now to return on topic.  It's simple, actually. Nudity is our natural state, and I agree with Afrodyte on this point.  RPG books that show nudity should be equal opportunity. The human body is beautiful in it's own right, clothed or unclothed.


----------



## s/LaSH (Jun 22, 2004)

I voted #2, because anything more than that is likely to be... _distracting_ on a biological level.

Things should make sense.

Nudity is just another thing. If it's not needed, well, I wouldn't use it, partially because it would draw a negative reaction, partially because the powerful human drive of laziness demands it. If it is needed, then go f'rit.

But where is it needed?

'Realism' and 'appeal' are the two big factors here. Appeal is probably a dodgy factor, but that doesn't mean it's not valid - just invalid to most people. Realism, on the other hand, is quite valid to my mind.

And for all the talk of Peleponesian battlenudity as separate from the Medieval European Paradigm, I think you'll find that nudity is more common than you'd imagine. Do you know when Italian peasants stopped working the fields naked? The 1800s.

I'll refer to my webcomic for a moment. Therein, I chickened out from showing things I was eminently justified in doing. One of the heroes, Lorenzo, is, in fact, a Venetian peasant, working the fields when evil goblins attack - but I drew him with trousers. Another hero, Thetis, is from a subaquatic culture and is so well-insulated she can comfortably walk through snow with no appreciable discomfort; yet I draw her with her bits covered, despite the historical tendency for people with no regard for sunburn or cold to go almost completely without clothing. This is historical _inaccuracy_. Why did I do it? Because I was scared, I guess. And today, I might not make those same choices.

Something else to consider, this time concerning archetypes of women in art: Until recently, life was short. People getting to the point where their hair became silver was rare. An old man (or woman) would probably be in their 40s. The extremely-aged are oddities in such a paradigm. This doesn't excuse the perpetuity of 20-something female characters, of course, but it is an interesting perspective.

Oh, and I agree - we need more beefcake. This message brought to you by my Sense of Balance.

Nudity can be a powerful tool for the conveyance of information - the example with the Abyssal campaign above is a good example. Another example, perhaps, is from the current Marvel MAX series Supreme Power: 



Spoiler



When Power Princess emerges from her tomb, she does so utterly naked, and about a hundred years old. She remains naked for quite some time, but quickly and callously reverts to 'perfect' body type - and the way it's done won't leave you smiling.



I don't need Little Timmy reading books with nudity, and some sort of rating system might be in order. But I don't want to cut out a whole, interesting facet of human existance either.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> Thanks, you have demonstrated why I have embraced nudism, and why I'm raising my kids to be nudist.  I don't want my kids to live with the body shame other parents impose on their children.
> 
> 
> Now to return on topic.  It's simple, actually. Nudity is our natural state, and I agree with Afrodyte on this point.  RPG books that show nudity should be equal opportunity. The human body is beautiful in it's own right, clothed or unclothed.




*shrugs*  Do as you will.  I personally don't see any difference between male and female chests, except that, like with -all- body parts, I prefer the female ones (I don't even really care to hang out with guys if I can help it).  Really, the only required clothing in any situation is in regards to health.  Leaving your mucous membranes more or less exposed is going to cause health problems, and, for those women with bouncing bosoms, nasty sagging.  Beyond that, it's not important.  But health is a heck of a lot more important than whether or not someone goes "oooh!" when they see pink.  And hey, if you have daughters, they'll be -very- popular (males, not so much -- they'll soon learn that guys are much more interested in peeping than ladies are, on average).  Just make sure you keep a way to defend them on hand, and you have a well-locked fence.  Too many creeps out there.


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 22, 2004)

s/LaSH said:
			
		

> Until recently, life was short. People getting to the point where their hair became silver was rare. An old man (or woman) would probably be in their 40s. The extremely-aged are oddities in such a paradigm.




That's a very valid point that is easily overlooked by our modern viewpoint of the world.  In a fantasy world, lifespans could theoretically be longer (magic to slow aging) or shorter (exotic diseases, plagues, constant warring, etc).  Considering that many fantasy worlds use medieval europe as a starting point, the lifespan of that era should probably be used as well.  Anyone reaching 40 was indeed quite long-lived in that period.

Does that mean that all the artwork should depict young, healthy able-bodied peoples in their 20's and 30's?  No, but it does mean that having fewer "old" people depicted may be realistic...well at least realistic in a fantasy world sense.

Injuries of this time period were often untreatable, so lost limbs, or lost eyes might be more common.  Even if magical healing is available, not every commoner may have the funds to pay for such aid.  Artwork could reflect this, though it might make the characters seem like pirates if they are given peg-legs, hooks and eyepatches.  We could have a mostly beef-cake/cheese-cake figure missing a limb or wearing a patch.  Strange?  Maybe, but probably more accurate, and perhaps more interesting from a story standpoint as well...


----------



## Dogbrain (Jun 22, 2004)

Afrodyte said:
			
		

> If you assume that each and every use of nudity in RPG products is dehumanizing, then yes, I would.




That appears to be the primary use in current products.  Fun and happy naked (e.g., some of Phil Foglio's work) seems to be much less common than woman as commerce object--that's even true of scantily-clad but technically not "nude" depictions.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 22, 2004)

Kalendraf said:
			
		

> In a fantasy world, lifespans could theoretically be longer (magic to slow aging) or shorter (exotic diseases, plagues, constant warring, etc).  Considering that many fantasy worlds use medieval europe as a starting point, the lifespan of that era should probably be used as well.  Anyone reaching 40 was indeed quite long-lived in that period.
> 
> Does that mean that all the artwork should depict young, healthy able-bodied peoples in their 20's and 30's?  No, but it does mean that having fewer "old" people depicted may be realistic...well at least realistic in a fantasy world sense.
> 
> Injuries of this time period were often untreatable, so lost limbs, or lost eyes might be more common.  Even if magical healing is available, not every commoner may have the funds to pay for such aid.  Artwork could reflect this, though it might make the characters seem like pirates if they are given peg-legs, hooks and eyepatches.  We could have a mostly beef-cake/cheese-cake figure missing a limb or wearing a patch.  Strange?  Maybe, but probably more accurate, and perhaps more interesting from a story standpoint as well...




First, remember that when statisticians say that 'average lifespan is 35' they are adding upp the age at death of everyone and dividing it by the number of people. the rate of infant mortality was staggeringly high. assuming that it is 30% (i.e. 30% of children die before their 10th birthday) then 30% must be 60-70 in order to pull the statistics back up to the 'average 35.' I remember reading that for boy children, once you've reached your teens you've survived the childhood ailments and have a pretty good chance of living to a ripe old age. Girls, I'm afraid, continued to die during childbirth (becoming a nun is a good career option, and a good survival trait), but if they survived that, women had a tendency to last even longer than their menfolk.

As to injuries etc. surely this will depend on the priestsand the availability of healing magics, or even the level of technology available to your local Chirugeon. Mediaeval medicine was dreadful in Europe, but the Moslem world and the Far East had better techniques and understanding. Again, this is down to your fantasy religions.

Nudity and scantily clad women are nice to look at but i wouldn't my kids to think that I'm a dirty old man (grumpy, I don't mind) and there is, usually no good reason for nudity in games materials. Historical context is a valid argument, but it all depends on your game world. Go naked on Hârn and it's not 'shrinkage' you'll be worried abiout, it's death from exposure (insert 'exposure' joke here). As for hot climates, nudity may work in the southern Med., but any further south and you need to be protected from the sun.

GOM


----------



## Berandor (Jun 22, 2004)

What are people afraid of? That their kids will grow up and have sex?

I realize that I formulated the question provocatively, but I really cannot understand some of the concerns levvied here.

For one, I agree that nudity does not equal sex. When I see a documentary about native tribes in Africe (or somewhere), and the people are very scantily clad, often exposing at least the breast (even the female breast), I don't think, "yummy!"
In fact, I think that enticing clothing often is much more titillating than actual nudity (it involves your imagination).

Now, I don't want nudity per se; I agree that any inclusion of nudity or violence in any book should be done tastefully, and hopefully to serve a point: either illustrating, or shocking, or, well, whatever point it's trying to make. If it serves just as titillation, however, I wouldn't condone it; but then, I think there are a lot of purely titillating images out there that don't involve nudity, and I don't condone them, either.

I also see a problem with our cultural tendency to stigmatize nudity, esp. the female breast, as something "dirty". It seems that we as a culture have a very unhealthy look towards nudity (and sexuality, but that's neither here nor there).

Finally, many people here have stated that we need to be careful lest someone else - not us - be offended or feel insulted by the inclusion of nudity. While I agree that one should always be thoughtful of one's actions and their results with regards to a larger group of people than simply oneself, there is a point when trying to streamline and mass-market something becomes too much. Just because someone might be envious of my having a car doesn't mean I should stop driving, does it?
And trying to be as unoffensively as possible, so that everybody can enjoy a product, leaves us with a bland product in the end. We get "Welcome to Mooseport" as opposed to "Wag the Dog" or "Dr. Strangelove". I understand that this is a current trend not just incolving nudity and/or sexuality, but why can't we let the people decide for themselves what they want? If a product contains nudity, and you don't like it or the way it is depicted, _don't buy it_. I didn't buy "Quintessential Rogue", and I didn't take a look at the other Quintessential books, because I thought the nudity in there was overdone. I wasn't offended by it, I simply found it silly.

I also agree that we'd need more beef-cake images, more diversity, and more engaging themes in a book's writing, including (but not to the point of exclusivity) nudity.


----------



## Turanil (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> This is a valid concern.  How do all of you feel about nudity in your RPG books?




Frankly, I have no problem with nudity (especially when it involves beautiful women), but i don't think it pertains to RPGs. As such, I don't see any need (other than that of frustrated nerds who play but are unable to date) for nudity art in a rpg book. 




> Nudity is evil! It shouldn't be in our RPG Books! FOR GODSAKES, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!




That said, every time I see or hear someone complaining about nudity in rpg BECAUSE of the younger audience, I am really upset. RPGs are before all about slaying, about killing, about violence. What's this hypocrisis about telling nudity art shouldn't be in a rpg book, because of the younger audience that may read it??    So description of violence is then perfectly normal for a young audience?


----------



## Dogbrain (Jun 22, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> For one, I agree that nudity does not equal sex.




Too bad the vast majority of roleplaying publishers seem to think that they must go together--look at how they prefer to depict women when said women are undressed or scantily dressed.  Looks to me like the preference WITHIN THE INDUSTRY is to presume sex.


----------



## Psion (Jun 22, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> What are people afraid of? That their kids will grow up and have sex?
> 
> I realize that I formulated the question provocatively,




If you realize it, why did you even post it? You know you are begging for a political fight, and you know the rules of the board. Are you begging for the poll to be closed? If anyone entertains your question, we are down to the same old flamewar over and over again.

This thread has gone way beyond talking about gaming and is well into (rude) social commentary when people start tossing sarcastic jibes like "What are people afraid of? That their kids will grow up and have sex?"


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 22, 2004)

This is a tricky subject because it's something that people feel strongly about, and that means that they may have an axe to grind. Please keep your posts away from advertisements for / condemnations against the nudist lifestyle, and don't make provocative statements designed to tick off the folks reading. We're not here to try and prove that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Instead, keep the thread focused on the actual topic: nudity in RPG books.


----------



## Psion (Jun 22, 2004)

Okay, trying to distance myself from the hot button here, here's my fundamental problem:

Even games that make a good claim that their pics are appropriate are primarily marketing to young men who want to see titilating images. SS&S has their heat-generating sorcerers (which I find a fourth-wall breaking move, BID) and primitive wood elves illustrated topless. Okay, topless art is appropriate in relaiton to the setting. But here's the rub: have you ever seen a sorceress or elf not drawn with the approximate age and vital statistics of a playboy model? It makes the whole "it's in context" thing seem rather transparent.

(On the other hand, I ought be careful what I wish for. I am not eagerly awaiting bare-breasted hags in my books.)


----------



## diaglo (Jun 22, 2004)

yeah without pics of three foot long schlong wielding satyrs or demons i don't think there is enough fair play by the artists.

chainmail bikini babes did it for me when i was 11. but now... well i can buy real pics of real women doing real things.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 22, 2004)

Nudity has very little place in RPGs, it is just not needed.  I can't think of a single example of a nude picture in an RPG that actually added something to the book.  It's used to grab people attention and to just be of shock value it seems.


----------



## hunter1828 (Jun 22, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> But here's the rub: have you ever seen a sorceress or elf not drawn with the approximate age and vital statistics of a playboy model?





Lots, actually.  Some of it published in gaming books, some of it merely posted on the artists web site.

But, as to the approximate age and vital statistics...  Well, considering the youngest Playboy Playmate was a few days shy of her 18th birthday when she posed (Elizabeth Ann Roberts, January 1958) and the oldest was 35 when she posed (Rebecca Stamos, January 2003) you run a wide range of ages there, although the average age is 22 and so you do have something of a point, only on the age/appearance though.

The average vital statistics is 35-23-35, though there have been a number of playmates with smaller breast sizes (Miss May 2004 was a 32B, if I remember correctly).  Interestingly enough, since the 1960s the average weight has increased about a pound since, and the average height increased about two inches. The average bust size has _dropped_ about an inch, waist size has _increased_ an inch and hip size has remained about the same. 

Just something to put it in persepctive, for either side really, as this can be interpreted in many ways.

Hunter, who now has to go to work.


----------



## Psion (Jun 22, 2004)

hunter1828 said:
			
		

> Lots, actually.  Some of it published in gaming books, some of it merely posted on the artists web site.




I -- and this thread -- am not particularly concerned about what does not appear in books.

Lots in books? I have a lot of RPG books, and find your estimation of "lots" faulty.

The discussion of how playboy models have evolved over the years in largely irrelevant. I merely used that to singify a young and sexually attractive woman. Which most nude (or scantily clad) pics in RPG books depict.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 22, 2004)

Personally, if it fits and it works then I see no problem with nudity in RPGs.  I recently picked up the BoVD and while I loved it I was shocked at how tame the art was.  I am not neccessary, but a little bit of discomfort would have been appopriate for a book of that kind.

I want demon-women with three sets of breasts cutting open the lower torso of some paladin and lapping up the blood with her forked tongue.  I do not mind seeing drawing of druids doing human sacrifice in the nude, or taking part in some ritual that involves sex.

I just think people that don't like that stuff or don't want it as part of their gaming experience should simply not buy those books - but I personally run a game with some "mature themes" - including an incestuous greater succubus with six breasts that often copulates with her own half-fiend brood in wild group sex even as she squeezes out yet another demon baby (the party found color plates in a book about demons that depicted just such a scene) - for me the discomfort such an image evokes is exactly what I am going for. . .   It is not meant to be an arousing thing, but something to fill the players with disgust and give them a sense of the perverse and corruption of mortal morality of their main foe.

On the other hand, to me gratuitous nudity is the kind of thing a bunch of people mentioned - naked or half-clothed adventurers for no good reason, etc. . .


----------



## Psion (Jun 22, 2004)

> I just think people that don't like that stuff or don't want it as part of their gaming experience should simply not buy those books




Again this brings us to the subject of relevance. There have been many books whose content I have appreciated but whose art is not related to the topic at hand. So, I must forego a book I want because I don't want those pictures in my gaming material?

I thnk I'd ruther the publishers keep it tame where it's not appropriate, and grab a Royo book if I want fantasy nudes.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 22, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Again this brings us to the subject of relevance. There have been many books whose content I have appreciated but whose art is not related to the topic at hand. So, I must forego a book I want because I don't want those pictures in my gaming material?
> 
> I thnk I'd ruther the publishers keep it tame where it's not appropriate, and grab a Royo book if I want fantasy nudes.




Cross out or blank over the pictures and use the resulting white space for notes on house rules or something. . .


----------



## Oni (Jun 22, 2004)

Just out of curiosity what are opinions of the illustration of the Harpy in the MM.  Do you think it would have the same grotesque aspect if it were covered.  Should even the description have been changed so there was no danger of an exposed breast?  

What about the Bog Hag in OA?  Is it inappropriate that it's quite obviously not wearing any clothing?  Is there no valid reason for that illustration?  

What about the topless Atha'an Miere windfinder from The Wheel of Time RPG?  In appropriate to illustrate a social norm of the setting?

What about some of the beginning of the chapter illustrations in the BoVD?  Are these not appropriate the the tone of the book?  

I'm sure there are many more examples if you wanted to look around for them, but I think people only want to remember the offensive cheesecake because it's easier for them to dismiss the topic that way.


----------



## Henry (Jun 22, 2004)

nemmerle said:
			
		

> I just think people that don't like that stuff or don't want it as part of their gaming experience should simply not buy those books.




Your comment leads to a very good question, one that I think some people (and not others) think is being asked here:

1: Does nudity have a place in the D&D Core rules?

2: Furthermore, does nudity have a place in the Core rules of any RPG?

3: Does nudity have a place in any RPG supplement where the topic is NOT healthy sex, sex in general, sexual perversions, or sex of any sort?


For #1, I say no: I revisit my supposition that it creates barriers between players, and between players and their PRG material. I would have a far harder time justifying the 3E core books had there been naked peasants working in fields in it. I know of at least two or three people who either would not have played or been allowed to play if there were.

For #2, I say no: same reasoning. If it includes it, a company is narrowing their market to a certain portion of it. If it's the sement they are focusing on (BoEF, F.A.T.A.L. or B.o.V.D. for examples) then that's fine.

For #3, I say yes - someone mentioned the medieval peasants thing as an example, or in a work about savage peoples in a jungle setting - that's the author's and reader's choice. Ditto for works where this IS the focus - otherwise, the work would be too tame for the subject matter it seeks to portray. However, the work will also be clearly marked as such, either by topic, or by some form of notification by the vendor. It doesn't take a lot of perception to know what the Book of Erotic Fantasy will be like without even cracking the cover.


----------



## Psion (Jun 22, 2004)

nemmerle said:
			
		

> Cross out or blank over the pictures and use the resulting white space for notes on house rules or something. . .




Don't think yellow sticky bikinis haven't been contemplated. 

But seriously, I'd rather there be good, appropriate artwork there.

Write in my books? Heathen!


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 22, 2004)

The issue is that most RPG products present women in a much more polarized fashion than men. My experience has always been that women are either presented as hag or venus, with little variation in between. Male characters generally are allowed to run more of a gamut. Granted, this is fantasy we're discussing and fantasy primarily targetted at a young male demographic, which drives the preferred depictions. However, not wanting to see unneccesarily sexually charged images when reading a book which has nothing to do with such images doesn't sound unreasonable, to me.

 Scantily-clad or naked women and men in the Conan setting? Sounds fine. Unclothed characters in a supplement about some greek cultures, sure...but in those cases, why not use the actual artwork of the period? Is a lot added to the material by depicting people without clothes? If not, why bother? Often the nudity is embarassing because it's so obviously pandering. I only wish the old Mialee fashion review of Avalanche's covers was still active (a search will reveal the thread, but the actual website is tied to older pages here, when nutkinland was still hosted hereabouts), as it highlighted all the kinds of problems with such art.

 Yes, nudity isn't the same thing as sex, but in fantasy artwork, nudity is usually presented with sexual overtones. Men, like it or not, tend to respond to visual sexual stimuli strongly (moreso than women, who tend to respond more to mental stimuli, if I recall my studies correctly), and an attractive, naked woman is going to evoke some of those overtones, intentionally or unintentionally. I don't think that real world nudist practices intersect so directly with depictions in a fantasy RPG supplement, honestly.

  A better question might be to ask, "_What supplements or gaming materials do you think have used nudity effectively_?"

 Currently, I can think of the Book of Erotic Fantasy and the Monster Manual as having done it. There may be more, but none are coming to mind, just now. I don't have the Conan book, so I can't comment on that title.  EDIT: I'll also add the Wheel of Time sourcebook to that list.


----------



## Ibram (Jun 22, 2004)

hunter1828 said:
			
		

> Lots, actually.  Some of it published in gaming books, some of it merely posted on the artists web site.
> 
> But, as to the approximate age and vital statistics...  Well, considering the youngest Playboy Playmate was a few days shy of her 18th birthday when she posed (Elizabeth Ann Roberts, January 1958) and the oldest was 35 when she posed (Rebecca Stamos, January 2003) you run a wide range of ages there, although the average age is 22 and so you do have something of a point, only on the age/appearance though.
> 
> ...




wow, you sure do know alot about your Playboys...


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 22, 2004)

You know, if everyone who wanted nudity in these books so badly would just _publish_ the issue would take care of itself.


There are no rules for farting in D&D, I see no need for farting pictures.
There are no rules for clucking like a chicken n D&D, I see no need for clucking like a chicken pictures.
There are no rules for wedgies in D&D, I see no need for wedgie pictures (Krusk excpeted)
... and I fail to see how other people's gaming enjoyment is ruined by the lack of this kind of artwork.  Seriously, just commission the dang stuff or do it yourself if you have the ability.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 22, 2004)

Ibram said:
			
		

> wow, you sure do know alot about your Playboys...





actually some of his facts are incorrect. there is an older playmate than Rebecca...

i happen to have every Playboy centerfold from beginning to present....


----------



## Zappo (Jun 22, 2004)

> There are no rules for farting in D&D, I see no need for farting pictures.
> There are no rules for clucking like a chicken n D&D, I see no need for clucking like a chicken pictures.
> There are no rules for wedgies in D&D, I see no need for wedgie pictures (Krusk excpeted)



There aren't rules for sitting around a campfire either, does that mean that the famous, beautiful Dragonlance boxed set cover should not have been made? Or that it doesn't add to the game?

 Or do you mean that nudity, unlike every other subject, requires additional justification? If so, why?


----------



## BryonD (Jun 22, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> There aren't rules for sitting around a campfire either, does that mean that the famous, beautiful Dragonlance boxed set cover should not have been made? Or that it doesn't add to the game?
> 
> Or do you mean that nudity, unlike every other subject, requires additional justification? If so, why?




I think that many reasonable people would agree that sitting around a campfire does not compare well to nudity.

Further, his statement did not demand any justification.  He was simply saying that it is not required.  I think that twisting that into requireing justification is an unfair characterization.

The only justification needed is that the author wanted it.  

But the focus of the debate is whether the overall population feels that it adds or detracts value (gaming-wise or other) to the product.  If it is A) not needed (campfire sitting AND nudity) and B) is going to be a negative factor for a notable portion of the audience (nudity BUT NOT campfire sitting) then it is entirely reasonable to claim that it is an overall negative.

If the author is fine with accepting the negative, then it is their call.  But it would be quite naive for that author to expect no negative feedback.


----------



## jester47 (Jun 22, 2004)

*[censored, for no good reason] (its humor, moderators have nothing to do with this)*

Well, as [Cencored for religion] goes, I think that [Cencored for Religion] is really kind of [Cencored for religion and politics] because [Censored for politics] is [Censored for religion] in a way.  Or it seems to be getting that way.  Now if we had [Cencored for religion] and [Cencored for politics] (not exchanging one for the other or using one in polace of the other, but both at the same time) we would have some serious flamewars.  But rather than that those who are [Censored for religion, politics and just plain wrongness!] are really just asking for it.  In that case I prefer that those [Censored for religion] or [Censored for politics] just get jiggy with it.  

But thats just my [censored for humor] opinion... 


Aaron.

PS this is in no way a criticism of our hard working moderators.  More like a tribute.


----------



## jester47 (Jun 22, 2004)

BTW, IMO nudity works in the "as encountered" sense.  That is a drawing of a nymph or people on a nude beach is cool (heck naked people on any beach might be cool).  

Example:

A drawing of a "warrior maiden" with her chainmail top ripped open by some beast and showing no apparent injury as a result is not cool.  This is comical and a sort of exposition rather than conveying whats really going on.  However, showing a "warrior maiden" who did have a chain shirt that was ripped open and a garmet to protect against chafing, and an open wound on her chest might be a little graphic but a better depiction, even if naughty bits were showing because thats is more true to what it would be like and connects you to her emotion and pain.  You think "wow, that really messed her up! But shes still going!"  Rather than "hey! Boobies!"  

Acceptable nudity: http://classweb.ghc.edu/art100/images/delacroix.jpg

the woman and the fact that she is topless is not the point of the art.  That is what separates porn from art in my book.  Art is good.  

Aaron.


----------



## Mr. Lobo (Jun 22, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Your comment leads to a very good question, one that I think some people (and not others) think is being asked here:
> 
> 1: Does nudity have a place in the D&D Core rules?
> 
> ...




Okay.

But all of these answers to your points are based on a publisher's point of view. Someone who is in the game genre to make money by selling a lot of product by expanding the market.

But role playing from a players perspective is a luxury. Something to do to pass the time in an enjoyable manner.

Personally, I don't give a dang about a publishers well being. If they make product I want to spend my hard earned cash on then I buy it for my own enjoyment. Not for the publishers well being.

What I like best about the OGL is that you can use the core rules to make extension products. For the people who design games as a hobby they can make all the hard core extensions/expansions (with all kinds of *nudity and other stuff**) that they want with a rules set that a lot of people use and make them available at RPGNow or elsewhere so that other people can enjoy their creations. Or not as they see fit. With the PDF market, an enthusiast can make any kind of RPG core rules relatively cheaply (I think. What's a ballpark figure for costs of making a PDF and publishing at RPGNow for example?) and make it available as described above.

This approach may not exapand the RPG market per se but it can expand the gaming aspect of RPG's by introducing new content.

But the key is the difference between trying to publish RPG's or rules sets to make money by trying to please a whole bunch of people(which I think is quite humorous and the topic of another thread possibly) vs publishing as a hobby. For one's own pleasure and enjoyment.

This follows off of Biggus Geekus's point made earlier. If you really want it find a way to do it.

* bolded to show that I'm trying to keep on topic somewhat.

Mr. Lobo


----------



## Zappo (Jun 22, 2004)

ByronD -> Fair enough, and actually the not-need for justification is something I strongly agree with. What I'm curious about is what the rules of the game have to do with why or why not something should be drawn? You draw the setting, not the rules, and the setting has a lot of things that the rules don't care about.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Jun 22, 2004)

I voted that it was fine as long as it is non-sexual in nature but then again that is me and I'm 31 years old.  Looking at it from a more global scale I'd have to vote against including it.  I got into D&D when I was 8 years old and thank god I got into it with the Basic set rather than going straight into AD&D otherwise my parents would have thrown the books out as soon as they saw the demon on the cover of the DMG and the topless mermaid in the appendix section.  If leaving the nudity out makes the game more accessable to a larger audience then I can definitely go with leaving it out as it really isn't that important.  However, over the years I've seen so much great fantasy artwork that included nudity and I wouldn't mind seeing artwork of that quality (Frazzetta, Vallejo, and Royo to name a few) in some of our roleplaying books.  Perhaps a happy medium would be to follow White Wolf's lead and have a different label put out by the same publisher which is restricted to mature audiences... you could put out books with whatever artwork you want.  Destiny's Price (for Mage) was published under the Black Dog label and rightly deserved it because of the subject matter.  It was purely a fluff book, support for a more mature chronicle and wasn't cosidered necessary to run a basic game of Mage but it was still published for those who wanted it.  Perhaps WOTC or some of the other 3rd party publishers might follow White Wolf's lead and start publishing a line of books that cater to mature readers but protect younger readers.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 22, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Or do you mean that nudity, unlike every other subject, requires additional justification? If so, why?




No, I think there are lots of subjects in D&D that are of dubious necssity.  If I saw a picture of a paladin saying orc children because they are destined to be evil or a barbarian covered in entrails and ripping out the spine of an evil minion, I'd question that artwork as well.  I felt the opening chapter artwork of _The Book of Vile Darkness_ required additional justification, which it pretty much had with the book's opening and closing statements to say nothing of the big warning sticker.  

And again, I think if people really want this stuff they should publish.  If it's handled well, I might even buy it.  But I'm at a loss to see why it's remotely important to include just in the same way I'm at a loss to see why it would be important to include goblin farting.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 22, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> the setting has a lot of things that the rules don't care about.




Well, yeah.  If it was a _Book of Erotic Fantasy_ game or even a _Charlie's Angels_ game I wouldn't be batting an eyelash.  I probably wouldn't buy the book, but seduction is a big component of those settings.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 22, 2004)

While I will rarely post a "me, too" post, I think you've caught the essence of the difference and what is (or should be) acceptable nudity.  All this and you presented it tastefully and tactfully.  Bravo!



			
				jester47 said:
			
		

> BTW, IMO nudity works in the "as encountered" sense.  That is a drawing of a nymph or people on a nude beach is cool (heck naked people on any beach might be cool).
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...


----------



## Zappo (Jun 22, 2004)

BiggusGeekus -> Ok, I understand better now. I believe that nudity, _like everything else_, should be used where it's appropriate and makes sense, and not otherwise. So we less or more agree on that.  I also think that nudity, _like everything else_, may have a (marginal) place in a product where it is not central, like the adventure I'm writing. To help parents, the publisher could use a warning label. I like good classification, I just dislike limitations.


----------



## Henry (Jun 22, 2004)

Mr. Lobo said:
			
		

> Okay.
> 
> But all of these answers to your points are based on a publisher's point of view. Someone who is in the game genre to make money by selling a lot of product by expanding the market.




I don't see it as a "publisher's point of view" (I'm not published, for one thing) but it's the point of view of a gamer who wants to be able to teach other gamers how to play without throwing up a wall in the form of artwork or writing that is seen as inappropriate. The second I show a coworker a D&D book that contains even incidental nudity, the doors slam shut and the barriers are up. The second I show a parent and their 10-year-old a book with full frontal, is the minute they turn off the idea that D&D is a healthy pastime, for better or worse.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 22, 2004)

BG said:
			
		

> a barbarian covered in entrails and ripping out the spine of an evil minion, I'd question that artwork as well.




I SO want to see that!  I do my best to describe the results of combat in gory detail (see my story hour) so that players have immersion and never forget what kind of nasty work they are really doing.

-- Had a demon rip the head off a character and then scoop out the brains from the neck side and eat them Nemm


----------



## Sejs (Jun 22, 2004)

> Acceptable nudity: http://classweb.ghc.edu/art100/images/delacroix.jpg




Yep, the woman is indeed nigh-topless. What I want to know is what the heck happened to that guy on the floor's pants!  Or his other sock!  There's a story behind that pantless, mono-socked deadman, mark my words.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 22, 2004)

> -- Had a demon rip the head off a character and then scoop out the brains from the neck side and eat them




So what kind of action did that take to perform?  Was that a move-equivalent, or did the demon just wait until next round to have its mid-battle snack?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 22, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Acceptable nudity: http://classweb.ghc.edu/art100/images/delacroix.jpg
> 
> the woman and the fact that she is topless is not the point of the art.  That is what separates porn from art in my book.  Art is good.
> 
> Aaron.




I dunno. If the nudity isn't there for a reason, then it's gratuitous. And in the case of this French revolution painting, it's not there for any discernable reason that I can think of. 
If the nudity is there because the art is depicting things that are reasonably likely to happen (characters walk by provocatively dressed prostitutes, captured characters chained up and stripped of all equipment, characters bathing in a stream, characters jumping out of bed to ward off a surprise raid by orcs, etc) then I'm not at all opposed to it. Topless women in incongruous situations, even when they are symbolizing liberty or other ideals, is gratuitous nudity even if it's considered a classic of fine art (underlining some of the hypocracy in the social critic world, I think). 
Personally, I'd like to see more nudity in media around me and less violence, especially on TV and in the movies. Nudity is normal for all people in various activities of their lives. Violence is not. I'd prefer my media to reflect that more. Funny how violence is more acceptible than a staged "wardrobe malfunction". Pathetic too.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jun 22, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I dunno. If the nudity isn't there for a reason, then it's gratuitous. And in the case of this French revolution painting, it's not there for any discernable reason that I can think of.




I guess liberal education no longer exists.

The woman here is an allegorical figure, "Liberty leading the masses".  As such, she has aspects of a fertility goddess, which means that a single bared breast is symbolic of that aspect.  Likewise, as a sort of amazon, only one would be bared.


----------



## Raduin711 (Jun 22, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I strongly feel that nudity is like profanity. Both can be used to make a point and give a product a certain feel. However, a skilled writer or artists can make the same point better without use of either and I think that too often nudity and profanity are used more for shock value than for any actual augmentation of the material they  take place in.




True, true.  But sometimes it also behooves us not to include it;  For instance, if someone wanted to write a scene in a book that took place in a seedy bar.  The purpose of the scene has nothing to do with the swearing that (inevitably) takes place in it.  Glossing over the colorful vocabulary or censoring it completely is dishonest.  It is, after all, a seedy bar.

The bottom line is, considering our audience (which an author must do) we may want to accept a certain level of dishonesty to keep from turning away the potential audience.  Too much honesty (nude minotaurs) or too little (Harpy wearing a tube-top) can disenfranchise the audience.  From my perspective, I think that WOTC leans toward the side of having too little honesty, though i can understand why.


----------



## Dogbrain (Jun 22, 2004)

nemmerle said:
			
		

> I just think people that don't like that stuff or don't want it as part of their gaming experience should simply not buy those books




And the next, inevitable, step is to vehemently demand that it be put onto every other page of all core rule books.  Of course, such claims will be accompanied by snide personal insults of "what is everybody afraid of".  It's the intolerance of dogmatic tolerance.  "If it doesn't bother me, then nobody else in the world has the right to be bothered by it."  Anybody here bothered by the idea of making a movie that features a woman in her thirties getting jiggy in the bathtub with a ten-year-old-boy--who is played by a boy that is actually ten years old?  Guess what, the movie's been made and it stars Nicole Kidman.  Obviously, SOME liberal lunatic somewhere thought it was a good enough idea to fund and make this movie.  So, does that mean that those of us who would not wish to have this sort of thing foisted upon our daily lives are being "narrow-minded" and "intolerant"?


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 22, 2004)

Consider this a gentle nudge back towards nudity in *RPG Books.*


----------



## Agback (Jun 22, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> What I want to know is what the heck happened to that guy on the floor's pants!




Easy. It is the French Revolution, right? There is nothing remarkable about teh _sans-culottes_.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 22, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Okay, trying to distance myself from the hot button here, here's my fundamental problem:
> 
> Even games that make a good claim that their pics are appropriate are primarily marketing to young men who want to see titilating images. SS&S has their heat-generating sorcerers (which I find a fourth-wall breaking move, BID) and primitive wood elves illustrated topless. Okay, topless art is appropriate in relaiton to the setting. But here's the rub: have you ever seen a sorceress or elf not drawn with the approximate age and vital statistics of a playboy model? It makes the whole "it's in context" thing seem rather transparent.




This is a problem I have as well. First of all, lets leave aside age and go for reasonable proportions... That topless amazon archer has worked out her chest muscles for years practicing with that bow, and as a result, she should be lucky to have a B cup. Its a simple fact of life that women in top physical form have lost a lot of their body fat, including the soft cuddly padding on the breasts. Even a high level magic user or psion has developed fighting ability and physical reserves that should be represented by a more 'toughened up' look. 

Of course for the wood elf sporting a D cup, that brings us to the next issue... While nudity can be more comfortable under many conditions, high impact exercise isn't one of them... Archery sounds like it would be right out.    But seriously, I was (prior to pregnancy) a fairly small chested woman (and I MISS it!) but I still could not jog without some sort of bra. There was a great cartoon I saw once of a woman in a tee shirt running across a street holding her breasts in her hands. It was titled "The Do It Yourself Jog Bra (or: how women run when we think no one is watching)" and it's totally true. The wood elf or the amazon might very well hang out topless around the house, or be complete nudists when not adventuring, but when they go out to hunt or fight, there will be some binding up done.   

and, of course, any situation where the women are going nudist should have some men in the same state. If there aren't the nudity isn't there because it's "appropriate", its there to tittilate.

I voted 1 after making sure everyone knew it was a horribly written poll, because I neither need nor want nudity in my rpgs. And I just want to thank Elton for exposing me to the adorable little lable "textile" for the first time in years. 

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Dogbrain (Jun 22, 2004)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Of course for the wood elf sporting a D cup, that brings us to the next issue... While nudity can be more comfortable under many conditions, high impact exercise isn't one of them.




There is a film clip of a gymnast wearing only a bikini bottom. She does a simple run and vault.  It plain looks painful to even see her run, much less do the vault.  I hope she was well paid.


----------



## Chimera (Jun 22, 2004)

We deal with Violence in all it's forms as a part of our "game", but we're bothered by a bit of nudity?  

Like I sarcastically stated after the Janet Jackson episode:  "How dare you show us nudity when we're celebrating our violence!"

Some seriously screwed up priorities there, folks.  An axe through the head is surely more "pornographic" than a bare breast.


----------



## Mr. Lobo (Jun 22, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> I don't see it as a "publisher's point of view" (I'm not published, for one thing) but it's the point of view of a gamer who wants to be able to teach other gamers how to play without throwing up a wall in the form of artwork or writing that is seen as inappropriate. The second I show a coworker a D&D book that contains even incidental nudity, the doors slam shut and the barriers are up. The second I show a parent and their 10-year-old a book with full frontal, is the minute they turn off the idea that D&D is a healthy pastime, for better or worse.




From my point of view I would say "that's too bad for them". I understand that people are offended by nudity I just don't understand all the reasons as to why. Especially in a _fantasy_ game.

I see your point about wanting to turn your friends on to a neat game and spending a good time with them. But there is at least a semi-practical solution to your dilemma. One of the points I was trying to make in my post is that at least the OGL and SRD are available. And nudity free. Sure, it may not be as pretty or user friendly as the published books but at least there are pdf versions available.

Of course it would be great if there were a different presentation style of everyone's favorite RPG for everyone's different tastes. This can be do-able to a certain extent with the SRD and OGL. But who's gonna do it?

Mr. Lobo


----------



## Bards R Us (Jun 22, 2004)

Forget nudity

Let there be more hardcore raunchiness

MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jun 22, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> There is a film clip of a gymnast wearing only a bikini bottom. She does a simple run and vault.  It plain looks painful to even see her run, much less do the vault.  I hope she was well paid.




*URL PLEASE*


----------



## Thanee (Jun 22, 2004)

I still think option #2 is right for me.

However, option #2 is also highly unrealistic, as - like many have said - nudity is usually used in a sexual context (i.e. "playboy models" stirring up phantasies and animating to buy the product), which is option #3.

Now, if nudity was used in a sensual manner and within realistic context (no D cup wood elven amazon archers, etc), not that one-sided way, then it would be ok. Non-sexual nudity. Option #2.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Incenjucar (Jun 22, 2004)

What I find funny about all of this is that, technially, obviously-d20 books are not allowed to so much as show a female nipple (But technically, you -could- have two guys yanking on each other's...), but Hasbro does it every once in awhile themselves.

Perhaps there should be a community-wide mature label designation to notify that a book has mature topics that are handled maturely?  (since there are some books, like that one about women with big guns and bigger chests, that are clearly not even trying to be mature) A subtype, if you will.

---

What's sad about all of this is that it kills some of the potential fun.  For instance, back in 2e, I had a type of dragon that had a breath weapon that turned organic materials to ash. While it caused some minor damage to the party, it also destroyed much of the clothing, armor, and other equipment (And, frankly, the 'equipment loss' DM tactic is alive and well in a thousand forms).  How amusing would it be to have a picture of a grinning dragon with ash dripping from its jaws, while the iconic squad sat there, covered in soot, with their hair crumbling, trying to cover themselves with the various bits of armor that fell to the floor when all the leather straps were destroyed?


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 23, 2004)

I never considered buying any Avalanche Press products because of the silly nudity on the cover. When a publisher releases a book with a cover like that, I interpret their decision to mean, "We don't have any compelling reason for you to buy this book -- it doesn't have any useful information or compelling ideas, but here's a half-naked hottie for you." If they'd had better reasons for me to buy the book, they should have put them on the cover. Because I don't buy RPG books for hotties.

Except when I buy them for my wife. 

Art is, when all is said and done, a marketing tool. It's another reason to buy a book rather than its simple textual content. So if you're wanting teenage boys without ready access to pornography to buy your book, then yeah, probably a little hottie goes a long way. If you're trying to sell to parents, then probably not so much. I don't really have an answer to the poll -- I don't care if there's nudity in RPG books in general -- but both the content and the competence of the art in a book will influence my buying decision.

I'd find broader representation in images more interesting because it would give me a richer sense of the gaming world, as a place where middle-aged women existed and had a place, where kids grew up and where fat, skinny, ripped and saggy people all lived. I'd like that.

Even if they weren't ALL naked.


----------



## knitnerd (Jun 23, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I think this sums it up. (NOTE: I only read the first page of this topic.)
> 
> Nudity doesn't offer anything valid to D&D, other than feeding the adolescent fantasies of the traditional D&D Geek.
> 
> I prefer not to have nudity in RPG books, not because I'm a prude, or because it's against my religion, but because it's not necessary, it makes some people unnecessarily uncomfortable, and...well, why? Can't think of one valid, objective reason for having it in there.




       There are valid reasons for nudity.  If that giant had been well dressed, my ranger would not have been able to shoot him in the one place that left him totally unable to defend himself from the rest of the party. It might not be necessary to have nudity in the books. That scene came from the DM's mind.


----------



## Sir Elton (Jun 23, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Art is, when all is said and done, a marketing tool. It's another reason to buy a book rather than its simple textual content. So if you're wanting teenage boys without ready access to pornography to buy your book, then yeah, probably a little hottie goes a long way. If you're trying to sell to parents, then probably not so much. I don't really have an answer to the poll -- I don't care if there's nudity in RPG books in general -- but both the content and the competence of the art in a book will influence my buying decision.



 OH.  So "Don't judge a book by its cover" does not have revelancy to RPGs?
 I grant you, many publishers do not take this into account.  Many (such as Avalanche) do use art as a marketing tool.  However, I've been turned off on some Avalanche Press books mostly because of subject matter (Prince Vlad Dracula for one).  Others I wanted to buy because of subject matter (their Sands of Egypt).  Although Mongoose's the Slayer's Guide to Amazons had taught me a lesson in not buying RPG books because of the cover art. 

 That book presented a fantasy version of the Amazons of Themiscyra that I couldn't agree with.  Plus, none of the amazons looked like fighters or had that Xena: Warrior Princess quality.

 Right now, I look at it now and I can only think on how humorous the Amazons were presented.  These women were susposed to be fighters? :lol Perish the thought!  Real Themiscyran and Cymian Amazons were of the southern Scythian tribes.  They had husbands, but weren't allowed to marry until they had slain an enemy in battle.  They had to act much more muscular and much more forceful than those playmates of the month in that book.  Gimme a break.

 Although the art was beautiful (and raunchy in some areas), it misrepresented the whole visual idea behind the legendary warrior women.  Now look at other RPGs that had nudity in it, and most of it was tasteful.  The Wheel of Time RPG (although it was a small shock to see the Athan'Meire topless), the Conan the Barbarian RPG, even the pictures of Ryoko, Washu, and Ayeka was tasteful for the Tenchi Muyo! RPG.  What gets me is no one is willing to draw anyone modestly nude.  The pictures are always drawn as if they have _something_ to hide (*especially* the men).  That's what makes nudity in RPGs tasteless.  Why not show the whole human form in all it's glory?  If you are going to include nudity in our RPGs, then do it fully with dignity and glory.

 Let *everyone*, and I mean _everyone_, satisfy their basic human need to know what our bodies look like unclothed.  I intend to have the needed nudity in my project rendered fully with dignity and glory.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 23, 2004)

Nudity in art, if done well, can enhance the effect.

Nudity in art, if done poorly, is offensive and stupid.

I would rather have my books lack nudity, than get stupid and offensive nudity.  However, if the nudity is appropriate/relevant, than it's okay by me. But honestly, it's very rarely appropriate or relevant, so I tend to be leery of it as pandering to hormone-crazed teenaged boys.


----------



## hunter1828 (Jun 23, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I -- and this thread -- am not particularly concerned about what does not appear in books.




Notice that I said "Some of it published in gaming books, some of it merely posted on the artists web site", implying that, obviously, some of what I refered to was published and that the unpublished, by my use of the word "merely" didn't carry the same weight.  Or maybe it wasn't obvious.   :\ 



> Lots in books? I have a lot of RPG books, and find your estimation of "lots" faulty.




Give me some time and I'll go through my entire gaming book collection (mostly D&D, various editions) and cite book and page for artwork of a "sorceress or elf" that does not, IMO, look like a Playboy model. 



> The discussion of how playboy models have evolved over the years in largely irrelevant. I merely used that to singify a young and sexually attractive woman. Which most nude (or scantily clad) pics in RPG books depict.




When you mentioned that apparently no artwork of a sorceress or elf exists that doesn't resemble a Playboy model, I thought it relevant to point out that Playboy models come in many ages and shapes, therefore it's not easy to pin down what artwork does and does not resemble them.

Hunter


----------



## hunter1828 (Jun 23, 2004)

Ibram said:
			
		

> wow, you sure do know alot about your Playboys...




Thank you, thank you.    

Actually, it was just a matter of a Google search for "playboy playmate age, vital statisitics" that led me to the magazine's websites own Playmate FAQ.

Hunter


----------



## hunter1828 (Jun 23, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> actually some of his facts are incorrect. there is an older playmate than Rebecca...
> 
> i happen to have every Playboy centerfold from beginning to present....





If my facts are incorrect, then Playboy itself is incorrect as they came straight from the official Playboy web site's own Playmate FAQ.  Check it out yourself if you do not believe me, though I won't post a link as I don't think it would be appreciated by some.

Hunter


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2004)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> Let *everyone*, and I mean _everyone_, satisfy their basic human need to know what our bodies look like unclothed.  I intend to have the needed nudity in my project rendered fully with dignity and glory.



Ummm, weren't we all supposed to _stop_ preaching our agendas relative to nudity in this thread?   

Oh, and hunter1828, methinks you may be a tad purposefully obtuse if you really don't know what Psion meant when he said women in RPG art look like Playboy centerfolds.


----------



## hunter1828 (Jun 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh, and hunter1828, methinks you may be a tad purposefully obtuse if you really don't know what Psion meant when he said women in RPG art look like Playboy centerfolds.




Or perhaps I'm just pointing out the absurdity of such a statement...

Hunter


----------



## Grodd JoJoJo (Jun 23, 2004)

Hey, I'm almost certain someone's mentioned this already, but here goes...

I have absolutely no problem with cheesecake on the cover of a book, though I would prefer it to be consistent with the setting. I've been with D&D a long while, and, to an extent, "Dragon Magazine cover" was prectically synonymous with cheesecake. Mind you, the cheesecake in question was primarily done by Caldwell and Elmore, and those same covers wound up in the "Art of Dragon Magazine" book. No one had any huge problems with it, and, if someone did, I didn't see anything in the letters to the editors, though it's certainly possible Dragon didn't publish any.

Heck, let's take it a step further - the original DM's Guide had cheesecake, though it was barely visible. The female adventurer in the efreet's hand is wearing some decidedly abbreviated armor.

In a way, cheesecake was an honored D&D tradition. Oh, BTW, Dragon also had nudity on its covers - though it was generally from the side.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2004)

hunter1828 said:
			
		

> Or perhaps I'm just pointing out the absurdity of such a statement...



I'm sorry; in my opinion, all you did was make your own statement appear pedantic rather than Psion's statement appear absurd, IMO.  Nobody's arguing that the standards of beauty are so stringent that a fairly wide variety of women will still be beautiful. 

But then again, they're not so loose as to allow just about anyone illustrated for an RPG supplement to either be an old hag or a steamy siren.  If you want to look for a statement that's potentially provable as flimsy and patently wrong, I think you'll have better luck pursuing that angle instead.  Although I agree with him for the most part; women in RPG art have largely been objectified and stereotyped rather than done "realistically."


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Jun 23, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Anyway, my opinion is that nudity in RPGs should not be artificially inflated...




OK, OK, I have to admit the 16-year-old boy in me snorted his lunch at the monitor when he read that.  The 33-year-old father-of-3-year-old-twins in me says "why not nude-up, everyone's naked under their clothes".  D&D 1st edition had its fair share of nudie pictures (I recall the elf being undressed by a giant sundew in module A1 Against the Slavers, and there's a few in Deities and Demigods), and they did me no harm as a young, impressionable teenager.  D&D 2nd edition has none, from recollection, probably because of the particular editorial practices of TSR at the time.  I had thought we'd got past the paternalistic and hypocritical attitudes of the 80s and 90s.

My 3-year-olds have a fascination for my D&D monster books, because they contain pictures of "dragons".  I occasionally bring the books out as a treat to show them the pictures of dragons and dragon-like monsters, many of which are good pieces of artwork.  I deliberately skip over the _scary_ pictures around "D", like some of the demon and devil entries.  Although it hasn't come up yet, I do not think I'd have the same aversion to the picture of the nymph, for example.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

PS I thought the poll was intended a joke, so I'm not sure why people are so down on it.


----------



## hunter1828 (Jun 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm sorry; in my opinion, all you did was make your own statement appear pedantic rather than Psion's statement appear absurd, IMO.  Nobody's arguing that the standards of beauty are so stringent that a fairly wide variety of women will still be beautiful.
> 
> But then again, they're not so loose as to allow just about anyone illustrated for an RPG supplement to either be an old hag or a steamy siren.  If you want to look for a statement that's potentially provable as flimsy and patently wrong, I think you'll have better luck pursuing that angle instead.  Although I agree with him for the most part; women in RPG art have largely been objectified and stereotyped rather than done "realistically."




Well, IMO making a statement that every elf and sorceress in an RPG book looks like a Playboy model is like saying that all dogs illustrated in an RPG book look like purebred blueribbon winners.  It's an assumption that goes beyond the so-called standards of beauty to assume 1) that the person making the statement knows without a doubt what all artwork in the various RPG products look like, and 2)that the person making the statement assumes that there is no possible variation in his chosen comparison subject.

I've seen plenty of elves in RPG books that look nothing like the models in the Playboys I own.  For instance, the Player's Handbook alone has an elf on p.13, p.34, p.56, p.99, and p.163.  None are built like any Playboy model I've seen, none are made up like the Playboy models I've seen, and none are as naked as the Playboy models I've seen.

Actually, the best example of a wide variance of types of women in an RPG book is Larry Elmore's Women of the Wild, one of his latest artbooks that includes d20 stats for each of the women illustrated.  The range from very attractive women to old crones to middle aged to children.  That book alone throws out Psion's statement.  Then there is Green Ronin's Witch's Handbook which includes a wide variety of witches, from young and lovely to old hags.  Or their Noble's Handbook, which includes both young and middle-aged noblewomen.  Or how about the old Volo's Guide series for the Forgotten Realms which had a WIDE range of types of women, from young to old, beautiful to ugly, small to large.  

When someone is going to make a comment that ALL RPG art looks a certain way, they need to make sure they aren't just looking at the art on the covers of product released by certain companies infamous for tittilating imagery, but actually looking through a wide variety of products, from many publishers, over many years.

Hunter


----------



## Hemlock Stones (Jun 23, 2004)

*The Frankness Of It All*

GREETINGS!

What a _can of worms_ eh!? Nudity is meant to be enjoyed by those who can deal with it. If you can't handle it, then don't look. Now on to the _meat and potatoes_. 

I'm not so sure that images involving nudity, accuarate or not, are necessary. Were talking about fantasy content here people. The images of warriors are wholly inaccurate. I don't for one minute look at other forms of media as seriously accurate. Spider Man in the movies sure makes all that web swinging look possible. Gee I hope my child doesn't try his hand at webslinging.   

When you apply historical accuracy to the cultures created in role playing games certain lines are drawn and eventually crossed. How many of you applied what the Mayans did to sacrifices in the games you played? It has happened. It is horriffic and evil. It's in someways more frightening than any of the creative and imaginative horrors produced in the realm of role playing games.

Incorporating naked images into the role playing game environment achieves what? Most of the hard cover books are costing $25 and up. Most of those publishers are struggling. Rather than making a better product, why not market it to a different audience? All that has to be done is to draw in the people interested in nudity. The pornography industry is a multi-billion dollar a year success. Everybody knows even bad pornography sells.   The role playing game industry is rife with with bad ideas and content that doesn't sell. Throw in some nudity and the role playing game industry has an instant success right?

Why not leave unto Flynt that which is his and that which belongs to Gygax his? Everybody that enjoys role playing games knows that the devious mind of the DM can bring whatever is necessary to the campaign to make the players brains pop like a champagne cork.

Bone Daddy Hath Spoke!


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 23, 2004)

Grodd JoJoJo said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm almost certain someone's mentioned this already, but here goes...
> 
> I have absolutely no problem with cheesecake on the cover of a book, though I would prefer it to be consistent with the setting. I've been with D&D a long while, and, to an extent, "Dragon Magazine cover" was prectically synonymous with cheesecake. Mind you, the cheesecake in question was primarily done by Caldwell and Elmore, and those same covers wound up in the "Art of Dragon Magazine" book. No one had any huge problems with it, and, if someone did, I didn't see anything in the letters to the editors, though it's certainly possible Dragon didn't publish any.
> 
> ...





So making a lot of the people who play DnD uncomfortable is okay because it is a time honored tradition? So was paying woman less than men for the same job or making blacks drink from a differernt water fountain were at one time time honored traditions and today most people don't think it was okay.

DnD has grown from mainly young men playing it to include woman, older players, younger players. 

Woman have worked very hard to be more than just objects and to overcome centuries of ineguality and it infuriates me when I see the double standard in a hobby I enjoy. I remember the letters to Dragon over showing a bare chested man. That was a no no but showing half dressed barbie doll proportioned woman is totally acceptable.


----------



## jester47 (Jun 23, 2004)

My intention in posting the link to "Liberty Leading the People" was supopsed to be in contrast to my example about the warrior maiden.  Out of context of my post you start to factor in the symbology.  I was just trying to convey the idea I was talking about.  

Also, as a side note, at the time late 1700s early 1800s bare breasts were seen as a sign of virtue.  The idea was that a woman could show her breasts as proof they had not been "used" to rear a child.  The connection being that virtue and virginity were closely related. 

Thus when you make a game that is based on a lot of derivatives of romanitc notions, you can expect some concepts in the art of romaniticsm to show up.  In our largely repressed consumer culture this notion gets turned into the chainmail bikini due to pandering for a certain demographic.

Aaron.


----------



## adembroski3 (Jun 23, 2004)

You didn't have an option for it... 

but I am not bothered at all by nudity, my only question is "Why?". If there's no point, I don't wanna see it.

Well, I take that back... I WANT to see it, I just don't think it should be there


----------



## Fenes (Jun 23, 2004)

I am not bothered by nudity. For me, violence is more of a concern than nudity - though neither really bothers me in an RPG book. I do think, however, that anyone who considers nudity in a game book a problem and has no problem with his children happily massacring people left and right and stealing their things in a game is a hypocrite - though let me stress that I do not think either thing harms a teen.

I also don't think every book has to be child/teen proof - if I had the choice between a sanitized semi-historical sourcebook and a version which sticks more closely to history I know what I'd choose.

IMHO, anything that is ok in a teen movie is ok in a game book - and judging from today's teen comedies that's a lot of cheesecake.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 23, 2004)

I'm an anthropology student.

Trust me, showing the same audience that Topless Archers Inc. is targeting some random tropical topless tribe is going to hit them square in their libido -- there's pretty much nothing titilating about a well-rounded Amazon tribeswoman breast feeding her kid...personal tastes for me says quite the opposite actually (obviously, her husband(s) feel differently, heh).

But it makes sense in the environment (namely, a hot jungle and a kid who wants to be fed every couple of hours). That's nudity that I have no problem with.

Meanwhile, asking a Nymph to wear a diaphanous shawl is likely to get one blinded...I mean, it's basically a physical representation of untamed beauty. If it's clothed, some of that symbolism is lost. If it's not attractive, some of that symbolism is lost. And that makes the art less great, because they're concealing what it *is*, and what is on the page is not what PC's are likely to see. It basically is *required* to be titilating, because that's the entire point; it's hot... This is nudity that I've also got no problem with -- if something's supposed to be an epitome of beauty, lust, loveliness, or handsomeness, it better be that, and it probably should be nekkid.

Of course, there's no mandate as far as I can see that Nymphs have to be female...Michelangelo's David is as great a source as Venus-on-a-halfshell. Adonis, Aphrodite, Succubus, Incubus, whatever. Not titilating to me, but it probably should be to someone, and apparently unlike others, I'm aparently secure enough in my manhood to be able to see a 'tackle and rod' and not question my sexuality. 

At the same time, it's not just the rotund tribeswomen who walk around topless....some dudes walk around wearing nothing but an immense shaft of wood (some four feet long) over their alltogether, often even less, and for much the same reason that the chicks walk around without a shirt -- it's friggin' hot. There better as heck be some unattractive thuggish half-orcs walking around feeling the breeze, too.

Of course, not every critter needs to be naked, either. Sure, your odd elf chick in the jungle might not wear a top at home, but in anything like a temperate clime, even that would be scaaaarrry.....


----------



## Turanil (Jun 23, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I never considered buying any Avalanche Press products because of the silly nudity on the cover. When a publisher releases a book with a cover like that, I interpret their decision to mean, "We don't have any compelling reason for you to buy this book -- it doesn't have any useful information or compelling ideas, but here's a half-naked hottie for you."




You were right in thinking that. I bought two of their product (not because of the cover though), and found them being of bad quality...




> Anybody here bothered by the idea of making a movie that features a woman in her thirties getting jiggy in the bathtub with a ten-year-old-boy--who is played by a boy that is actually ten years old? Guess what, the movie's been made and it stars Nicole Kidman.




I guess that the ten-years-old actor will remember it for a long time, and that his friends will hear for years that he took a shower nude, with Nicole Kidman! (Now I didn't see that film: are they seen both together explicitely, or just as silhouette behind some kind of glass pan?)


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 23, 2004)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> So making a lot of the people who play DnD uncomfortable is okay because it is a time honored tradition? So was paying woman less than men for the same job or making blacks drink from a differernt water fountain were at one time time honored traditions and today most people don't think it was okay.




Way to liken artwork depicting chainmail-bikini wearing girls to sexual descrimination and racial segregation.  Yeah, that's a valid comparison.

That, kids, is what we call a strawman (excuse me, strawperson) argument.



> DnD has grown from mainly young men playing it to include woman, older players, younger players.




And the audiance is still mostly men in their teens, 20s, and 30s.

There are lots of female gamers, though.  You are right about that.  And if said female gamers publish an RPG suppliment with a muscular, shirtless barbarian man on the cover, I don't see any reason to feel uncomfortable or threatened.



> Woman have worked very hard to be more than just objects and to overcome centuries of ineguality and it infuriates me when I see the double standard in a hobby I enjoy. I remember the letters to Dragon over showing a bare chested man. That was a no no but showing half dressed barbie doll proportioned woman is totally acceptable.




Mind getting down from the cross, please?  The rest of us need the wood.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 23, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Way to liken artwork depicting chainmail-bikini wearing girls to sexual descrimination and racial segregation.  Yeah, that's a valid comparison.
> 
> That, kids, is what we call a strawman (excuse me, strawperson) argument.
> 
> ...




and this is what we like to call an insulting and inflamatory post. Nice job there. 

Its perfectly relevant to point out that the argument "its a tradition" in defense of bad ideas is nothing new and no defense. It HAS been used for many forms of discrimination, it was used when someone got around to noticing how badly my public high school screwed with the student's religious freedom, and its not a strawman. And if you can't handle someone talking about how they personally might be affected by an issue without belittling comments and insults, maybe you should go over to nutkinland for the kids without standards of conversation.

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 23, 2004)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> and this is what we like to call an insulting and inflamatory post. Nice job there.




Thank you.  I do try.



> Its perfectly relevant to point out that the argument "its a tradition" in defense of bad ideas is nothing new and no defense.




Indeed.  It is a lousy defense.



> It HAS been used for many forms of discrimination, it was used when someone got around to noticing how badly my public high school screwed with the student's religious freedom, and its not a strawman.




The definition of a strawman is an argument that is set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.  When Grodd JoJoJo mentioned that cheesecake was a D&D tradition dating back to the first edition DMG, Elf Witch stated that segregated drinking fountains and lower wages for women also used to be traditions.  Elf Witch then went on a rant about female oppression and double-standards, none of which had anything to do with Grodd JoJoJo's original post.

Elf Witch is definately guilty of using a strawman. 



> And if you can't handle someone talking about how they personally might be affected by an issue without belittling comments and insults, maybe you should go over to nutkinland for the kids without standards of conversation.




If pointing out silly arguments and rolling ones eyes at martyrish rants are wrong, then I don't want to be right.


----------



## rich (Jun 23, 2004)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> and this is what we like to call an insulting and inflamatory post. Nice job there.
> 
> Its perfectly relevant to point out that the argument "its a tradition" in defense of bad ideas is nothing new and no defense. It HAS been used for many forms of discrimination, it was used when someone got around to noticing how badly my public high school screwed with the student's religious freedom, and its not a strawman. And if you can't handle someone talking about how they personally might be affected by an issue without belittling comments and insults, maybe you should go over to nutkinland for the kids without standards of conversation.
> 
> Kahuna Burger




well, you beat me to it.  I tried to refrain from getting too irritated, but this thread has reinforced my low opinion of the "internet community." All this preaching and name-calling -- what's the point? Why do people think that everyone who disagrees with them, or states a contrary opinion, is a hyprocrite? 

In any case, I should have avoided this thread, but I happened to buy the Quint Sorceror (Mongoose) recently and was rather surprised to see two illustrations of topless women in it.  Going back through the book, most of the pics of men are "head shots," whereas just about all the pics of women are sexual.  Two topless women, one pictured covering her bare breasts with her hands, and several scantily clad women.  Even the female "head shots" have vaguely drawn but very noticable breasts included.

So are these pics in some way "relevant" to the material?  Are female sorcerors naturally more sexy than other female characters? Conversely, are male sorcerors primarily "intellectual" rather than "physical"?  Or are we to assume that historical sorcerors lived during times and in climates where clothes were deemed unnecessary?  Or perhaps most female sorcerors work as prostitutes in their spare time?

It must be obvious that many, if not most, of these illustrations are unnecessarily sexually suggestive.  Now, if that's OK with you than fine.  But don't try to excuse it by talking about historical accuracy (did historical centaur females wear blouses?) or topical relevance.  And really, how many of you are actually basing your campaigns on an accurate ancient Greek foundation?  Do you also ban all post-Bronze age weapons?  Do you use saddles or do you ride around in chariots?

Finally, I think its worth noting that the US Congress is in the process of legislating higher fines for "indecency" in the radio and television media.  Right or wrong, this is the current social/political environment -- a significant number of Americans do not want their kids exposed to "indecency."  Promoting nudity for the sake of more nudity is only going to lead to more trouble for the role-playing industry/community.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 23, 2004)

Just wanted to apologize for my perceived trolling somewhere above. In phrasing my question, I just wanted to convey my inability to understand the fears of protective parents; I really didn't want to step on anybody's toes, just illustrate my ignorance (which I succeded at, except in a slightly different sense than I intended to).

The topic seems to be too risqué for such a wording, however, and I didn't realize that in time. Thanks to all of you who didn't let themselves be goaded into something I truly didn't aim for.

Sorry,

Berandor


----------



## Zappo (Jun 23, 2004)

Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> OK, OK, I have to admit the 16-year-old boy in me snorted his lunch at the monitor when he read that. The 33-year-old father-of-3-year-old-twins in me says "why not nude-up, everyone's naked under their clothes".



It's weird that this is an answer to one of my posts, since I actually voted the fourth option on the poll and largely agree with you.  The bit you quoted just meant that nudity where it doesn't make sense (ie, chainmail bikini) is bad art.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 23, 2004)

Dark Jezter, that sort of rudeness is completely inappropriate.

Thread closed. I think the topic has been covered in plenty of detail.


----------

