# The Proper Use of Nudity in FRPG Art



## Geoffrey (Dec 29, 2007)

We MUST have nudity, and we MUST NOT have nudity.

"Huh?"

Look at the illustrations in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. They don't shy away from featuring nudity IN MONSTERS. Succubi don't wear clothes! Harpies don't wear bras! Etc. It would be a shame to illustrate them wearing clothes. You might as well draw a picture of a red dragon wearing a sweater.

On the other hand, in the AD&D core rulebooks there is not a single adventurer running around in a chainmail bikini or similar nonsense. That is NOT how an adventurer dresses. (The only possible exception is the cover of the DMG, with that scantily-clad girl in the efreeti's clutches. I do not interpret her to be an adventurer, though. I interpret her to be a slave girl.) So no "adventurer babes", PLEASE. And no "pumped-up" men, either. Look at the adventurers in the old MM encountering that giant spider. Look at the adventurers in D2: Shrine of the Kuo-toa. Look at the adventurers in the AD&D Fiend Folio. All of them are lean and mean and roughed-up. They look like they are fighting their way through dungeons. They do not look like they just finished working on their six-packs at the gym. 

Please note that I have taken my examples from the old AD&D books simply because that is what I have. I do not own the 2nd or the 3rd edition rulebooks. This thread isn't for Edition Wars.


----------



## Jolly Giant (Dec 29, 2007)

As long as the _writing _ is good, I really don't care much about the illustrations.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 29, 2007)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> (The only possible exception is the cover of the DMG, with that scantily-clad girl in the efreeti's clutches. I do not interpret her to be an adventurer, though. I interpret her to be a slave girl.)




The description inside says she's a Thief.  Presumably she has magic bracers.


----------



## Geoffrey (Dec 29, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The description inside says she's a Thief.  Presumably she has magic bracers.




I'd forgotten that! In that case, I can always think of her like Princess Leia in _Return of the Jedi_: She was wearing sensible adventurer's clothes, but after getting captured by Jabba/the efreeti, she was stripped and put in sexy slave-girl garb.


----------



## megamania (Dec 29, 2007)

I have no problem with this BUT then keep it real.  The men and women shouldn't be perfect.  Not to many super models go into combat.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 29, 2007)

Well, adventuring keeps you in good shape!  So those lithe bodies aren't unrealistic at all.

Ken


----------



## Maldin (Dec 29, 2007)

Hmmm... three personal opinions on this...

First, I think nudity in FRPG artwork is great, a historical part of the genre, and I quite enjoy it myself. Second, I can likewise also see the view that part of the market WotC is going for these days is young (heck, they need to go after that part of the market if they want to be a successful company), and as such is arguably inappropriate in core products. And lastly, I suspect this thread is doomed to drift into territories that will get it locked down. ;-)

Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com


----------



## danbuter1 (Dec 29, 2007)

I think White Wolf has it right, when it comes to art.


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Dec 29, 2007)

"FRPG?"  What's FRPG?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 29, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The description inside says she's a Thief.  Presumably she has magic bracers.




Wouldn't she draw attention, though, and isn't that bad for a thief? A bard, on the other hand...



			
				Geoffrey said:
			
		

> Succubi don't wear clothes! Harpies don't wear bras!




I would expect succubi to wear clothes... really revealing clothes, unless the art depicts a succubus in the act ... of draining energy.

It makes sense that Harpies wouldn't wear top, too. I guess artists should shy away from nudity unless they have a good reason to make the subject naked. If it's part of the concept (eg nymphs) it only makes sense.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 29, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> "FRPG?"  What's FRPG?




Fantasy RPG.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 30, 2007)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> Please note that I have taken my examples from the old AD&D books simply because that is what I have. I do not own the 2nd or the 3rd edition rulebooks.




You need to look at other stuff for comparison, then. Go to the various art galleries for the third edition books at the main site. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4arch/ag


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Dec 30, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Fantasy RPG.



There's some other kind of RPG other than fantasy?!


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 30, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> There's some other kind of RPG other than fantasy?!




Sure. Some d20 Modern games don't have any magic, Twilight2000 (is that what it's called?) doesn't, and games like Star Wars and Gamma World are closer to sci-fi than fantasy.


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Dec 30, 2007)

In my lil' ole lumpy head, it's all fantasy--regardless of genre.  Thanks for the elaboration, though!  Now I'm not sitting here wondering what FRPG means.


----------



## RSKennan (Dec 30, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> In my lil' ole lumpy head, it's all fantasy--regardless of genre.  Thanks for the elaboration, though!  Now I'm not sitting here wondering what FRPG means.




Interestingly enough, a lot of people outside the hobby refer to all RPGs as FRPGs. I've seen quasi-hip news articles that do that for everything from Star Trek games to White Wolf's stuff. These are the kinds of articles where the author tried to get the info right, but didn't quite get it completely.


----------



## Mighty Veil (Dec 30, 2007)

Nudity yes if female. Draw her hot. Elf girls should look like a supermodel. Stay away from silly "punk" or "goth" appearance to their look (that's so 90s and ugly. It would be like drawing fantasy adventurers as hippies. No one wants to play a silly hippy). If William Shatner can be Shaman than surely D&D can bring back the chainmail bikini.


----------



## roguerouge (Dec 30, 2007)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Well, adventuring keeps you in good shape!  So those lithe bodies aren't unrealistic at all.
> 
> Ken




Take a look at a naked offensive lineman after a football game sometime. Still think a barbarian's automatically going to look great?


----------



## Orius (Dec 30, 2007)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> Look at the illustrations in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. They don't shy away from featuring nudity IN MONSTERS. Succubi don't wear clothes! Harpies don't wear bras! Etc. It would be a shame to illustrate them wearing clothes. You might as well draw a picture of a red dragon wearing a sweater.





And then came the Nipple Ban, and it was all no more.  

Also, you forgot to mention Eldritch Wizardry.


----------



## Orius (Dec 30, 2007)

megamania said:
			
		

> I have no problem with this BUT then keep it real.  The men and women shouldn't be perfect.  Not to many super models go into combat.




Female adventurers will not have a starved supermodel look.  They're getting a lot of exercise, so they'll be toned.  I see it as less Kate Moss and more Xena.  Which is good.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 30, 2007)

I don't mind either way, so long as the artwork is at least OK, and is appropriate for the setting and scene.

A place for everything, and. . .

IOW, I pretty much agree with the OP.


----------



## Gundark (Dec 30, 2007)

Jolly Giant said:
			
		

> As long as the _writing _ is good, I really don't care much about the illustrations.





http://arcanaimp.com/

The art ranges from mildly terrible to downright awful. So awful in fact that it would be better if there was no art at all.


----------



## Gundark (Dec 30, 2007)

Orius said:
			
		

> Female adventurers will not have a starved supermodel look.  They're getting a lot of exercise, so they'll be toned.  I see it as less Kate Moss and more Xena.  Which is good.




Which is why I really love the new 4e art


----------



## S'mon (Dec 30, 2007)

Orius said:
			
		

> Female adventurers will not have a starved supermodel look.  They're getting a lot of exercise, so they'll be toned.  I see it as less Kate Moss and more Xena.  Which is good.




I do agree with that, and I dislike modern TV/movie fantasy or action sci-fi shows with starved-waif protagonists.  One good thing about the 2nd D&D movie was that the 'Barbarian PC' character had some flesh on her.  Also unless they are noted as having magic/superhuman strength, please keep their beat-downs/feats of strength within the bounds of marginal plausibility - a 150 lb muscular woman may beat up a muscular 300 lb man due to superior skill, but she's not likely to win an arm-wrestling contest with him.

As far as fantasy art goes, generally speaking I'm fine with semi-nudity, but there is a fine line between 'appropriate to swords & sorcery genre' and 'fetishistic'.  Sometimes, ironically, the quest for more realstic-looking characters results in very implausible looking figures, eg some of Clyde Caudwell's female art just looks like a late 20th century woman (often his gf) in fancy dress.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 30, 2007)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Take a look at a naked offensive lineman after a football game sometime. Still think a barbarian's automatically going to look great?




First the offensive lineman has access to a much richer diet than the average barbarian did and thus has access to a lot less healthy diet (ironically)

Second every Rugby player knows American Football is for pansies

Third I have seen photographs of real near naked 'barbarians' (ie warriors from pre-literate societies) and overall they had builds I'd describe as athletic becoming slightly more beefy with age...


----------



## Stormrunner (Dec 30, 2007)

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> Nudity yes if female. Draw her hot.




Hey, some of us like the beefcake too.  The nudity double standard for gender has always bugged me a little - succubi get big boobs with nipples, but a demon of lust or a handsome centaur stallion can't have balls?   

I prefer the way Donna Barr handles her centaurs.  They wear clothes on the upper half but leave the horse-half bare, and she doesn't hesitate to show the dangly bits on the stallions - but not in an erotica-type way, just if you would have been able to see it from that angle in real life, it's there in the comic.


----------



## glass (Dec 30, 2007)

Stormrunner said:
			
		

> Hey, some of us like the beefcake too.  The nudity double standard for gender has always bugged me a little - succubi get big boobs with nipples, but a demon of lust or a handsome centaur stallion can't have balls?



I agree in principal, although I much prefer to see girly bits rather than boy-y bits. 


glass.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 30, 2007)

Stormrunner said:
			
		

> Hey, some of us like the beefcake too.  The nudity double standard for gender has always bugged me a little - succubi get big boobs with nipples, but a demon of lust or a handsome centaur stallion can't have balls?




Why do people compare breasts to testicles?

When it comes to being topless -yawn- why is it even an issue? but personally 
I'd rather RPGs avoided gratuitous portrayals of human(oid) genitals of either gender unless they are really necessary


----------



## Reynard (Dec 30, 2007)

For me, adventurers and the world they live in are best depicted by Frank Frazetta.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 30, 2007)

My ideas of both my characters and the people around them run the gamut.  The males might be large/beefcakey like Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Michael Clark Duncan, and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, or they might be normal/fit types like Matt Damon, Robert DeNiro, and Denzel Washington.  The women could be small/waify/even delicate like Holly Hunter, Alyssa Milano, or Kiera Knightly, or they might be buxom, Frazetta models like Linda Carter, Lucy Lawless, and Salma Hayek.  And everything in between.

There SHOULDN'T be a single "look" to D&D any more than there should be just ONE way to play the game correctly.  The art should run the gamut just as EVERYBODY'S conception of their PC's and NPC's will.  You need cartoon AND photorealism, portraits AND landscapes, over-the-top action AND Tableaux.


----------



## Rallek (Dec 30, 2007)

I have to agree with Reynard on this one...

no one does it quite like Frazetta.


----------



## Gez (Dec 30, 2007)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Well, adventuring keeps you in good shape!




If countless scars and scratches and bruises and knocked-out teeth and burns and bad hygiene from camping outside and eating only dried old rations and the occasional mutilation count as "good shape" then yes. Yes they do.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 30, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> If countless scars and scratches and bruises and knocked-out teeth and burns and bad hygiene from camping outside and eating only dried old rations and the occasional mutilation count as "good shape" then yes. Yes they do.



 In a world with easy magical healing, successful adventurers probably look amazing. And with low-level illusion magic, probably exactly as good as they want to.


----------



## Aloïsius (Dec 30, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> *successful *adventurers probably look amazing.




And what about losers ?

I have seen full nudity used in FRPG with good taste : if some of you have access to "Reve, the dream Ouroboros", just look at some picture of the iconic characters playing in the river, or the one where the "wizardess" is struck by a temporary madness and is dancing in the rain.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> For me, adventurers and the world they live in are best depicted by Frank Frazetta.




I found the one gallery I looked at highly offensive in its portrayal of women. It's not the nudity or the outlandish proportions that annoy me. The women depicted are either submissive, or getting someone else to fight for them. I sincerely hope 4th Edition doesn't follow Frazetta's lead.


----------



## Gez (Dec 30, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> In a world with easy magical healing, successful adventurers probably look amazing.



If magical healing removes all cosmetic sequels of the wounds, yes. But it probably doesn't heal the pungent smell after the adventurers swam in the sewers and fought zombified otyughs.



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> And what about loosers ?



If they're too loose they get diseases as well. Should be more wary of these easy tavern wenches.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 31, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> And what about losers ?




They're the corpses in the background of the scene where the successful adventurers pose, silly!



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> If magical healing removes all cosmetic sequels of the wounds, yes. But it probably doesn't heal the pungent smell after the adventurers swam in the sewers and fought zombified otyughs.




Prestidigitation! Don't leave home without it!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 31, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> The women depicted are either submissive, or getting someone else to fight for them.




Let's say you were dressed like that, and being attacked by some otherworldly demon, and had a big muscley guy with a sword on hand.  Wouldn't you get him to fight for you?

Sign of intelligence, I'd say.

-Hyp.


----------



## Thurbane (Dec 31, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope 4th Edition doesn't follow Frazetta's lead.



It won't. It'll probably all be androgynous spiky haired anime types.   

For the record, I have no problem with nudity in fantasy art, and I love the artwork of the likes of Frank Frazetta, Simon Bisley, Hajime Sorayama and Olivia De Berardinis. Just remember that one person's "art" is another persons pornography. Art is quite possibly the most subjective topic in the world, and there is no mathematical right or wrong to what constitutes art - only what the individual likes...


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Let's say you were dressed like that, and being attacked by some otherworldly demon, and had a big muscley guy with a sword on hand.  Wouldn't you get him to fight for you?
> 
> Sign of intelligence, I'd say.




If Frazetta's women were really intelligent, they'd run away instead of dropping to their knees and coyly writhing about.

Why are they dressed like that? Why is it the guy that has big muscles and a sword? Why can't there be a man who gets a muscular woman to fight for him? Why isn't there even a man who gets a muscular man to fight for him? Or is every man a protector and every woman a trophy?

The point is not that the characters are behaving inappropriately based on the situation, but that the situation is inappropriate.


----------



## danbuter1 (Dec 31, 2007)

Guys, it's FANTASY! I WANT to see hot, near-to-totally nude women. If you must have a realistic look to your adventurers, feel free. But don't expect me to buy your book if it's full of ugly people.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 31, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Why are they dressed like that?




Maybe it's a hot day.



> Why is it the guy that has big muscles and a sword? Why can't there be a man who gets a muscular woman to fight for him?




Frazetta lets Elmore and Julie Bell paint the muscular women.  You have to protect your niche.

-Hyp.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a hot day.




A hot day?



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Frazetta lets Elmore and Julie Bell paint the muscular women.  You have to protect your niche.




Non-sexist art is not a 'niche'. The Player's Handbook's art should show confident men and women, so that both males and females feel enfranchised and empowered. If you have muscular men defending submissive women, you send a clear message to females that they're not an active part of this hobby. 

By comparison, would it be acceptable if Frazetta showed strong white males and females defending cowering, simpering black males and females? Would that just be 'niche protection'?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 31, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> A hot day?




A muscular woman protecting a baby from a beast... isn't that what you wanted?



> Non-sexist art is not a 'niche'. The Player's Handbook's art should show confident men and women, so that both males and females feel enfranchised and empowered. If you have muscular men defending submissive women, you send a clear message to females that they're not an active part of this hobby.
> 
> By comparison, would it be acceptable if Frazetta showed strong white males and females defending cowering, simpering black males and females? Would that just be 'niche protection'?




Surely it depends on the setting being depicted?

If the setting includes strong warriors of both genders, it makes sense for both to be depicted.  If female warriors are an unusual oddity, I wouldn't expect the art to be 50/50.

If the setting has a dark-skinned race with no martial tradition who rely on others for their protection, I'd expect the art would reflect that.

I'd expect a historic Earth setting, for example, to be weighted a long way toward the muscular men and women-in-danger end of the scale, with only the occasional example of the outlandish female warrior in the artwork.  

I'd expect a Forgotten Realms setting, on the other hand, to be more balanced, since the woman-as-warrior is not so out of place there.  Which is not to say I feel Frazetta is inappropriate; rather that he would not be the sole source of artwork to depict the setting.

-Hyp.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A muscular woman protecting a baby from a beast... isn't that what you wanted?




For an unarmed, stooped woman to be the most proactive and powerful woman in a whole page of pictures - many boasting armed, heroic men - is hardly a victory for feminism.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Surely it depends on the setting being depicted?
> 
> If the setting includes strong warriors of both genders, it makes sense for both to be depicted.  If female warriors are an unusual oddity, I wouldn't expect the art to be 50/50.
> 
> ...




The claim was that Frazetta best represents "adventurers and the world they live in". Given women can be as capable adventurers as men can, and since D&D as a whole should be as inclusive as possible, I would argue the artwork should be as balanced as possible. This art leaves female adventurers unincluded.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 31, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> For an unarmed, stooped woman to be the most proactive and powerful woman in a whole page of pictures - many boasting armed, heroic men - is hardly a victory for feminism.




But what does feminism have to do with Frazetta?



> The claim was that Frazetta best represents "adventurers and the world they live in". Given women can be as capable adventurers as men can, and since D&D as a whole should be as inclusive as possible, I would argue the artwork should be as balanced as possible. This art leaves female adventurers unincluded.




I'd say Frazetta does well at representing adventurers and the world they live in - just not all of them.  The scenes Frazetta paints are not out-of-place in an adventuring world.  They just don't give the whole picture.

-Hyp.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But what does feminism have to do with Frazetta?




The equal and fair treatment of women.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'd say Frazetta does well at representing adventurers and the world they live in - just not all of them.  The scenes Frazetta paints are not out-of-place in an adventuring world.  They just don't give the whole picture.




I'd say the picture they paint is not just incomplete, it's motivated by disturbing prejudice.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> The claim was that Frazetta best represents "adventurers and the world they live in". Given women can be as capable adventurers as men can, and since D&D as a whole should be as inclusive as possible, I would argue the artwork should be as balanced as possible. This art leaves female adventurers unincluded.




You freely admitted to checking out exactly one gallery page, and it shows.  If you go through the B&W gallery, for example, every page has at least one picture of a powerful warrior woman -- a staple of sword and sworcery fantasy as surely as damsels-in-distress and slave girls.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 31, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> You freely admitted to checking out exactly one gallery page, and it shows.  If you go through the B&W gallery, for example, every page has at least one picture of a powerful warrior woman -- a staple of sword and sworcery fantasy as surely as damsels-in-distress and slave girls.




Not just the black and whites, either - on the gallery Khuxan linked to, on a single page, we have:

[sblock]Example
Example
Example
Example[/sblock]

Let's try another page:

[sblock]Example
Example
Example
Example
Example[/sblock]

(Note - being Frazetta, some of those pictures might be considered NSFW.)

Does Frazetta evince a preference for painting heroic men and helpless women?  Sure.
Is that all he paints?  Not at all.
Do Frazetta's paintings, taken individually, fit well in a fantasy adventure setting?  Sure.  Not necessarily everyone's setting - he doesn't paint a lot of plate armour, or lightning rails and warforged, but it fits some settings just fine.
Does Frazetta's preference - not exclusive preference, demonstrably - mean that the setting his artwork fits excludes strong female characters?  Not at all.

-Hyp.


----------



## Orius (Dec 31, 2007)

Stormrunner said:
			
		

> Hey, some of us like the beefcake too.  The nudity double standard for gender has always bugged me a little - succubi get big boobs with nipples, but a demon of lust or a handsome centaur stallion can't have balls?




Except that a centaur will probably be hung like a horse -- literally.   I'd imagine they're anatomically similar to equines.   Not sure how arousing that would be, since I'm neither into men or animals.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 31, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I would argue the artwork should be as balanced as possible. This art leaves female adventurers unincluded.




While I do like Frazetta art and I don't like the tone of these posts, I do agree that D&D art should include female adventurer types - including fully dressed ones - and Frazetta wouldn't be right as the sole source of D&D art.  Not that there's any chance of that.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Frazetta wouldn't be right as the sole source of D&D art.




To be fair, all I said is that Frazetta makes awesome depictions of what adventurers and their world should be _to me_ -- but then, I am much more of a sword and sorcery fan than a high-fantasy fan, so there you go.  My D&D games tend to be rated R, not in a "heh, heh" kind of way, but just in a "sex, gore and violence are as much fantasy as dragons, demons and elves" kind of way. YMMV, of course.


----------



## Ottergame (Dec 31, 2007)

I'm all for art being as cheesecakey and offensive as the artist wants it to be.  I don't care who feels offended by it.  If an artist wants to draw weak women with huge bare boobies, good for him.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2007)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> I'm all for art being as cheesecakey and offensive as the artist wants it to be.  I don't care who feels offended by it.  If an artist wants to draw weak women with huge bare boobies, good for him.




I don't think artistic freedom is the issue here -- it is to what degree should nudity be shown in D&D books.  Personally, I think that some bare breasts are a good thing, so long as they are "appropriate."

EDIT: Also, I am biased because I think the women in Frazetta's work are uber-hawtness, far more so than the elven runway types of Elmore or the oiled up bodybuilder chicks of Vallejo.


----------



## Gez (Dec 31, 2007)

Stormrunner said:
			
		

> I prefer the way Donna Barr handles her centaurs.  They wear clothes on the upper half but leave the horse-half bare, and she doesn't hesitate to show the dangly bits on the stallions - but not in an erotica-type way, just if you would have been able to see it from that angle in real life, it's there in the comic.



So boobies have to be covered, but genitalia can be exposed? Janet Jackson's nipplegate truly has ravaged the moral landscape.



			
				Khuxan said:
			
		

> The equal and fair treatment of women.



What does the equal and fair treatment of women has to do with Frazetta?



			
				Khuxan said:
			
		

> I'd say the picture they paint is not just incomplete, it's motivated by disturbing prejudice.



It's fantasy. Fantasy is _built_ on disturbing prejudice. Fantasy breathes, eats, and drinks disturbing prejudice.

So, either every single registered member of this messageboard is an immature fascist, sexist, racist and chauvinist pig; or we're able to distance ourselves from the tropes and clichés of the genre.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 31, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> To be fair, all I said is that Frazetta makes awesome depictions of what adventurers and their world should be _to me_ -- but then, I am much more of a sword and sorcery fan than a high-fantasy fan, so there you go.  My D&D games tend to be rated R, not in a "heh, heh" kind of way, but just in a "sex, gore and violence are as much fantasy as dragons, demons and elves" kind of way. YMMV, of course.




I agree re awesomeness of the art, but it's not very close to the kind of world presented by the D&D rules, in which most warrior characters wear full plate armour, not loincloths.


----------



## Ottergame (Dec 31, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I don't think artistic freedom is the issue here -- it is to what degree should nudity be shown in D&D books.  Personally, I think that some bare breasts are a good thing, so long as they are "appropriate."
> 
> EDIT: Also, I am biased because I think the women in Frazetta's work are uber-hawtness, far more so than the elven runway types of Elmore or the oiled up bodybuilder chicks of Vallejo.




Sure, I just wish nudity in RPGs would get over the snickering peanut gallery mode, and show some _fully nude men_.  

It's hard to say RPGs have "appropriate" or "realistic" nudity when you see full, voluminous hooters bouncing around but they always find creative ways to hide little tinkly-winkly.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2007)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> Sure, I just wish nudity in RPGs would get over the snickering peanut gallery mode, and show some ****.




I think you just made Eric's Grandma blush.



> It's hard to say RPGs have "appropriate" or "realistic" nudity when you see full, voluminous hooters bouncing around but they always find creative ways to hide little tinkly-winkly.




The equivalent of showing bared female breasts isn't showing a penis.  But then, I agree with you and think that nudity in general is not only not offensive, but rather attractive.  In America at least, we are (sadly) far more comfortable with and tolerant of gore and violence than we are naughty bits or bad words.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 31, 2007)

Grandma asks that you folks start watching your language in here.


----------



## Ottergame (Dec 31, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Grandma asks that you folks start watching your language in here.




Whoops, so noted.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 31, 2007)

danbuter1 said:
			
		

> Guys, it's FANTASY! I WANT to see hot, near-to-totally nude women. If you must have a realistic look to your adventurers, feel free. But don't expect me to buy your book if it's full of ugly people.



I'm going to ditto this for me. While I understand that some out there value realism and the like, for me and my buying dollar, I'd much _rather_ have completely unrealistic nonsense of the female persuasion!

In any case, I think WotC (and publishers in general) are doing it about right for their particular target audiences.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 31, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I'm going to ditto this for me. While I understand that some out there value realism and the like, for me and my buying dollar, I'd much _rather_ have completely unrealistic nonsense of the female persuasion!




Why only of the female persuasion? Let's have a little equality in the art, please.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 31, 2007)

> It's fantasy. Fantasy is built on disturbing prejudice. Fantasy breathes, eats, and drinks disturbing prejudice.
> 
> So, either every single registered member of this messageboard is an immature fascist, sexist, racist and chauvinist pig; or we're able to distance ourselves from the tropes and clichés of the genre.




This.

Fantasy is built on legends and fairie tales, which existed to drive home the lessons of their eras. In most earlier eras, some of the most predominant lessons were "boys and girls are different," "boys fight wars and girls make babies," "people who speak different languages are idiot thugs," "slavery is our divine right," and "kings are just better than you."

D&D culls from this history. Every time we save a princess from a dragon, we're telling a tale of Christian conversion. Every time we kill something and take it's stuff, we're reliving Manifest Destiny. Not directly, not always conciously, but on some level, we're rehersing those lessons.

Now, I don't believe that D&D should at all be *bound* by this history. The empowered women archetype may be a recent one, but it's one with a lot of resnonance in our culture, and it should be embraced. But the damnsel in distress is a more persistent archetype, and claiming that every time it is displayed is tantamount to sexism is being hyper-sensitive, at the least.

But take that Frazetta picture of the woman in the snow with the baby and the wolves. That's one of those situations adventurers might stumble upon in the forest, and have to help out with. Adventurers like Vadania or Lidda or Miallee or Alhandra, powerful women characters. The existence of the vulnerable woman type doesn't mean that the strong woman type doesn't also exist.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 31, 2007)

Gez said:
			
		

> It's fantasy. Fantasy is _built_ on disturbing prejudice. Fantasy breathes, eats, and drinks disturbing prejudice.
> 
> So, either every single registered member of this messageboard is an immature fascist, sexist, racist and chauvinist pig; or we're able to distance ourselves from the tropes and clichés of the genre.



Very well said.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 31, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Why only of the female persuasion? Let's have a little equality in the art, please.



Because I'm a guy? I made very clear in my post that it was my personal preferences.

Screw "equality" in art, for me and my preferences.


----------



## Thurbane (Jan 1, 2008)

I'm not familiar with the artist, but I think this is a great presentation of a strong female barbarian/half-orc, and firmly in the Frazetta/Bisley art style:


----------



## Jhulae (Jan 1, 2008)

Historically, there are many places around the world where both men and women were topless (such as ancient Egypt) and/or wore translucent garments.  I wouldn't have any objections to pictures of adventurers from Mulhorand (in FR) being dressed in typical ancient Egyptian styles of clothing, as Mulhorand is modelled after that era.  (And, in one campaign, I played a sorcerer who dressed that way, wearing just a kalisiris.)

That style of art wouldn't be appropriate for all depictions of adventurers though.

I guess, the point boils down to the fact that I have no problem with nudity in art as long as it's appropriate to the piece.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 1, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Because I'm a guy? I made very clear in my post that it was my personal preferences.
> 
> Screw "equality" in art, for me and my preferences.




I'm a guy too,  and I'd rather have a healthier hobby with people of both sexes then a bunch of cheesecake art. You know, maybe some books I can show a girlfriend.

Of course, the cheesecake art has never done much for me anyway. The women in the art of D&D that have caught my eye have been like the Dark Hunter in the Complete Warrior or the Earth Gensai in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting; not cheesecake at all.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 1, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Because I'm a guy? I made very clear in my post that it was my personal preferences.
> 
> Screw "equality" in art, for me and my preferences.



 I'm a guy too and I'd much rather see naked women than naked men, but I'd also much rather have art in the books that more people than just me can appreciate. And that goes not just for art but rules, flavor and everything else. Unless I wanted D&D to fail completely, I'd have to be incredibly shortsighted to want it to cater only to my tastes and nobody else's.


----------



## danbuter1 (Jan 1, 2008)

To put it simply, if you put in pictures of naked men, there are going to be a LOT of teenage boys who WON'T buy the game.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 1, 2008)

danbuter1 said:
			
		

> To put it simply, if you put in pictures of naked men, there are going to be a LOT of teenage boys who WON'T buy the game.




And there'd be some who would!


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jan 2, 2008)

In the gallery Khuxan posted, I note just as many pictures of women in positions of power (commanding/riding/summoning monsters, etc.) as pictures of women being saved by muscular men.  I don't think there's all that much "inequality" going on in that artwork as Khuxan thinks there is.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 2, 2008)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Why only of the female persuasion? Let's have a little equality in the art, please.



I think equity should take a far distant back seat to supply being proportional to demand.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 2, 2008)

As far as 'equality in the art' goes, I think that if you want Feminist fantasy like Darkover you can play a Feminist game, eg Blue Rose, and that game's art should reflect its content.  Likewise If you want a Conanesque game, the art should reflect the content, so Frazetta would be appropriate.  D&D is neither Darkover nor Conan, and should have its own style or styles.  Not every female character depicted in D&D art should be large-bosomed and scantily clad, but nor should such art be banned from the game in the name of Feminist concepts of equality.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 2, 2008)

Bloggleblogblogblog.....


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 2, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> I'm a guy too, and I'd rather have a healthier hobby





			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> I'm a guy too and I'd much rather see naked women than naked men, but I'd also much rather have art in the books that more people than just me can appreciate. And that goes not just for art but rules, flavor and everything else. Unless I wanted D&D to fail completely, I'd have to be incredibly shortsighted to want it to cater only to my tastes and nobody else's.



Bully for you guys. Me and my personal preferences are not a charity. You asked your question, and I gave you the answer. (And note that my personal preferences are _not_ up for debate.)

_Again_, I made quite clear in my first post that I think WotC (and publishers in general) are doing it about right for their particular target audiences. "Shortsighted"? Pffft. Please be aware that "likes" and "expectations" are two entirely different things.


----------



## Ulrick (Jan 2, 2008)

Let's face the old cliche, sex sells. 

As for nudity in Fantasy Artwork, I have no problem with it, as long as it is tastefully done and doesn't discourage women (or men) from entering the hobby. A friend of mine, a female gamer, after seeing a book of fantasy artwork at a bookstore, told me that she wasn't really offended by the nudity, but was offended by how the women were depicted. She didn't like that some of the artwork had women in various states of bondage or abuse.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 3, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think equity should take a far distant back seat to supply being proportional to demand.




Do we really know what the demand is? Furthermore, from a business sense, it's not worth doing things that make a large part of your audience a little more happy if it will totally drive off some part of your audience.


----------



## Leontodon (Jan 8, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think equity should take a far distant back seat to supply being proportional to demand.




Could not say it any better  .
Does any one here really think that the art determines wether women will play or not? Get used to the fact that gaming is a hobby which is largely a boy domain (girls welcome) as is playing counterstrike and collecting battletech miniatures. And I would never have bought a book featuring half-naked men as the 13 year old boy who started playing.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Do we really know what the demand is?



No, but we know it isn't anywhere near to equity.



> Furthermore, from a business sense, it's not worth doing things that make a large part of your audience a little more happy if it will totally drive off some part of your audience.



Different arguement.  The assumption in place before my reply was that nudity would be present and the distribution was in question.  
That said, I'm not certain the net effect would be negative.  Maybe.  Maybe not.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2008)

Leontodon said:
			
		

> Could not say it any better  .
> Does any one here really think that the art determines wether women will play or not? Get used to the fact that gaming is a hobby which is largely a boy domain (girls welcome) as is playing counterstrike and collecting battletech miniatures. And I would never have bought a book featuring half-naked men as the 13 year old boy who started playing.



Thanks.

However, I do think it has an impact.  Like I said, I'm not clear on how much or even which direction the net effect would be.  But I've no doubt that a negative effect on attracting female players would exist.  And I agree that WotC is pretty much on track with a more reserved approach.  But if they did choose to use it more, "equity" would be just silly.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 8, 2008)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I found the one gallery I looked at highly offensive in its portrayal of women. It's not the nudity or the outlandish proportions that annoy me. The women depicted are either submissive, or getting someone else to fight for them. I sincerely hope 4th Edition doesn't follow Frazetta's lead.



I find the idea that a so-called fantasy fan wouldn't like Frank Frazetta offensive.


----------



## havard (Jan 8, 2008)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> You might as well draw a picture of a red dragon wearing a sweater.




LOL! I would love to see that   

Havard


----------



## orsal (Jan 8, 2008)

Leontodon said:
			
		

> Does any one here really think that the art determines wether women will play or not?




Well, let's see... two sentences down the same post you write



			
				Leontodon said:
			
		

> And I would never have bought a book featuring half-naked men as the 13 year old boy who started playing.




If that's true, then the artwork does have some effect.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 8, 2008)

orsal said:
			
		

> Well, let's see... two sentences down the same post you write
> 
> If that's true, then the artwork does have some effect.



Are you suggesting that when he was a 13 year old boy that he was actually... a woman?


----------



## orsal (Jan 8, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that when he was a 13 year old boy that he was actually... a woman?




No. I'm suggesting that, if he's granting that the existence of naked depictions of his own sex would have had a repellent effect on him, it's fair to assume that there are some other people on whom it could have a similar effect.


----------



## FickleGM (Jan 8, 2008)

orsal said:
			
		

> No. I'm suggesting that, if he's granting that the existence of naked depictions of his own sex would have had a repellent effect on him, it's fair to assume that there are some other people on whom it could have a similar effect.



 That's crazy.  Women like looking at naked women.  I've seen it on cable...


----------



## Anti-Sean (Jan 8, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> That's crazy.  Women like looking at naked women.  I've seen it on cable...



I saw that one, too!

Amber: "Sorry I'm late for the game! I hope Brad isn't going to be mad!"
Bambi: "Oh, don't worry about him; that stupid boyfriend of mine decided to go out drinking with his friends instead of running our D&D game."
Amber: "Oh, darn! And I'm so close to leveling up!"
Bambi: "Don't worry, Amber... I'll run a game just for the two of us." *starts massaging Amber's shoulders*
Amber: "That sounds like fun! *tee hee* Oops, I dropped my dice, and all my clothes fell off!"

(etc. etc...)

I did get a big kick out of the cover for Iron Lords of Jupiter turning the aforementioned S&S protective man/submissive woman image trope on its end:


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jan 9, 2008)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I found the one gallery I looked at




Frazetta is pretty much the _ne plus ultra_ of fantasy artists. I'd suggest looking at more than one single online gallery so as to have an informed opinion, as the examples posted by others have obviated your objections. Perhaps browse the http://frazettaartgallery.com/ff/index.html  or view the very, very good documentary Painting With Fire.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 9, 2008)

Frank Frazetta makes Frank Miller feel inadequate as a man.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jan 9, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Take a look at a naked offensive lineman after a football game sometime. Still think a barbarian's automatically going to look great?



Did you have to go there?  While I understand your point...uggghhh *shudder*  I may not be able to sleep tonight.   
[voice in head]Must mentally....wash imagine from.....brain....need bleach....can't......stop....arrrghhh!!!![/voice in head]


----------



## Set (Jan 9, 2008)

With Frazetta as a classic of the fantasy genre, I'd have to say that the proper use of nudity in fantasy artwork is 'gratuitous.'

If there is indeed anyone whose innocence was shattered by the free-range Succubus boobies in the 1st edition Monster Manual, well gosh, I'm sorry to hear it, but I seem to have escaped that terrible trauma.

The only time nudity is bad is when it's someone like Paris Hilton or Kid Rock, and innocent viewers are left flailing around blindly, traumatized by the unspeakable horror.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 17, 2009)

Gez said:


> It's fantasy. Fantasy is _built_ on disturbing prejudice. Fantasy breathes, eats, and drinks disturbing prejudice.
> 
> So, either every single registered member of this messageboard is an immature fascist, sexist, racist and chauvinist pig; or we're able to distance ourselves from the tropes and clichés of the genre.



Re-QFT'd.


----------



## Hereticus (May 18, 2009)

Set said:


> With Frazetta as a classic of the fantasy genre, I'd have to say that the proper use of nudity in fantasy artwork is 'gratuitous.'
> 
> If there is indeed anyone whose innocence was shattered by the free-range Succubus boobies in the 1st edition Monster Manual, well gosh, I'm sorry to hear it, but I seem to have escaped that terrible trauma.
> 
> The only time nudity is bad is when it's someone like Paris Hilton or Kid Rock, and innocent viewers are left flailing around blindly, traumatized by the unspeakable horror.




I second this.

I picture most astral/elemental creatures as being androgynous, with gender only mattering to creatures that are designed to seduce mortals.


----------



## Darrell (May 18, 2009)

prosfilaes said:


> Do we really know what the demand is? Furthermore, from a business sense, it's not worth doing things that make a large part of your audience a little more happy if it will totally drive off some part of your audience.




Tell that to WotC.  They released 4e knowing it would make a large part of their audience happy and would drive off a smaller part of their audience; and some of that smaller part of the audience _did_ leave.  Doesn't seem to have really hurt Wizards all that much, though, does it?

If the majority opinion of a market has a positive view of a sales tactic (and that includes the use of nudity in artwork), and a minority has a negative view of that tactic, it's a perfectly reasonable approach to chase after the larger segment of the market and let the smaller segment fend for themselves.


----------



## Nifft (May 18, 2009)

danbuter1 said:


> I think White Wolf has it right, when it comes to art.



 I dunno. I've found it difficult to read recent Exalted books in public.

The Proper Use, IMHO, would be on whatever pages don't have interesting words on them. And don't face pages with interesting words, either.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Starfox (May 18, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> So no "adventurer babes", PLEASE. And no "pumped-up" men, either.




You are not against sexism then, but against erotic art? Sorry, I have to disagree. I love erotic art and so do a lot of people. Modern moralists are trying to make erotic art a gender issue, where it is really not - they are just trying to force their values upon others.

Moralism is a sexual orientation, and its a bad one because its non-consensual - moralists want to force their value on others who do not want to participate. Very few other sexual orientations do that, and those who do are generally persecuted - rightly.


----------



## FeministGamer (May 18, 2009)

::Waves:: Hi, female gamer here.  Proud owner of a set of "D's" Now that I'm getting closer to 40, I've no desire to go running around in a silly little costume, at least outside certain..um confines.

My husband is an artist.  Our kids have grown up around art of all sorts.  

As a mom, I've never had a desire to suddenly clothe pieces of history.  Cover up Michaelangelo's David from my daughter.  Cover my son's eyes in the presence of a Reubens.  

Game books have been a household staple, and my daughter has certainly never thought that she had to wait on a prince charming to swoop in and save her.  She likes being a princess, but she would pick up a sword with her tiara and go off to save the day on her own.  

And really, there are many Royo's I adore.  

I think there just comes a point where we all need to realize that fantasy is fantasy and we need to put on our OOC panties and move on.


----------



## Umbran (May 18, 2009)

Starfox said:


> Modern moralists are trying to make erotic art a gender issue, where it is really not - they are just trying to force their values upon others.
> 
> Moralism is a sexual orientation...




Okay, so asking for art in RPG products not be sexual is now being logically equated to a non-consensual sexual act.

That's not acceptable.   Don't go down this road, folks.

This is going to be very simple.  People in this thread will tone down the rhetoric, or they won't be in the thread any more.  Don't expect further warning on the matter.


----------



## S'mon (May 18, 2009)

Starfox said:


> ...Moralism is a sexual orientation...




No it's not.


----------



## Richards (May 19, 2009)

FeministGamer said:


> Proud owner of a set of "D's"



...Dice?  

Johnathan

(Welcome to EN World, by the way!)


----------



## Dire Bare (May 19, 2009)

As has been noted by some level-headed folks here, WotC (and TSR before them) has been rather conservative when it comes to "classic" cheesecake in fantasy art . . . since the 2nd Edition of the game.

Many of us fantasy fans, male and female, enjoy that classic cheesecake fantasy art, myself included.  Some don't.  It's all good.

But, the question is (or should be), should WotC up the cheesecake quotient in the art direction for D&D?

While I'd probably enjoy it myself, I don't think they should do that.  And I doubt they will.  As others have stated upthread, WotC is trying to target as wide a demographic as possible for D&D.  Going back to cheesecake would please some (no doubt), but would alienate too many (and their parents too).  Sales would drop, D&D would be in jeopardy.

So, I'm happy with the overall art direction WotC has been pursuing quite well throughout 3rd and 4th Edition.  I get my cheesecake from other quality sources!


----------



## steenan (May 19, 2009)

I prefer not to have eroticism in RPG books. Or, maybe, to have it limited to a few places where it really fits (non-erotic picture of a succubus or a nymph would be worse than no picture at all).

That does not mean that I strongly oppose partial or complete nudity, male or female. It is perfectly possible to create nude pictures with no strong erotic themes and to create pictures that contain no direct nudity, but are erotic nonetheless. 

I would gladly see a picture of an adventuring party during or after a battle (all sensibly armed and armored, dirty, bloody and tired) and, a few pages further, the same party at their camp in the morning (a wizard studying his book, others taking a bath in a stream, nude, laughing at him). A young tribal of any sex, armed, partially or fully nude, covered in war paint or tatoos, would also be ok. 
What I don't want to see is female warriors with huge breasts and unarmored bellies, sorceresses in high heels and male barbarians that look like culturist models, all posed as if during some kind of a show.


----------



## Lwaxy (May 19, 2009)

I don't have issues with nudity, and I don't mind that the majority of half-naked people in fantasy art is female. I am just annoyed about the illogical situations females are portrayed in. I don't even mean the shiny knight rescuing the little blonde slave or stuff like that. But a half naked woman with a half naked baby in the snow? Or the warrior woman in a leather bra and a thong? Yeah, that makes so much sense... 

I don't think many people would want to see a lot of half naked men though. Not even the females.


----------



## Wepwawet (May 19, 2009)

Lwaxy said:


> I don't think many people would want to see a lot of half naked men though. Not even the females.



I would!

I just wish D&D had more male barbarians in undergarments.


EDIT: Anyway, I believe the male and female body is beautiful. It's very artistic. As long as it is done decently, of course.
It's not like people use their D&D books as erotica.


----------



## Dausuul (May 19, 2009)

The way I see it, RPG art should portray characters in reasonable ways. There's nothing wrong with portraying sexy characters. The problem crops up when characters are portrayed in sexual ways in situations where that makes no sense.

I have no problem with a female barbarian in a short leather tunic, with bare, sleekly muscled arms and legs, crouched in a fighting stance. That's sexy but not sexual.

Similarly, a succubus in dominatrix gear and a come-hither pose is fine. She's a succubus, that's what they do. It's sexual, but appropriate.

Where I start to have problems is when the barbarian is in dominatrix gear and a come-hither pose. (Unless it's depicted as a bedroom scene, which could be really funny; maybe throw in a chained-up male wizard, with the traditional long grey hair and beard, stripped to a loincloth with a terrified look on his face.) That conveys the idea that the barbarian is there, not to be a ferocious warrior hacking through hordes of monsters, but to be a pin-up girl for the male adventurers - or, rather, the male players.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (May 19, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> The way I see it, RPG art should portray characters in reasonable ways. There's nothing wrong with portraying sexy characters. The problem crops up when characters are portrayed in sexual ways in situations where that makes no sense.
> 
> I have no problem with a female barbarian in leather with bare, sleekly muscled arms and legs, crouched in a fighting stance. That's sexy but not sexual.
> 
> ...



Totally agree, my biggest gripe with fantasy art is impractical gear, high heels on females and armour with holes or handles. I also rather that the warroir women look like they could do the business. I dislike the waif look in real life, so I would rather not see in Fantasy art either.

That said, I do not see WoTC or anyone else changing their art policy in the near future.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (May 19, 2009)

IMO nudity in art is a welcome sight. I've seen "Equality-this" and "Sexist-that" but realy, how many man-nipples must I wade through before I see a single boob?
On the same note, I hate, HATE the idea that "Oh, we're not allowed to show nipples, but lets suggest nudity anyhow" mindset I've seen far too often. If you want to paint a naked breast... PAINT A NAKED BREAST don't hide it with hair, a sword, a badly mutated arm, a pet, another character's body part, or anything of the sort in the way. If you don't want to show a naked breast... DON'T SHOW A NAKED BREAST. Bras, Bikini tops, shirts, sports tops, chainmail bikinis, and so on were invented for just such an occasion where nipples were meant to be hidden.

Art is art, the only reason nudity in art is viewed as bad is because (up tight) parents think its bad and tell other (up tight) parents that it's bad and the children only think its bad because their parents say so.


----------



## Dausuul (May 19, 2009)

Lord Xtheth said:


> Bras, Bikini tops, shirts, sports tops, chainmail bikinis, and so on were invented for just such an occasion where nipples were meant to be hidden.




I would much prefer total nudity to a chainmail bikini. There are plenty of reasons why adventurers, male or female, might be naked. Maybe they took off their clothes to swim through a subterranean lake. Maybe they were captured and stripped of all their gear. Maybe they got in a fight with a marilith and their clothes were shredded to the point of uselessness (though in that case, they ought to be covered in sword cuts). A chainmail bikini, on the other hand, has no conceivable justification other than the erotic.

Of course, if we're going to have naked women, it's only fair to the female fans to throw in some naked men as well...


----------



## shilsen (May 19, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> I would much prefer total nudity to a chainmail bikini. There are plenty of reasons why adventurers, male or female, might be naked. Maybe they took off their clothes to swim through a subterranean lake. Maybe they were captured and stripped of all their gear. Maybe they got in a fight with a marilith and their clothes were shredded to the point of uselessness (though in that case, they ought to be covered in sword cuts). A chainmail bikini, on the other hand, has no conceivable justification other than the erotic.




Agreed. And stupidly erotic, IMNSHO.



> Of course, if we're going to have naked women, it's only fair to the female fans to throw in some naked men as well...




And some male fans as well. Besides the fact that a number of non-heterosexuals play the game, a number of heterosexual men are capable of appreciating an attractive and well-drawn male nude just as a number of heterosexual women would appreciate an attractive and well-drawn female nude.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 19, 2009)

Tonguez said:


> Why do people compare breasts to testicles



I guess you haven't seen a good pair of shorts that gives good testicleavage!

On a note more related to this thread: I don't find the change in female nudity over the years very significant, but I am glad for a big change in make adventurers. From Dragonlance through early 2E, every male adventurer was also a member of ZZ-Top.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 19, 2009)

Khuxan said:


> By comparison, would it be acceptable if Frazetta showed strong white males and females defending cowering, simpering black males and females? Would that just be 'niche protection'?



Not only this. Additionally, if almost every picture in a work, where black men and women were involved, has this theme, the work as a whole is sending a message.

Of course, in reality, there aren't really any pictures of black people in most RPG works. Perhaps this requires another thread.


----------



## Barastrondo (May 19, 2009)

Lord Xtheth said:


> Bras, Bikini tops, shirts, sports tops, chainmail bikinis, and so on were invented for just such an occasion where nipples were meant to be hidden.




Well, and also because over a certain cup size, things like bras and particularly sports bras can be more practical than simply letting things go as they may, particularly with active movement. There's a reason that "lift and separate" became a phrase, and it's not because the oppressive society wouldn't let bra marketing say "hide your nipples." Art is art, but where gaming is concerned I tend to prefer illustration to titillation. The latter is far easier to find on one's own on the internet.

Me, I'm also in the camp that would just like art that's good and makes sense. Sexy revealing outfits for both genders are fine, but honestly I'd also like to see zero instances of plate armor that protects every body part but that daring splash of cleavage and, presumably, the heart and lungs you've got stored behind it. Succubi in outrageous outfits are fine, but also throw in some incubi examples of hypersexualized male perfection while you're at it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2009)

Kwalish Kid said:


> I guess you haven't seen a good pair of shorts that gives good testicleavage!
> 
> On a note more related to this thread: I don't find the change in female nudity over the years very significant, but I am glad for a big change in make adventurers. From Dragonlance through early 2E, every male adventurer was also a member of ZZ-Top.



I am not asexual. I like good looking women. I like looking at nudity. 

But... There is place for everything. 
I would prefer avoiding "stupid" clothing and armor. And I don't mind if there is an "equal opportunity" thing going on. An attractive male can be someone I can "pretend" to be, just like I pretend to be an elf or a wizard. 

Maybe the real trick is to allow artwork people identify with, not merely objectify. I don't want to be a helpless man in tight leather. I can't imagine women feeling any different about that. 
But being attractive, strong, elegant or sexy? I think there are few who wouldn't want to be that, men and women alike. 
Even scars can be cool. Where did they come from, what story do they tell? And I doubt it's all that hard for a real artist to draw scars that are "sexy". Sure, "realistic" scars might not be, but it might still be more realistic than chainmail bikinis.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 19, 2009)

I have no problem with nudity in fantasy art. Depending on the context of the individual work, nudity can be rather sexy or hilarious. The blond thief in the bikini on the cover of the 1E DMG is rather sensibly dressed when considering the environment. If she were covered head to toe in heavy leather armor in the heat of that place it would be more unbelievable.

Likewise, a woman depicted in a frozen tundra wearing only a fur swimsuit and leg warmers is funny and hard to take seriously. Such pictures can be very sexy and extremely funny at the same time. There are numerous pieces of fantasy art that make me giggle and think "that's hawt" at the same time.

To be deeply "bothered" by such things is a concept I don't understand.


----------



## Umbran (May 19, 2009)

Folks,

You know the rules - no backtalk to mods in-thread.  Please, avoid hyperbole, and keep things grandma-friendly.


----------



## Barastrondo (May 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have no problem with nudity in fantasy art. Depending on the context of the individual work, nudity can be rather sexy or hilarious. The blond thief in the bikini on the cover of the 1E DMG is rather sensibly dressed when considering the environment. If she were covered head to toe in heavy leather armor in the heat of that place it would be more unbelievable.




Yes, but in that same piece you have two men dressed head-to-toe, one in heavy cloth, one in metal armor. It's a bit of a double-standard. The artist may have been trying to depict "look, women are smarter than men because they wear bikinis to fight efreet when it's hot" — but if that's the case, he didn't do a really good job of showing her as more effective than her two (non-grabbed) friends. And I honestly doubt that was the intent.



> To be deeply "bothered" by such things is a concept I don't understand.




I wouldn't say I'm deeply bothered by it, but I'm lightly bothered by the double standard. If the two guys on the cover of the DMG were also in thongs, baring their muscular buttocks for the viewer's pleasure, there are fewer people who would leap to the artist's defense out of principle. Still plenty, thankfully, but still fewer.

It's worth bearing in mind, though, that overall pop culture is just not where it was in the seventies. The local rack of fantasy novels isn't teeming with covers depicting scantily-clad barbarians and their equally scantily-clad conquests as much as it was. Things like Wheel of Time and Song of Ice and Fire and Harry Potter and Golden Compass have all done their part of changing the general fantasy zeitgeist. The LotR movies made Eowyn a more widely visible swordswoman than Red Sonja.

The original AD&D art is, in part, a product of its time. It hails back to wizards and barbarians being airbrushed on the sides of vans, and to drive-in movies that Joe Bob Briggs would rate on the number of exposed breasts. Unless the zeitgeist returns, that particular brand of nudity in game art is probably unlikely to become the norm.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (May 20, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> I would much prefer total nudity to a chainmail bikini. There are plenty of reasons why adventurers, male or female, might be naked. Maybe they took off their clothes to swim through a subterranean lake. Maybe they were captured and stripped of all their gear. Maybe they got in a fight with a marilith and their clothes were shredded to the point of uselessness (though in that case, they ought to be covered in sword cuts). A chainmail bikini, on the other hand, has no conceivable justification other than the erotic.
> 
> Of course, if we're going to have naked women, it's only fair to the female fans to throw in some naked men as well...




Thats kind of my point though. If the scene has naked people in it... let there be naked people in it. If you CAN'T let naked people be in the scene then don't even put people pretending to be naked in the scene.

Theres a reason that that one Natalie Portman movie where she's a stripper (But never seen naked) flopped and made no money. Because you watch stripper movies to see naked people... the same thing goes for naked people in art. Don't fake nudity to show naked people... show naked people to show naked people...

sorry for the rant... I'm just realy annoyed that the artists know they can't paint a boobie... but then paint a breast with some random thing covering it...


----------



## pawsplay (May 20, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Me, I'm also in the camp that would just like art that's good and makes sense. Sexy revealing outfits for both genders are fine, but honestly I'd also like to see zero instances of plate armor that protects every body part but that daring splash of cleavage and, presumably, the heart and lungs you've got stored behind it. Succubi in outrageous outfits are fine, but also throw in some incubi examples of hypersexualized male perfection while you're at it.




"Hypersexualized male perfection." Something about that phrase just makes my day.


----------



## Leatherhead (May 20, 2009)

I wonder if anyone realizes this thread is nearly a year-and-a-half old.


----------



## Dausuul (May 20, 2009)

Lord Xtheth said:


> Thats kind of my point though. If the scene has naked people in it... let there be naked people in it. If you CAN'T let naked people be in the scene then don't even put people pretending to be naked in the scene.




While I share your irritation with the knee-jerk "the world will end if anyone sees a bare breast or genitals" attitude, it is what it is.  If artists have to engage in a little sleight of hand to comply with that restriction, well, I can't blame them. Artists can't sell covers that publishers won't buy, publishers won't buy what bookstores won't stock, and bookstores won't stock what the buying public won't tolerate.

And for the reasons I gave above, I would rather see a character naked (even if that entails some strategically placed hair or a sword held at just the right angle) than wearing a chainmail bikini or something similar.


----------



## avin (May 20, 2009)

Add me to "full naked before chainmail bikini" team. 

I see no reason a fighter should use a bikini plate and I see no reason a succubus or a nymph should wear clothes at all.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 20, 2009)

avin said:


> Add me to "full naked before chainmail bikini" team.
> 
> I see no reason a fighter should use a bikini plate and I see no reason a succubus or a nymph should wear clothes at all.



Bikini Plate? Only Glamored Armor. 

Nymph? Maybe it's cold in the pond or she's undercover, looking for adventurers to help her?

Succubus? She is undercover, tempting and manipulating mortals.


----------



## FeministGamer (May 24, 2009)

Richards said:


> ...Dice?
> 
> Johnathan
> 
> (Welcome to EN World, by the way!)





Heh!  Yep...D-38s!
(Thanks!)


----------



## Deuce Traveler (May 24, 2009)

I just wanted to say what a great thread title.  I love the amount of views this thread has generated.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (May 24, 2009)

FeministGamer said:


> ::Waves:: Hi, female gamer here. Proud owner of a set of "D's"





FeministGamer said:


> Heh! Yep...D-38s!




first welcome...then Darn I am jealous.




> Game books have been a household staple, and my daughter has certainly never thought that she had to wait on a prince charming to swoop in and save her. She likes being a princess, but she would pick up a sword with her tiara and go off to save the day on her own.






Yea, I have always been more the “I want a guy who can keep up” and less “I want a guy to save me” I guess you could say more princess leia like then less modern fantasy.


Lwaxy said:


> I don't think many people would want to see a lot of half naked men though. Not even the females.







Put me on the list of want. I don’t mind female, but man good barbarian cheese cake could be nice. (I don’t think we will EVER see full frontal male in a RPG)


----------



## Betote (May 25, 2009)

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> Put me on the list of want. I don’t mind female, but man good barbarian cheese cake could be nice. (I don’t think we will EVER see full frontal male in a RPG)




Ironically, here in Spain there's a whole generation of gamers who started with books full of male and female nudity, even on the covers (which, IIRC, were specifically remade). Those were good times, hiding your games from your parents along with the pornography


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 25, 2009)

Everytime I come across the "chainmail bikini" question, I like to post the following two part cartoon:















Credit: Obsidian of Commisioned


----------



## shilsen (May 25, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Everytime I come across the "chainmail bikini" question, I like to post the following two part cartoon:




That's just beautiful


----------



## Starfox (May 25, 2009)

Notice that she still is less covered when armored (and more covered when unarmored) than he is - some stereotypes are hard to break out of even when making a parody of them.


----------



## Starfox (May 27, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The blond thief in the bikini on the cover of the 1E DMG is rather sensibly dressed when considering the environment. If she were covered head to toe in heavy leather armor in the heat of that place it would be more unbelievable.




I remember the old Pool of Darkness computer RPG. The best AC you could get was using ring of protection + bracers of armor (because the ring did not stack with the plusses or armor). This combo also let you cast spells. I imagine it made all the characters in my party looked pretty much like that thief - male or female.

Cheesecake mechanics?


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 19, 2021)

Leatherhead said:


> I wonder if anyone realizes this thread is nearly a year-and-a-half old.



I wonder that too  _(The thread is almost exactly fourteen years old )_

What I wish for Christmas is that the tide soon turns - that tabletop rpgs can once again be discussed in similar ways to art, literature and film where there's no criteria for acceptability that all works need to please or even respect everybody. In art, literature and film you can have content that titillate or shock; annoy or offend. There you can openly discuss the incorrect and the avant-garde. There, the proper course of action if you dislike something is to ignore it, rather than argue for it to change and conform.

I have just fondly looked back at a bygone era, an era conjured by this very thread; an era where those people that didn't like nudity simply chose games without, instead of demonizing the games with. An era when liking games featuring things somebody else might dislike or feel excluded by (the nude female form, say) weren't cast with suspicion or projection or branded as attacking the sensibilities of others.

I have to believe the way forward to reach this turning of the tide is to see more games created that you like, so you can blissfully skip those you don't like. In the current climate of homogenizing the market to include everybody and offend nobody I worry for the future. And so should you, if our history of treating art is anything to go by.

And with that, cheers to more games that are offensive, lewd and generally just annoying!  Not because we can then feel equally excluded and offended, but because diversity and risk-taking means we are more likely to both find something that astounds us!


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 20, 2021)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Wouldn't she draw attention, though, and isn't that bad for a thief? A bard, on the other hand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agree.
And I'll note, careful side views of nymphs can avoid most  of the issue with the naughty bits... as can foreground foliage.

In no small irony, the "controversial naked sacrifice" on the OE sup III cover was done by a female teen...


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 20, 2021)

danbuter1 said:


> To put it simply, if you put in pictures of naked men, there are going to be a LOT of teenage boys who WON'T buy the game.



If you put pics of naked anything humanoid, most teens shouldn't be allowed to buy it.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 20, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> If you put pics of naked anything humanoid, most teens shouldn't be allowed to buy it.



While I'm not chomping at the bit to add nudity to RPG books, I think that's a bit of stretch there.  And I'm saying this as someone who refused to buy any of the Avalanche Press d20 splat books because of their covers even though word on the street was they contained pretty solid material.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 20, 2021)

It was funny to read back through this thread. 

It is sorely lacking in examples, however.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 20, 2021)

TerraDave said:


> It was funny to read back through this thread.
> 
> It is sorely lacking in examples, however.



By way of examples, I present unto you: The Internet.


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 20, 2021)

MGibster said:


> While I'm not chomping at the bit to add nudity to RPG books, I think that's a bit of stretch there.  And I'm saying this as someone who refused to buy any of the Avalanche Press d20 splat books because of their covers even though word on the street was they contained pretty solid material.



The covers were (just barely) not pornographic. The content within, however, was top notch.

I realized after posting that I'm letting my US biases show - but really, I'd rather kids weren't buying stuff with lurid art.
Hell, I'd rather not buy lurid art.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 20, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> The covers were (just barely) not pornographic. The content within, however, was top notch.
> 
> I realized after posting that I'm letting my US biases show - but really, I'd rather kids weren't buying stuff with lurid art.
> Hell, I'd rather not buy lurid art.




I understand the sentiment, but if a kid has access to the internet, they've already seen worse.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Dec 20, 2021)

I don't have an issue with the nudity reflected in the FRPG art I have consumed through the various D&D iterations. I think Boris Vallejo, Franzetta and Luis Royo had great art and likely some of that would be too much in RPG books consumed by young teens (not like they haven't seen anything worse on the internet), but I tend to think its pretty harmless overall.
I didn't have as many VtM books so I cannot comment too much about that.

Definitely agree with @CapnZapp's post.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 20, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I realized after posting that I'm letting my US biases show - but really, I'd rather kids weren't buying stuff with lurid art.
> Hell, I'd rather not buy lurid art.



That's okay.  The truth is I don't really want your kids buying stuff with lurid art in it either.  Hell, I'm not really keen on buying gaming books with lurid art in it.  Like I said, I'm not really chomping at the bit for games to start adding nudity to the art in their games.  I'm just not sure if all nudity is lurid or if its appropriate to protect young people from all of it.  I mean, teenagers read books like _Push.  _


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 20, 2021)

This is a thread that started a long time ago, but here I am, going to put in my two coppers.

Nudity in gaming isn't a bad thing.  Nudity in general is not a bad thing.  

The PROBLEM is not nudity, it's how it is portrayed.  Is there a reason for it, or is it simply to be lurid, sexualize a gender, or show a discriminatorial basis of being shown?

The problem I have with nudity in RPGs is most of the time it falls under the problems with portraying nudity.  There is no reason for the nudity to actually be shown.  The only reason it shows the nudity is because they are trying to sexualize something or someone (generally it is a woman or girl, and it's not just if they are nude, they can be dressed skimpily or provacatively.  That said, though this is usually the type they portray, there are also depictions of men in the same manner which are also distasteful in my opinion).  It can also be done to show a form of discrimination against woman or men in the situation they put them in or various other elements.

I think that's the problem with this type of artform in RPGs.  It's not ALWAYS a problem, but most of the artwork I've seen that depict nudity in RPGs is for the problematic reasons rather than any useful ones.

That's where the actual problem lies.  It's not the nudity itself, as that's a natural form of being and life.  It is what the depiction or portrayal is meant to be and the feelings it is meant to raise in others that can be problematic.

I don't mind if my kids see nudity in and of itself.  That's a facet of life.  I AM bothered if they are seeing it portrayed in certain ways which are not mentally or emotionally healthy (in my opinion...of course).


----------



## Galandris (Dec 20, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I wonder that too  _(The thread is almost exactly fourteen years old )_
> 
> What I wish for Christmas is that the tide soon turns - that tabletop rpgs can once again be discussed in similar ways to art,




I am not sure art can be discussed as it was once. Look at the Vienna national museum that opened an account on a porn platorm to protest the banning of the Venus of Willendorf (some other examples of strange reactions to nudity in art here Vienna museums open adult-only OnlyFans account to display nudes -- do not click if you're offended by nudity, the Guardian article features full frontal nudity in an illustration, made by pornlord Egon Schiele.).



CapnZapp said:


> literature and film where there's no criteria for acceptability that all works need to please or even respect everybody. In art, literature and film you can have content that titillate or shock; annoy or offend. There you can openly discuss the incorrect and the avant-garde. There, the proper course of action if you dislike something is to ignore it, rather than argue for it to change and conform.
> 
> I have just fondly looked back at a bygone era, an era conjured by this very thread; an era where those people that didn't like nudity simply chose games without, instead of demonizing the games with.




Before reaching a turning of the tide, we should reach high tide. I am not sure we're there yet, and the tendancy to go toward a less tolerant world where "live and let live" is no longer a sane motto still has strong legs.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2021)

Back in the day, there was a misconception that women weren't going to buy RPG books anyway, so whether the art put them off wasn't considered an issue.  But, by WotC's numbers this year, women make up 40% of the D&D player base at this point.  And women have been telling us _for decades_ that art depiction as sex objects in games put them off.  Choosing to set aside that art has seemed to have a notable positive impact on sales.

The profit margins on RPG materials remain slim.  You're asking producers to give up sales for your pleasure.  Unless you are going to buy multiple copies to make up for the loss, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense for game publishers.

And, I think that by categorizing is as "they are offended," placing the fault on them, you miss the fact that the industry has been actively engaging in a culture supporting disparity.  It is less "they are offended" and more "we have been actively offering offenses" in many ways for a long time.  It isn't just the art itself - it is how that art is a sign of lack of respect and failure to understand (or maybe failure to care) about the real issues.  If you want to send up a red flag that you don't care, the art is one way to do it.


----------



## DWRoelands (Dec 20, 2021)

> If you want to send up a red flag that you don't care, the art is one way to do it.




Brilliant and concise.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 20, 2021)

I'll take "Threads That Didn't Age Well" for $1000, Alex. Oof.

Old "Dad" me cringes to read what young "Hot" me had to say on the subject...


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Old "Dad" me cringes to read what young "Hot" me had to say on the subject...




I hadn't considered that.  This thread is old enough that someone could have said, "Yes, I'd like to see bare breasts in gaming materials" at the start to now have a teenage daughter.  Now that might present a change in perspective.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 20, 2021)

Umbran said:


> And, I think that by categorizing is as "they are offended," placing the fault on them, you miss the fact that the industry has been actively engaging in a culture supporting disparity.



I would describe myself as being offended by the cover art on those Avalanche Press books but I don't think it implies that I'm the one at fault there.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I would describe myself as being offended by the cover art on those Avalanche Press books but I don't think it implies that I'm the one at fault there.




Then the point doesn't apply to you.  

But let us not pretend that, since it doesn't apply to you, that these discussions don't often include the idea that someone is "looking to be offended" or is "too easily offended" or the like.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 20, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I hadn't considered that.  This thread is old enough that someone could have said, "Yes, I'd like to see bare breasts in gaming materials" at the start to now have a teenage daughter.  Now that might present a change in perspective.



Exactly that.

Don't get me wrong, having a daughter has not turned me into a prude, but it has made me more cognizant of elements like consent and objectification in my blood'n'boobs fantasy preferences -- in art, in film/TV, and in RPGs.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 20, 2021)

Umbran said:


> But let us not pretend that, since it doesn't apply to you, that these discussions don't often include the idea that someone is "looking to be offended" or is "too easily offended" or the like.



Fair enough.  I just didn't get the impression that this was the particular point you were making.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 20, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Don't get me wrong, having a daughter has not turned me into a prude, but it has made me more cognizant of elements like consent and objectification in my blood'n'boobs fantasy preferences -- in art, in film/TV, and in RPGs.



You're a human being with an ever evolving perspective shaped by the events which have unfolded through the passage of time.  And it's not about being a prude, it's about what's appropriate in a given context.  I don't know if he really said it, but I've always like this quote attributed to Muhammad Ali:  

“The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.”​


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 20, 2021)

Let me first get this out of the way:

Is this a thinly veiled attempt to justify most if not all games being cluelessly chauvinistic, misogynist or excluding? No. Do I want to be able to publish racist right-wing conspiracy supplements now? No.

That's another extremely frustrating aspect. You can't enjoy the simple things in life without getting treated as if you were the drek of the internet.

I'm making a completely different point.



Umbran said:


> It isn't just the art itself - it is how that art is a sign of lack of respect and failure to understand (or maybe failure to care) about the real issues.



_The following is general commentary not directed at anyone in particular._

In other areas of life, you can have sensitive and inclusive books, movies and other expressions of art. And you also have expressions that offend or exclude. At the same time.

Sure people criticize what they don't like or what they feel is insensitive, as is their right. But rarely do anyone do what has been depressingly common in our hobby, which is to seriously suggest all games (of professional quality) should meet the same standards, trying to effectively push the outre or the wild out of the general discussion. Recently in this hobby entire communities expect you to discuss such "problematic" works* exclusively from a problematizing angle; chiefly or even only discuss their flaws, and generally never confess to liking things if those things have flaws in the areas of inclusion, equality or representation. Never should you focus on what you like. 

*) The very notion of "problematic works" gives me unpleasant chills down my spine. It has never ended well. Let's hope this time, the frenzy just dies down with no worse effects.

Moreover, in general life you can be a celebrated artist (director, author, etc) even if you do the occasional (or frequent) work that offends or titillates without the general conversation trying to paint the creator personally as hateful, derogatory or narrow-minded. Not so on the discussion forums I frequent. It has become the standard assumption that if _I_ can interpret _your_ work as racist, you must be racist. Your motivations are irrelevant - I take the right to project my interpretation onto your desires and motivations.

Directors and actors and novelists and painters can remain celebrated when their characters and images act out offensive sequences and themes. But not in this hobby, not today.

As I said I find it heartbreaking and frustrating, and I can't wait for signs that more people realize this and a shift will finally occur to where my fellow roleplaying hobbyists start being basically accepting again, or at the very least starts to treat stuff they take offense to with tired ignorance rather than frenzied proselytizing.

I wish more people would see this for what it is - an overreaction. Wanting more games where you fit in and feel welcomed is perfectly fine. Wanting _all_ games to be that way is existentially horrifying.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 20, 2021)

Galandris said:


> I am not sure art can be discussed as it was once. Look at the Vienna national museum that opened an account on a porn platorm to protest the banning of the Venus of Willendorf



Sure it can. We just need to break the back of the social media oligopoly and the pervasiveness of conservative corporate America across the globe.

But that's another discussion...

That museum's curator or media strategist made me genuinely happy when I first read that story. A true ray of sunlight in the darkness.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 21, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> Sure people criticize what they don't like or what they feel is insensitive, as is their right. But rarely do anyone do what has been depressingly common in our hobby, which is to seriously suggest all games (of professional quality) should meet the same standards, trying to effectively push the outre or the wild out of the general discussion.




I'm more of a context matters type of person than I am a "this shouldn't exist at all" type of person.  As a general rule, I'd rather not open a book and see warrior women with boob windows in their breastplates or wearing chainmail bikinis.  However, such images would be perfectly acceptable that sought to parody old fantasy tropes.


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 21, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'm more of a context matters type of person than I am a "this shouldn't exist at all" type of person.  As a general rule, I'd rather not open a book and see warrior women with boob windows in their breastplates or wearing chainmail bikinis.



Agreed.


MGibster said:


> However, such images would be perfectly acceptable that sought to parody old fantasy tropes.



there are people looking to be offended, and satire may be the ammo they need. There are also people who will miss that it's satire. Satire's always a risk.

I bought the Avalanche press items because the content is awesome. I did complain to AP at the time about the cover art. Whomever holds the rights should put new covers (with art that doesn't look like it's been drawn by out of work porn comic artists) and without the D20  STL logo... *Noble Steeds* and *Noble Nights* really just need the D20 logo removed; the cover art was perfect on them.
*I, Mordred* has been  used for inspiration rather than as written, because I use *Pendragon* for Arthurian, but it's a conceptual module with a few bits of rules,


----------



## MGibster (Dec 21, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> there are people looking to be offended, and satire may be the ammo they need. There are also people who will miss that it's satire. Satire's always a risk.



As a general rule, I start from the position that those voicing objections are doing so based on a sincerely held belief.  When I was browsing my local gaming store, I wasn't looking for something offensive but I came across several of those Avalanche Press books and I was offended.  _Doom of Odin _was probably the worst of the bunch just because, well, who the hell squats like that when shooting arrows?  Also, I don't really consider satire to be a defense.  _Starship Troopers_ and _Showgirls _are both crummy movies but their defenders like to tell me it's satire as if I didn't get it.  Satire isn't a defense.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 21, 2021)

Don't be too quick in proclaiming that companies are "caring" about societal problems because they are removing pictures of women in skimpy attire. Caring, or not caring (any taking of a stand) would be doing something contrary to their best business interests to uphold values. Publishing naked women when the market is made of adolescent males and having these illustrations is helping sales, and removing them when market research shows that 40% of gamers are female and not having them is helping sales, demonstrate that you care about sales (and as a company, you should), nothing else.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 21, 2021)

Galandris said:


> Don't be too quick in proclaiming that companies are "caring" about societal problems because they are removing pictures of women in skimpy attire. Caring, or not caring (any taking of a stand) would be doing something contrary to their best business interests to uphold values. Publishing naked women when the market is made of adolescent males and having these illustrations is helping sales, and removing them when market research shows that 40% of gamers are female and not having them is helping sales, demonstrate that you care about sales (and as a company, you should), nothing else.




It's a for-profit company, as you say. If being sexist helps their bottom line, they'll do that (and did). If being inclusive helps their bottom line, they'll do that (and arguably are beginning to).

Never attribute to morals that which can be adequately explained by avarice.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 21, 2021)

MGibster said:


> You're a human being with an ever evolving perspective shaped by the events which have unfolded through the passage of time.  And it's not about being a prude, it's about what's appropriate in a given context.  I don't know if he really said it, but I've always like this quote attributed to Muhammad Ali:
> 
> “The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.”​




That's true. The irony is, I've actually gotten _more _nasty and unsympathetic with age.


----------



## J.Quondam (Dec 21, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> That's true. The irony is, I've actually gotten _more _nasty and unsympathetic with age.



Yeah, me too. I'm aging like cheese rather than wine.

And I hate cheese.


----------



## Orius (Dec 21, 2021)

Honest erotica in and of itself doesn't bother me.  However, I roll my eyes at gratuitous sex and nudity.  I pretty much felt the same way when this thread was new.  It's IMmature and puerile to me.  Back when Dragon was still in print and they still ran RPG reviews, Rick Swan said it best in the introduction to one of his monthly review columns: a half-naked woman on the cover of an RPG was a good as putting a label on it that said: "WARNING: CRAP AHEAD".



MGibster said:


> _Starship Troopers_ and _Showgirls _are both crummy movies but their defenders like to tell me it's satire as if I didn't get it.  Satire isn't a defense.




IIRC, the problem with Starship Troopers was that the writers/producers/whatever on that film didn't like Heinlein's worldview and went out of their way to paint him as a fascist.  Showgirls was just another lame attempt by a child/teen celebrity to prove they're all grown up by doing something with a lot of excess sex and nudity.  And in the end, the result is nearly always the same: the sound of a toilet flushing in the distance signifying what has just happened to their career.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 21, 2021)

Orius said:


> IIRC, the problem with Starship Troopers was that the writers/producers/whatever on that film didn't like Heinlein's worldview and went out of their way to paint him as a fascist.  Showgirls was just another lame attempt by a child/teen celebrity to prove they're all grown up by doing something with a lot of excess sex and nudity.  And in the end, the result is nearly always the same: the sound of a toilet flushing in the distance signifying what has just happened to their career.




Heinlein was a leftist in an open marriage (Stranger in a Strange Land was one of the big early polyamory texts) who later became a antiracist libertarian militarist on marrying an ex-military officer with a background in biochemistry. (Virginia Gerstenfeld was more or less a real-life Heinlein heroine.) He's kinda hard to pin down.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 21, 2021)

Orius said:


> Honest erotica in and of itself doesn't bother me.  However, I roll my eyes at gratuitous sex and nudity.  I pretty much felt the same way when this thread was new.  It's IMmature and puerile to me.  Back when Dragon was still in print and they still ran RPG reviews, Rick Swan it best in the introduction to one of his monthly review columns: a half-naked woman on the cover of an RPG was a good as putting a label on it that said: "WARNING: CRAP AHEAD".




I do find it kind of amusing they pulled the nudity in the late 1980s in response to Christians and then in the 2000s in response to feminists.  The side of attack is different, the result is the same.

I think Americans just don't like sex. (And I am one!)


----------



## Orius (Dec 21, 2021)

Oh yeah I know that.  The people who did the Starship Troopers film evidently didn't.

Radical feminists and conservative Christians have this odd alliance going in opposition to porn.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 21, 2021)

Orius said:


> Oh yeah I know that.  The people who did the Starship Troopers film evidently didn't.
> 
> Radical feminists and conservative Christians have this odd alliance going in opposition to porn.




There were actually huge intra-feminist arguments over the porn thing (the 'feminist sex wars' of the 1980s)--there were sex-positive feminists who wanted to make feminist porn, decriminalize prostitution, and the like. I think the big names were Susie Bright, Gayle Rubin, Ellen Willis, and Carol Queen, though I only know about this peripherally.

From what I gather it was kind of a draw but with the rise of the internet porn got very hard to regulate so there was a big anti-porn backlash.


----------



## MNblockhead (Dec 21, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> I do find it kind of amusing they pulled the nudity in the late 1980s in response to Christians and then in the 2000s in response to feminists.  The side of attack is different, the result is the same.
> 
> I think Americans just don't like sex. (And I am one!)



Nah, was like that in the 80s.  There was a big anti-porn and anti-adult video/sex store movement at the time and about the only time I can remember seeing right-wing "moral majority" christians and left-wing feminists on the same picket line.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 22, 2021)

Reading the OP, I have to kind of wonder why 1e AD&D should be the measure of all things.

I like cheesecake, but it can be done badly, or put in an inappropriate context. Conanesque settings should have plenty of cheesecake and beefcake art. Lord of the Rings really should not - 
I'd like to see a lot of art variety tailored to different settings and styles.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 22, 2021)

Like everything it depends on the context. Nudity can be fine in art or storytelling in a visual medium. The society may not wear much clothes, or it  is a logical progression to the story.  But partial armour annoys me as i have stated in the original go around of this thread. If you can make chain why would not wear a full chain shirt that covers everything. 
Why would you order an expensive plate harness and leave a boob window in it?


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 22, 2021)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Like everything it depends on the context. Nudity can be fine in art or storytelling in a visual medium. The society may not wear much clothes, or it  is a logical progression to the story.  But partial armour annoys me as i have stated in the original go around of this thread. If you can make chain why would not wear a full chain shirt that covers everything.
> Why would you order an expensive plate harness and leave a boob window in it?




The novel _Azure Bonds_ (which later became one of my favorite goldbox games) actually had a whole justification for it as I recall in terms of the plot--the main character was being dressed for sacrifice by a villainess.

OK, I actually agree it makes more sense for adventurers with monsters swinging at them to be fully enclosed in plate. (Even Conan dressed practically most of the time.) I just find it amusing how this country finds justifications for the same foibles from each end of the political spectrum.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 22, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> OK, I actually agree it makes more sense for adventurers with monsters swinging at them to be fully enclosed in plate.



Well, yes and no. Presuming the artwork is meant to reflect the rules of the game world, which the characters live by, a character who isn't allowed to wear armor (e.g. a D&D wizard) wouldn't be decked out in plate mail or anything of that nature. Quite often they'll instead be using a combination of spells and magic items for personal defense, which can be hard to present visually ("that cape she's wearing is actually a _cloak of resistance +5_, and her pendant is an _amulet of natural armor +3_").


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 22, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> Well, yes and no. Presuming the artwork is meant to reflect the rules of the game world, which the characters live by, a character who isn't allowed to wear armor (e.g. a D&D wizard) wouldn't be decked out in plate mail or anything of that nature. Quite often they'll instead be using a combination of spells and magic items for personal defense, which can be hard to present visually ("that cape she's wearing is actually a _cloak of resistance +5_, and her pendant is an _amulet of natural armor +3_").




It's an interesting point. Thieves would be in leather, and wizards using, say, bracers, cloak, and ring (I'm showing my age here) wouldn't necessarily be completely covered up. Of course, they're used to being in back and avoiding missile fire, so dressing to attract attention might not be the smartest thing. But we could easily see an arrogant magic-user with a high CON showing off their physique, and some of the newer spellcasting classes like sorcerer or warlock that are charisma-based might make it part of their shtick--seductive enchantresses are a thing in mythology. Indeed, it wouldn't even have to be gendered the usual way--if it's _magically enhanced _charisma, it's not impossible to imagine a warlock distracting people (even if they don't usually swing that way) with his supernatural studliness.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 22, 2021)

Honestly? Wizard are supposed to be smart, aren't they? If they were standing in the back, they would wear papier-mache half-plate. They must have heard of the phrase "Archers, focus on the cape-wearing, unarmored, focus-holding guys in the rear! It must be a wizard or a healer".


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 22, 2021)

Galandris said:


> Honestly? Wizard are supposed to be smart, aren't they? If they were standing in the back, they would wear papier-mache half-plate. They must have heard of the phrase "Archers, focus on the cape-wearing, unarmored, focus-holding guys in the rear! It must be a wizard or a healer".




That's wisdom, not intelligence. 

But _disguise self _is 1st-level, and this would be a good use for it.

Indeed, I would expect it to see heavy noncombat everyday use as a _de facto_ beauty spell.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 22, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> That's wisdom, not intelligence.
> 
> But _disguise self _is 1st-level, and this would be a good use for it.
> 
> Indeed, I would expect it to see heavy noncombat everyday use as a _de facto_ beauty spell.




"I dumped CHA but I go out with the cheeleader captain!" [Hogwarts recruitment flyer].


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 22, 2021)

Galandris said:


> "I dumped CHA but I go out with the cheeleader captain!" [Hogwarts recruitment flyer].




That would doubtless be one of the major appeals of studying magic (though 'quarterback' would apply as well, and perhaps be even more likely given the use of beauty magic).

Of course society would evolve around it, though--couples might have a date in a dead-magic zone, for instance.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 22, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> That would doubtless be one of the major appeals of studying magic (though 'quarterback' would apply as well, and perhaps be even more likely given the use of beauty magic).
> 
> Of course society would evolve around it, though--couples might have a date in a dead-magic zone, for instance.




That's interesting. Society could also evolve to accept it. We don't have "no make-up zone" or "no dyed hair zone", after all. I guess it would depend on how blatant is the illusion effect.


----------



## Weiley31 (Dec 22, 2021)

It's not like bewbs will destroy the world. _shrugs_


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 22, 2021)

Galandris said:


> That's interesting. Society could also evolve to accept it. We don't have "no make-up zone" or "no dyed hair zone", after all. I guess it would depend on how blatant is the illusion effect.




You'd see both. There would be jokes about nobles breaking off engagements after a Dispel Magic had been cast, and wizards and sorcerers showing off their unnatural looks. (Forget 'positively glowing', what about a facial treatment that actually glows?)


----------



## Voadam (Dec 22, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> That's wisdom, not intelligence.
> 
> But _disguise self _is 1st-level, and this would be a good use for it.
> 
> Indeed, I would expect it to see heavy noncombat everyday use as a _de facto_ beauty spell.



I sometimes had my 3e/Pathfinder wizard use his hat of disguise to make him look like he was wearing plate mail. "Come on bite, throw your will save spell at me instead of the fortitude one."


----------



## Mannahnin (Dec 22, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> But we could easily see an arrogant magic-user with a high CON showing off their physique, and some of the newer spellcasting classes like sorcerer or warlock that are charisma-based might make it part of their shtick--seductive enchantresses are a thing in mythology. Indeed, it wouldn't even have to be gendered the usual way--if it's _magically enhanced _charisma, it's not impossible to imagine a warlock distracting people (even if they don't usually swing that way) with his supernatural studliness.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 22, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> The novel _Azure Bonds_ (which later became one of my favorite goldbox games) actually had a whole justification for it as I recall in terms of the plot--the main character was being dressed for sacrifice by a villainess.
> 
> OK, I actually agree it makes more sense for adventurers with monsters swinging at them to be fully enclosed in plate. (Even Conan dressed practically most of the time.) I just find it amusing how this country finds justifications for the same foibles from each end of the political spectrum.



Azure bonds indeed. Tried reading that lately and could not get into it. D&D'isms getting in the way of the story.

In my view everybody adventuring would be wearing some armour.


----------



## Voadam (Dec 22, 2021)

Voadam said:


> I sometimes had my 3e/Pathfinder wizard use his hat of disguise to make him look like he was wearing plate mail. "Come on bite, throw your will save spell at me instead of the fortitude one."



I also thought about doing the reverse with a 5e multiclassed fighter wizard in plate mail using  a hat of disguise to appear to be in robes.


----------



## Orius (Dec 22, 2021)

Mannahnin said:


> View attachment 148724



This is why I play wizards.

That and and the ability to totally indulge the godhood complexes.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 22, 2021)

Mannahnin said:


> ....




That's the type of Wizard who casts magic mouth so whenever the fighter walks up to the door, it says, "Do you even lift, Brah? Do. You. Even. Lift."


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 23, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Reading the OP, I have to kind of wonder why 1e AD&D should be the measure of all things.
> 
> I like cheesecake, but it can be done badly, or put in an inappropriate context. Conanesque settings should have plenty of cheesecake and beefcake art. Lord of the Rings really should not



Well, I agree in general, but that video was clickbaity. Peter Jackson did not put Eowyn in a "combat thong". 

_That was Frank Frazetta._

So of course she wore a combat thong! Frazetta trumps pretty much every other genre, yes, Tolkien included. Every heroine becomes voluptuous and nearly nude in Frazetta's glorious universe - so the real question is: why would Eowyn not deserve the same transformation as all the other girls? I mean, Frazetta is the master of his art!  

(Actually I would say the image in the video gave Eowyn much more sensible combat clothing than almost any other named heroine, so perhaps it's the other way 'round and Frazetta does respect Tolkien?! )

Plus, his magical transformations aren't reserved for females only. Heck, I bet if Frazetta drew Treebeard he'd be the most oiled up and muscular Ent you'd ever see.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 23, 2021)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Like everything it depends on the context. Nudity can be fine in art or storytelling in a visual medium. The society may not wear much clothes, or it  is a logical progression to the story.  But partial armour annoys me as i have stated in the original go around of this thread. If you can make chain why would not wear a full chain shirt that covers everything.
> Why would you order an expensive plate harness and leave a boob window in it?



I guess I don't have the definite answer for that.

If I were to take a guess, my best effort would be that in a universe where dragons exist and people can shoot fireballs from their fingertips it wouldn't be unreasonable to also include the idea that sheer magnetism and physical attraction works as a personal protective shield, just as well as physical armor but less heavy and chafing?

I mean look - we both know the reason is that people like to look at pretty girls. Still, trying to subject warrior women to the harsh laws of physics while the magic users can ignore them is dodgy logic, at best.

So it boils down to a simple fact: if you like your women to wear sensible armor, *go ahead and do just that*. Me, I go with the option that suits the campaign. For a gritty game of Warhammer, there absolutely are actual reasons why nobody wears boob windows or combat thongs. But for swords & planets, I would absolutely allow Dejah Thoris to reach her maximum Armor Class nekkid. What I don't try to do, however, is argue one approach is "more real" or "better" than the other.

After all, the name of the genre is "fantasy"


----------



## Mannahnin (Dec 23, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> That's the type of Wizard who casts magic mouth so whenever the fighter walks up to the door, it says, "Do you even lift, Brah? Do. You. Even. Lift."



Ironically, his other familiar:


----------



## S'mon (Dec 23, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> Well, I agree in general, but that video was clickbaity. Peter Jackson did not put Eowyn in a "combat thong".
> 
> _That was Frank Frazetta._
> 
> ...



Yeah, I did make this exact point in the video comments. You'll note the buff Witch King. Any blame must attach to whoever commissioned Frazetta to illustrate Lord of the Rings!


----------



## Mannahnin (Dec 23, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Yeah, I did make this exact point in the video comments. You'll note the buff Witch King. Any blame must attach to whoever commissioned Frazetta to illustrate Lord of the Rings!



As I recall in 1975 it was originally a limited edition folio/art book (1000 signed and numbered copies).  I haven't been able to find out any details about who the "Middle Earth Portfolio Publishing Company", of Denver, Colorado were, but I can't imagine the actual Tolkien estate letting Frazetta anywhere near LotR, much as I love them both.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 23, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I guess I don't have the definite answer for that.
> 
> If I were to take a guess, my best effort would be that in a universe where dragons exist and people can shoot fireballs from their fingertips it wouldn't be unreasonable to also include the idea that sheer magnetism and physical attraction works as a personal protective shield, just as well as physical armor but less heavy and chafing?




The _Wilderlands of High Fantasy_ d20 supplement did that, actually. The amazons had 'amazon armor' that distracted people because it was skimpy but still gave good AC bonuses. Not sure if that was in the original Judges' Guild supplement.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 23, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Yeah, I did make this exact point in the video comments. You'll note the buff Witch King. Any blame must attach to whoever commissioned Frazetta to illustrate Lord of the Rings!



You can blame me if it helps!  More Frazetta is never bad!


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 23, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> The _Wilderlands of High Fantasy_ d20 supplement did that, actually.



Oh, it has been done many times.

The issue here is instead whether we should accept without question the notion such a rule is uniformly bad and whether we should assume anyone suggesting it must be personally insulting us because they're narrow-minded misogynistic pigs or worse.

I'm arguing that, actually, we're better off if we don't.


----------



## Mezuka (Dec 23, 2021)

This is the proper use of nudity. Drawn by Darleen. Actually looks like a real person anatomically, not the erotic playboy derivative representation most people draw.


----------



## Weiley31 (Dec 23, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> After all, the name of the genre is "fantasy"



And despite that, people will still find reasons to complain about it unfortunately because of "reasons."


----------



## S'mon (Dec 23, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> The _Wilderlands of High Fantasy_ d20 supplement did that, actually. The amazons had 'amazon armor' that distracted people because it was skimpy but still gave good AC bonuses. Not sure if that was in the original Judges' Guild supplement.



No, in Shield Maidens of Sea Rune they use magic bracers. 
The 3e version isn't as you describe though, the Amazon armours have low ish AC bonuses and they derive from the Amazons having psychic precognition powers when scantily clad.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 23, 2021)

Mezuka said:


> This is the proper use of nudity. Drawn by Darleen. Actually looks like a real person anatomically, not the erotic playboy derivative representation most people draw.
> 
> View attachment 148764



You don't think succubi should look like erotic playboy derivatives? Surely if there is one place for implausible fantasy females...


----------



## S'mon (Dec 23, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> You can blame me if it helps!  More Frazetta is never bad!



I love the Frazetta Lord of the Rings art, but still feel it's misplaced. I'd rather see the art attached to a new story that mashes up heroic quest fantasy with swords and sorcery tropes. Tolkien needs Tolkienesque art.


----------



## Mannahnin (Dec 23, 2021)

I can appreciate that Frazetta portfolio for the transgressiveness of the genre-bending combined with its own aesthetic virtues.  It's super fun fan-art.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 23, 2021)

Mezuka said:


> This is the proper use of nudity. Drawn by Darleen. Actually looks like a real person anatomically, not the erotic playboy derivative representation most people draw.




I especially appreciate the realistic drawing of the wings, instead of those use gravity-defying appendices we see far too often!


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 23, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I love the Frazetta Lord of the Rings art, but still feel it's misplaced. I'd rather see the art attached to a new story that mashes up heroic quest fantasy with swords and sorcery tropes. Tolkien needs Tolkienesque art.



Luckily it's hardly pervasive. You easily get twenty other depictions of Eowyn before Frazetta's take if not more...


----------



## J.Quondam (Dec 23, 2021)

Galandris said:


> I especially appreciate the realistic drawing of the wings, instead of those use gravity-defying appendices we see far too often!



Personally, I'd like see more devils and demons with propellers. I feel that's an under-represented niche in fantasy art.


----------



## Dioltach (Dec 23, 2021)

J.Quondam said:


> Personally, I'd like see more devils and demons with propellers. I feel that's an under-represented niche in fantasy art.



The Balrog scene in Fellowship would have been very different, for a start.


----------



## Eltab (Dec 24, 2021)

Michaelangelo's _David_ blends nudity and art.  Doing so successfully is rare and to be appreciated.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2021)

Weiley31 said:


> And despite that, people will still find reasons to complain about it unfortunately because of "reasons."



I know right?  How dare people who want to join in the hobby complain about art that demeans, denigrates and promotes stereotypes?  The nerve right?  It's all just fantasy, after all.  We shouldn't ever make room for other people.  Keep the hobby pure and keep those lesser types outside.  



Unless you were thinking of other "reasons"?  What might those be?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2021)

Another thought occurs.

I just don't get the mindset that thinks that their enjoyment of pictures in a game book is more important than the feelings of real people.  If someone says, "Hey, this imagery makes me really uncomfortable.  I would much rather we do without that.  Can we get another picture?" and the response is, "No.  My enjoyment of this image is more important." ... I just... there are no words.  What kind of mindset does it take to think that way?  

I just don't get it.  If someone says they are feeling uncomfortable, and all it costs you is switching out the picture in a game book to make them happy, who says no to that?


----------



## MGibster (Dec 24, 2021)

Hussar said:


> I just don't get the mindset that thinks that their enjoyment of pictures in a game book is more important than the feelings of real people. If someone says, "Hey, this imagery makes me really uncomfortable. I would much rather we do without that. Can we get another picture?" and the response is, "No. My enjoyment of this image is more important." ... I just... there are no words. What kind of mindset does it take to think that way?



I don't get the mindset that thinks because someone is uncomfortable with something in a book that the publisher should select another picture.  Well, let's back that up a little, because, like I said, context matters.  For a game like D&D where the publishers want to attract a broad audience, it matters a whole lot.  But not every publisher is trying to attract the broadest audience possible and it's okay to release something even knowing some people will find certain images uncomfortable.



Hussar said:


> I just don't get it. If someone says they are feeling uncomfortable, and all it costs you is switching out the picture in a game book to make them happy, who says no to that?




It isn't just about the person reading the book.  What if the people publishing it prefer that picture?


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I don't get the mindset that thinks because someone is uncomfortable with something in a book that the publisher should select another picture.  Well, let's back that up a little, because, like I said, context matters.  For a game like D&D where the publishers want to attract a broad audience, it matters a whole lot.  But not every publisher is trying to attract the broadest audience possible and it's okay to release something even knowing some people will find certain images uncomfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just about the person reading the book.  What if the people publishing it prefer that picture?



I like the bland 5e art in the core books, I think the broadest broad church approach is well suited to what aims to be the generic go-to game of heroic fantasy adventure. But I would not want to see the same art style imposed on every work created for 5e. A Howardesque sword and sorcery setting should have Frazetta and similar art. Ravenloft I think should have Hammer Horror style art, like those 1e Caldwell Ravenloft covers - I am very much not a fan of the art in 5e Curse of Strahd. A Tolkienesque high fantasy or Game of Thrones low fantasy should have matching art. I appreciate that WotC' main aim is to avoid giving offence to favoured audiences but I do think this can sometimes get in the way of best presentation. I'm glad that eg Odyssey of the Dragonlords has a more adult feel than WotC stuff and I look forward to seeing how Raiders of the Serpent Sea turns out.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2021)

Mannahnin said:


> I can appreciate that Frazetta portfolio for the transgressiveness of the genre-bending combined with its own aesthetic virtues.  It's super fun fan-art.



It makes me want to run a campaign where that art would be appropriate!


----------



## Galandris (Dec 24, 2021)

MGibster said:


> It isn't just about the person reading the book.  What if the people publishing it prefer that picture?




What would happen to the porn industry if they removed pictures someone finds objectionable? I really don't get the mindset of humans telling other humans what they should do. Unless illegal, everything is permitted is a fundamental concept of human rights. It does not mean that everyone has to like every single thing that is made or produced by another human. "I don't like it" doesn't mean "it's bad", as mothers told children around the world about spinash and turnips. Their wisdom should be honored, and turnips should be sold alongside potatoes despite being objectively offensive vegetables, close to the pineapple pizza level of offensiveness.

I think the demand for extremely mild erotism in fantasy has lessened since a significant part of the target audience can, thanks to the Internet, finds more explicit content with very low barrier of entry. A picture of breasts on your demoness doesn't thrill anyone when one can vision thousands of hours or sex orgies that would make the demoness proud, for free over the internet. The publisher's reaction to provide less of them in order to maximize sales may not entirely be driven by the intent to conquer the market share of people not interested in chainmail bikini pictures, but also because chainmail bikini no longer attract their former target audience as much as they used to in the past.


----------



## Mannahnin (Dec 24, 2021)

Galandris said:


> What would happen to the porn industry if they removed pictures someone finds objectionable? I really don't get the mindset of humans telling other humans what they should do. Unless illegal, everything is permitted is a fundamental concept of human rights. It does not mean that everyone has to like every single thing that is made or produced by another human.



Sure, but social norms and issue advocacy absent government intervention are also key components of human life.  Freedom of expression is certainly important, and I agree that not every product has to be for everyone.  But there's definitely a middle ground where it's reasonable for people to advocate for or against things they think are beneficial or harmful/unpleasant without having to get laws involved.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 24, 2021)

Mannahnin said:


> Sure, but social norms and issue advocacy absent government intervention are also key components of human life.  Freedom of expression is certainly important, and I agree that not every product has to be for everyone.  But there's definitely a middle ground where it's reasonable for people to advocate for or against things they think are beneficial or harmful/unpleasant without having to get laws involved.




Indeed! "Advocating for" is great! Criticizing (as in "I don't like it) I also understand and do. It's the tendancy to petition for removal that I don't get. I am offended, in many published adventure, by the tendancy to promote vigilantism and unwarranted violence. Let's take an example, Rime of the Frostmaiden, where one of the starter quest involve... a quest giver who say "This guy is bad, I want you to track him and kill him". The expected (and best) outcome is to kill him no question asked. The other outcomes (actually investigating the guy to see if he's really a cultist, capturing him and turning him over to the authorities, who are presented as functionning correctly and able to hold a prisonner effectively) or reporting the quest giver (at this point, he's hiring assassins...) generally fail the quest. I really dislike the premise of this adventure. I won't play it this way. I'll say (and have said) that I dislike it, I advocate for publishing more adventures of a less murder-hobo-y mindset on this board, I propose other ways to run the scene more to my taste, but at the same time I acknowledge that there is a market share that doesn't mind the premise of this quest (or even actually enjoys it) and I don't petition for the removal of this quest from the RotF, nor for a general removing of vigilantism in published products. At worst, if a published adventure path was "avoid the law enforcement of Waterdeep as you kill bad apples within the city lords for greater good", I'd... not buy the product and say why I'd give it a pass.


----------



## Mannahnin (Dec 24, 2021)

Not to get into too much of a tangent, but I'm playing in RotFM now, and I've been pleasantly surprised at how many encounters and situations can be resolved without killing folks.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 24, 2021)

Mannahnin said:


> Not to get into too much of a tangent, but I'm playing in RotFM now, and I've been pleasantly surprised at how many encounters and situations can be resolved without killing folks.




Yes! That made the first one very jarring to me (and especially easy to correct to my tastes).


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2021)

Galandris said:


> Yes! That made the first one very jarring to me (and especially easy to correct to my tastes).



I played it, kept expecting the quest giver to be the BBEG...


----------



## pemerton (Dec 24, 2021)

Galandris said:


> Unless illegal, everything is permitted is a fundamental concept of human rights.



This principle, even if accepted, doesn't tell us what should be illegal!


----------



## BrokenTwin (Dec 24, 2021)

I prefer my cheesecake and beefcake to be available in equal measure, the level of which is almost irrelevant to me. If the men are only pictured gruffly in sensible attire, then the same should be true for the women (and the enbies). And vice-versa also applies. If I'm seeing half-naked women drawn for the male gaze, I'd better be seeing half-naked men drawn for the female gaze (and half naked sexy enbies for everyone!).

And obviously, the art should match the tone of the text. If it's lowkey and gritty, I don't expect to see flamboyant impractical outfits.

Nudity != sex, but nudity is frequently used as a shorthand for it, and in North American society, nudity is more taboo than violence, so I'm not surprised we don't see many examples of non-sexual nudity in modern media.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 24, 2021)

BrokenTwin said:


> I prefer my cheesecake and beefcake to be available in equal measure, the level of which is almost irrelevant to me. If the men are only pictured gruffly in sensible attire, then the same should be true for the women (and the enbies). And vice-versa also applies. If I'm seeing half-naked women drawn for the male gaze, I'd better be seeing half-naked men drawn for the female gaze (and half naked sexy enbies for everyone!).
> 
> And obviously, the art should match the tone of the text. If it's lowkey and gritty, I don't expect to see flamboyant impractical outfits.
> 
> Nudity != sex, but nudity is frequently used as a shorthand for it, and in North American society, nudity is more taboo than violence, so I'm not surprised we don't see many examples of non-sexual nudity in modern media.




There was a funny bit back in the early 90s when _Basic Instinct_, about a sexually...adventurous serial killer, and _Henry & June_, about a romantic triad, came out. _Basic Instinct _got an R, _Henry & June_ got an NC-17 (formerly an X). 

So sex _and violence _can be watched by kids if the parents are around, but _just sex_ is a no-no.

Now, of course, there is much more extreme stuff on pornhub and the whole thing is a moot point.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 24, 2021)

S'mon said:


> It makes me want to run a campaign where that art would be appropriate!




Mr. Zapp has just the thing for you...






						xoth.net publishing - sword and sorcery roleplaying adventures
					

Xoth.Net Publishing - Sword and sorcery roleplaying adventures




					xoth.net
				



 (NSFW)-good catch Capn!


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 24, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> Mr. Zapp has just the thing for you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for the confidence, but no, I have nothing to do with that.

I do recommend you check out the Xoth Publishing modules though if you like Conanesque sword and sorcery!

Can I ask you to slap a NSFW tag onto your link however and save the mod team some work. (Like I just did in this reply) Thanks


----------



## Umbran (Dec 24, 2021)

Galandris said:


> gravity-defying appendices we see far too often!




I know what was intended here, but I got an image of someone slapping a couple of vestigial digestive organs onto the shoulders of a devil indicating the ability to fly....


----------



## Galandris (Dec 24, 2021)

(_checks dictionary_) Err, I see appendix doesn't mean what I thought it meant.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 24, 2021)

Galandris said:


> (_checks dictionary_) Err, I see appendix doesn't mean what I thought it meant.




Oh, the meanings are related. An appendix 'hangs on' (ad+pendere) to a book just like the vermiform appendix 'hangs on' to the colon. In both cases there's the connotation of 'inessential', though now they think the appendix may help to repopulate your gut bacteria after they get wiped out by something.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 24, 2021)

Galandris said:


> (_checks dictionary_) Err, I see appendix doesn't mean what I thought it meant.



Appendix N?

No?


----------



## Blue (Dec 24, 2021)

Galandris said:


> That's interesting. Society could also evolve to accept it. We don't have "no make-up zone" or "no dyed hair zone", after all. I guess it would depend on how blatant is the illusion effect.



If you tanked your Charisma it will show up in your personality even if you use disguise self.  And if the partner cares only about HAWT and nothing about personality, well then they are getting what they desire.

"Beauty is only magic deep" -- Halruuan proverb.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 24, 2021)

Blue said:


> If you tanked your Charisma it will show up in your personality even if you use disguise self.  And if the partner cares only about HAWT and nothing about personality, well then they are getting what they desire.
> 
> "Beauty is only magic deep" -- Halruuan proverb.




There are spells that buff charisma too, I think, or at least there used to be...


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2021)

BrokenTwin said:


> I prefer my cheesecake and beefcake to be available in equal measure, the level of which is almost irrelevant to me. If the men are only pictured gruffly in sensible attire, then the same should be true for the women (and the enbies). And vice-versa also applies. If I'm seeing half-naked women drawn for the male gaze, I'd better be seeing half-naked men drawn for the female gaze (and half naked sexy enbies for everyone!).
> 
> And obviously, the art should match the tone of the text. If it's lowkey and gritty, I don't expect to see flamboyant impractical outfits.
> 
> Nudity != sex, but nudity is frequently used as a shorthand for it, and in North American society, nudity is more taboo than violence, so I'm not surprised we don't see many examples of non-sexual nudity in modern media.



I definitely think the lack of a double standard in Frazetta style S&S definitely is less jarring and gets less flak than seeing two hulking men in full plate and a girl in g-string standing between them - and they're all meant to be adventurers in the same setting. One that always bugs me is the depictions of women with heavy limb armour and near naked torsos, it's very difficult to think up even a high-magic explanation for how that could make any sense. And of course some art is too focused on sexual characteristics to work well for any non-porno genre, like that notorious Exalted cover.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I definitely think the lack of a double standard in Frazetta style S&S definitely is less jarring and gets less flak than seeing two hulking men in full plate and a girl in g-string standing between them - and they're all meant to be adventurers in the same setting. One that always bugs me is the depictions of women with heavy limb armour and near naked torsos, it's very difficult to think up even a high-magic explanation for how that could make any sense. And of course some art is too focused on sexual characteristics to work well for any non-porno genre, like that notorious Exalted cover.



When I created a female Elf Cleric for a BFRPG game recently, I found a pic I liked for a portrait but it had this common issue of limb armour combined with bare torso, so I did some heavy cropping for her token


			https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/920012818571472929/920730111588859924/token_1.png
		

So now we can justify her AC 17.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 24, 2021)

A pretty well established psychological fact is that men, regardless of sexual preference, are more visually stimulated than are women. So when men made up a much larger portion of the fantasy RPG player base, that kind of art was common and accepted, without much though about how female fans might feel about it. Times do and have changed and at the very least a game that wants to embrace an exotic element in its art should probably a) aim for something more elevating than degrading, and b) be transparent about that from the get go.

Now, we should also note that not all men want to see sexually charged art, and not all women don't. There's nothing wrong with the busty Amazon warrior or scantily clad sorceress, but if those are the only depictions of females in your art, you may need a new art director.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 24, 2021)

S'mon said:


> And of course some art is too focused on sexual characteristics to work well for any non-porno genre, like that notorious Exalted cover.



I totally forgot about that cover!  And now I can’t get it out of my head.


----------



## Voadam (Dec 24, 2021)

S'mon said:


> One that always bugs me is the depictions of women with heavy limb armour and near naked torsos, it's very difficult to think up even a high-magic explanation for how that could make any sense.



Come on man, Warduke is just cool.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 24, 2021)

He's actually more armored on the left hand side. Maybe it's optimal when opponents are striking using wide strike from left to  right. It's halfway sensible...


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 24, 2021)

Galandris said:


> He's actually more armored on the left hand side. Maybe it's optimal when opponents are striking using wide strike from left to  right. It's halfway sensible...



Looks more like gladiator armor to me...and they were supposed to be vulnerable for the entertainment of the crowds...


----------



## Voadam (Dec 24, 2021)

In module XL1 he's a full on pregen PC adventurer with his armor described as plate mail.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 24, 2021)

Voadam said:


> In module XL1 he's a full on pregen PC adventurer with his armor described as plate mail.



He has updated stats in _Dungeon_ #105, where he's said to wear a _+3 moderate fortification adamantine ceremonial spiked half-plate_, which must win some sort of award for the most modifiers to a single piece of equipment. 

(For those wondering, the rules for ceremonial armor in D&D 3.5 are in that same issue of _Dungeon_, on a sidebar on page 71, right below Warduke's stats.)


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2021)

Voadam said:


> Come on man, Warduke is just cool.
> 
> View attachment 148818



If he was holding the shield with his unarmoured arm, it would be ok as gladiator armour. 
It's more those female knights in massive pauldrons and tiny bikinis that bug me!


----------



## BrokenTwin (Dec 24, 2021)

Now that's some asymmetric character design. It's weird that the two different boots somehow bothers me more than the one pant leg. He looks like a He-Man character.


----------



## Richards (Dec 25, 2021)

He's going to get a pretty weird tan in armor like that if he spends a lot of time in the sunlight.

Johnathan


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 25, 2021)

Whatever that's supposed to be around his left knee, it can't be helping his Dex (or his move rate) much being unable to bend one leg....


----------



## Voadam (Dec 25, 2021)

S'mon said:


> If he was holding the shield with his unarmoured arm, it would be ok as gladiator armour.
> It's more those female knights in massive pauldrons and tiny bikinis that bug me!



The original has the shield on the unarmored side.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 25, 2021)

I think we can certainly make some allowances for "cool factor" without overly fretting about realism.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 25, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I don't get the mindset that thinks because someone is uncomfortable with something in a book that the publisher should select another picture.  Well, let's back that up a little, because, like I said, context matters.  For a game like D&D where the publishers want to attract a broad audience, it matters a whole lot.  But not every publisher is trying to attract the broadest audience possible and it's okay to release something even knowing some people will find certain images uncomfortable.



Thing is, all you have to do is look at the OP in this thread.  It's not "some publishers" that's being called for here. It's for D&D.

Funny thing.  Look at the reactions through this thread.  People have compared the moral panic of the 80's to the reactions we're seeing from women.  But, there's a significant difference.  The moral panic folks had zero interest in actually joining the hobby.  They were never, ever going to be players or customers.  

OTOH, women have been saying for years that they actually would like to join the hobby, but, they are being made to feel unwelcome because of the objectifying art.  And, being made to feel unwelcome because any calls for not having that art in the game immediately sees folks crawling out of the woodwork to defend the art and praise artists like Boris Vajello as the high point of fantasy art.  It's a very different dynamic at play.

Heck, probably the largest collection of fantasy art would have to be Magic the Gathering.  That's a huge trunkful of fantasy art but, again, not a whole lot of beef/cheese cake.  And a player base that is apparently about 40% women (and has been so for nearly 10 years).  It's almost as if being welcoming and listening to potential customers is a good idea.  

Think about it this way.  The two, hands down, largest fantasy properties are Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.  Note the complete and utter lack of chainmail bikinis or beefcake.  

It should be no surprise to anyone that D&D is going the same route.



MGibster said:


> It isn't just about the person reading the book.  What if the people publishing it prefer that picture?



Well, what a publisher wants to do is entirely up to the publisher.  But, I don't really think publishers need protecting here.  If a publisher chooses to use this kind of art in their product, the public will determine if it was a good idea or not.


----------



## MNblockhead (Dec 25, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I like the bland 5e art in the core books, I think the broadest broad church approach is well suited to what aims to be the generic go-to game of heroic fantasy adventure. But I would not want to see the same art style imposed on every work created for 5e. A Howardesque sword and sorcery setting should have Frazetta and similar art. Ravenloft I think should have Hammer Horror style art, like those 1e Caldwell Ravenloft covers - I am very much not a fan of the art in 5e Curse of Strahd. A Tolkienesque high fantasy or Game of Thrones low fantasy should have matching art. I appreciate that WotC' main aim is to avoid giving offence to favoured audiences but I do think this can sometimes get in the way of best presentation. I'm glad that eg Odyssey of the Dragonlords has a more adult feel than WotC stuff and I look forward to seeing how Raiders of the Serpent Sea turns out.



Agree with the general point, but I don't find the 5e core-book art bland. It really hit the sweet spot of nolstalgia with more modern sensibilities. I was looking into getting back into TTRPGS before the PHP came out for 5e, but nothing grabbed me. When the PHP came out I paged through it and BAM. I was hooked. Bought it immediately and haven't looked back. Maybe it is too much of a broad tent for some people, especially those who have been playing continuously for decades who have have more fine-tuned sensibilities or who seek novelty against their long experience playing various systems and editions. But for me it was an incredibly effective gateway back into TTRPGs and the art has a lot to do with that. It has obviously been very effective in attracting a new generation of gamers as well. 

Also, when first looking at the art in the 5e PHP, after having not played D&D since 1e (though I paged through the 2e books, I never bought them), I did notice the more inclusive artwork which I appreciated and none of it felt shoehorned it. It all fit in perfectly with the overall aesthetic of the book. Overall, despite a few missteps, I think that WotC threads the needle well. 

That said, I am also a free-speech fundamentalist. Purposefully trying to offend people seems like poor business, but at the same time, people have the right to publish and read/play things that bother other people. Easy enough for me to not buy, read, or play it. If someone wanted to create a TTRPG with a hard-core porn aesthetic they are free to do so. I don't think I would enjoy reading it and highly doubt I would enjoy playing it, but, who knows, maybe some gifted artists and game designers could pull it off. I certainly enjoy watching movies and TV series that at times have soft-core porn scenes with varying levels of gratuitousness.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 25, 2021)

A


MNblockhead said:


> Agree with the general point, but I don't find the 5e core-book art bland. It really hit the sweet spot of nolstalgia with more modern sensibilities. I was looking into getting back into TTRPGS before the PHP came out for 5e, but nothing grabbed me. When the PHP came out I paged through it and BAM. I was hooked. Bought it immediately and haven't looked back. Maybe it is too much of a broad tent for some people, especially those who have been playing continuously for decades who have have more fine-tuned sensibilities or who seek novelty against their long experience playing various systems and editions. But for me it was an incredibly effective gateway back into TTRPGs and the art has a lot to do with that. It has obviously been very effective in attracting a new generation of gamers as well.
> 
> Also, when first looking at the art in the 5e PHP, after having not played D&D since 1e (though I paged through the 2e books, I never bought them), I did notice the more inclusive artwork which I appreciated and none of it felt shoehorned it. It all fit in perfectly with the overall aesthetic of the book. Overall, despite a few missteps, I think that WotC threads the needle well.
> 
> That said, I am also a free-speech fundamentalist. Purposefully trying to offend people seems like poor business, but at the same time, people have the right to publish and read/play things that bother other people. Easy enough for me to not buy, read, or play it. If someone wanted to create a TTRPG with a hard-core porn aesthetic they are free to do so. I don't think I would enjoy reading it and highly doubt I would enjoy playing it, but, who knows, maybe some gifted artists and game designers could pull it off. I certainly enjoy watching movies and TV series that at times have soft-core porn scenes with varying levels of gratuitousness.



As I said, I like the 5e core book art. I like it a lot better than the 3e art. Compared to the 4e core book art I don't find it very memorable, looking through the 5e DMG recently I was struck by how little of the art I remembered. It rarely makes much impression on me, but I think it makes a good baseline that is both inoffensive and evocative of high fantasy adventure.

I think WoTC could take a risk and show the occasional belly button, bare shoulder or hint of cleavage in campaign-specific art. The complete removal of sensuality works fine in the core but l don't like it as a universal norm. I fear WoTC are afraid of the kind of people who find Aleena's tabard a mark of sexual objectification.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 25, 2021)

In every other avenue of art and culture, there is space for BOTH the inclusive and friendly, AND the risque, daring, and, yes, offensive or incorrect. The instinct to get personally insulted, and accuse others of not being inclusive, is what I hope we can get past. Just like art, literature and moving pictures, I want our role-playing game hobby to tolerate what we find obnoxious or risque, simply by ignoring it and focusing on what we do like.

That does not mean I secretly want hate crimes or right-wing propaganda.

Other cultured folks are able to separate the hateful from the merely provocative, and so should we.

But getting all riled up because fantasy races that get bonuses to Strength but not to Intelligence exists, or to return to the subject of this thread, that warrior princesses are depicted nearly nude, just isn't good for the hobby. No, these creators did not in fact publish those modules to insult or exclude you. No, really. That just weren't their motivations. The proper way of handling something you don't want to look at is to look away, not start a witch hunt. Wanting inclusive nonracist content with modern sensibilities is perfectly fine. Wanting others to stop consuming content that doesn't cater to those sensibilities of yours is not.

Jumping to the conclusion I must be a hateful racist just because I might enjoy a game full of inequality or misery is, on the other hand, utterly unacceptable. Concluding these other people must be misogynistic or hateful because they want something else than you is a serious error that threatens our entire industry. If you watch horror movies or read 50 shades of gray I would never in my life accuse you of being a murderous sadist or a masochistic slut. But for some reason it has become commonplace to assume you must be what you play in ttrpgs.

This despite how we should be the most experienced and trained people in being able to separate reality from fantasy. There are even big popular RPG forums that bunch you together with extremists and trolls and simply ban you if you voice concern over this semi-recent narrow-mindedness. So in short, if I should enjoy nekkid warrior princesses in my gaming supplements, I really need you to not take that as a personal insult, or conclude I must hate all women, or the like.

That is the point. So far this discussion is faintly hopeful, since for every "call to arms" post there's at least one voice of calm and reason.

Zapp

PS. If anything of the above makes you go "Zapp the fracker makes my blood boil" I assure you, it's YOU and not me. No, nope and njet. I simply don't harbor any of the malicious motivations you think I do - it's you projecting that naughty word on me, and this entire post is me suggesting you maybe stop doing that. For your own sake, for the entire hobby's sake. Thanks. DS


----------



## S'mon (Dec 25, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> In every other avenue of art and culture, there is space for BOTH the inclusive and friendly, AND the risque, daring, and, yes, offensive or incorrect.
> 
> The instinct to get personally insulted, and accuse others of not being inclusive, is what I hope we can get past.
> 
> ...



Well the ENW moderation, while certainly often annoying to me, is overall a lot more moderate and inclusive than some other forums. Everyone needs to tread carefully though if you don't want a thread lock. Plenty of space for polite disagreement and even some common ground I hope!


----------



## Dioltach (Dec 25, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> He has updated stats in _Dungeon_ #105, where he's said to wear a _+3 moderate fortification adamantine ceremonial spiked *half-plate*_, which must win some sort of award for the most modifiers to a single piece of equipment.



To be fair, I can't recall any description of half-plate specifying which half of the body it covers.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 25, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Thing is, all you have to do is look at the OP in this thread. It's not "some publishers" that's being called for here. It's for D&D.



Okay.  Mainly I'm pushing back against the idea that just because an image makes someone uncomfortable that it's wrong for the publisher or anyone else to want to keep it in.  



Hussar said:


> Funny thing. Look at the reactions through this thread. People have compared the moral panic of the 80's to the reactions we're seeing from women. But, there's a significant difference. The moral panic folks had zero interest in actually joining the hobby. They were never, ever going to be players or customers.



I do agree that comparing the moral panic of the 1980s to reactions we're seeing from people regarding cheesecake is silly.  And it's not just women, Avalanche Press lost _my_ business primarily because their cover art alienated me.  You're right, on one hand we had people who wanted to end the hobby and on the other hand you have people who just want to participate and feel as though they're welcome.  Big difference.  



Hussar said:


> Think about it this way. The two, hands down, largest fantasy properties are Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Note the complete and utter lack of chainmail bikinis or beefcake.



Well it would be tough to have a lot of chainmail bikinis in a property that has very few women to begin with or one where they all start out as children.  Of course both Harry Potter and LotR are also head and shoulders above a lot of fantasy offerings in terms of their literary quality which likely has a lot to do with their success.  



Hussar said:


> It should be no surprise to anyone that D&D is going the same route.



Going?  They went that route a long time ago.  At least since 3rd edition in 2000, it seems to me that the majority of women have been depicted as being appropriately attired.  And, like I said earlier, I'm not exactly chomping at the bit to see them add nudity to anything in D&D.  I don't need illustrations of topless succubi, lamias, or nymphs in the Monster Manual.  I'll save the Frazetta illustrations of women with glorious asses and buff dudes with axes for the appropriate venue; Airbrushed onto the side of my '77 Chevy Van.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 25, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Well the ENW moderation, while certainly often annoying to me, is overall a lot more moderate and inclusive than some other forums. Everyone needs to tread carefully though if you don't want a thread lock. Plenty of space for polite disagreement and even some common ground I hope!




I have to say, I quit rpg.net over largely this problem. (There was a right-wing forum I quit as well, but we won't mention its name.)


----------



## Galandris (Dec 25, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> Jumping to the conclusion I must be a hateful racist just because I might enjoy a game full of inequality or misery




I am GM'ing an Eberron campaign and playing into one. Both GMs are drawing inspiration on 19th century authors. The other GM emphasises Jules Vernes and Doyle, I dig Zola and Disraeli's social works. Keith Baker once said the Jorasco (healers) do swear an oath of not curing anyone before getting paid in full... That gives you an idea of how I see the Houses. I feel the darker the situation, the brighter the PCs can shine. [especially as defeating a social problem is harder than a great wyrm]. Both playstyles are equally enjoyable.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> In every other avenue of art and culture, there is space for BOTH the inclusive and friendly, AND the risque, daring, and, yes, offensive or incorrect. The instinct to get personally insulted, and accuse others of not being inclusive, is what I hope we can get past. Just like art, literature and moving pictures, I want our role-playing game hobby to tolerate what we find obnoxious or risque, simply by ignoring it and focusing on what we do like.



You do recognize the incredible amount of privilege that shows right?  It's ok to be obnoxious or risqué just because it doesn't bother you?

You then go on to talk about motives.  No one cares.  The motivation is 100% completely unimportant to the conversation.  It does not matter.  Determining motivation is about assigning blame and no one has any interest in assigning blame.  That's not the point of these conversations.  It's to show that yes, these images (and other things) make people feel less welcome in the hobby.

Again, I find the mindset utterly baffling that thinks that it's okay to tell people to "just ignore it" when they are directly telling you that this is making them feel bad.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2021)

MGibster said:


> Okay.  Mainly I'm pushing back against the idea that just because an image makes someone uncomfortable that it's wrong for the publisher or anyone else to want to keep it in.




Great?  No one is making this argument, so, win, I guess?


MGibster said:


> I do agree that comparing the moral panic of the 1980s to reactions we're seeing from people regarding cheesecake is silly.  And it's not just women, Avalanche Press lost _my_ business primarily because their cover art alienated me.  You're right, on one hand we had people who wanted to end the hobby and on the other hand you have people who just want to participate and feel as though they're welcome.  Big difference.
> 
> 
> Well it would be tough to have a lot of chainmail bikinis in a property that has very few women to begin with or one where they all start out as children.  Of course both Harry Potter and LotR are also head and shoulders above a lot of fantasy offerings in terms of their literary quality which likely has a lot to do with their success.
> ...



Fair enough.  The job is certainly getting done.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 26, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Great? No one is making this argument, so, win, I guess?



No one?  What we have here is a failure to communicate on my part then.  Because I don't understand what you mean by the following:


Hussar said:


> I just don't get it. If someone says they are feeling uncomfortable, and all it costs you is switching out the picture in a game book to make them happy, who says no to that?



Reading that, it seems to me that you're arguing that it's wrong to keep an image knowing it makes someone else uncomfortable.  Is that not what you meant?  


Hussar said:


> You do recognize the incredible amount of privilege that shows right? It's ok to be obnoxious or risqué just because it doesn't bother you?



I find this really odd.  Being obnoxious and risque is often a way to attack the establishment (i.e. those with privilege).  Swift's _A Modest Proposal_ was obnoxious and _Gulliver's Travels_ were risque for example. And saying that someone is arguing from a position of privilege isn't really much of a counter argument. So what? It doesn't mean the argument is wrong.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2021)

MGibster said:


> No one?  What we have here is a failure to communicate on my part then.  Because I don't understand what you mean by the following:
> 
> Reading that, it seems to me that you're arguing that it's wrong to keep an image knowing it makes someone else uncomfortable.  Is that not what you meant?



It's wrong for the fandom to argue against change knowing that not changing something is keeping someone from enjoying the hobby.  Publishers and publishing is an angle you keep trying to bring up and I simply don't care.  Publishers in no way need my or your protection.  If they choose to sell something, even knowing that whatever it is they're trying to sell will cost them sales, that's on them.  

But, this repeated attempt to steer the discussion into the realm of publishers is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.  Who cares if some publisher wants to publish something?  

I'm saying that arguments from the fandom defending these sorts of things is what keeps people out of the fandom.



MGibster said:


> I find this really odd.  Being obnoxious and risque is often a way to attack the establishment (i.e. those with privilege).  Swift's _A Modest Proposal_ was obnoxious and _Gulliver's Travels_ were risque for example. And saying that someone is arguing from a position of privilege isn't really much of a counter argument. So what? It doesn't mean the argument is wrong.



Yes, it really does.  The only reason you can argue, "Well, if you don't like it, leave." is because you have the privilege of knowing that your voice will ALWAYS be heard.  That everything you want and like will be catered to.  And, let's be honest here, if you're seriously comparing Swift, deliberately writing satire of the upper classes, and very, VERY much not punching down, and drawing pin-up art in fantasy game books, well, we really have no conversation here.  

Swift, at no point, was punching down.  He was very deliberately writing satire to effect social change.  Are you now claiming that we should include pin-up art in game books as a vehicle for social change?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2021)

I took a minute to think about why the publisher angle doesn't really work.  And hopefully this will clarify my position.

A writer and publisher make works for a specific market.  There is a target audience for a work.  If someone doesn't like that work, then they probably aren't the target audience.  If enough people don't like the work, the work fails to make enough money and it quietly goes away.  Usually - with exceptions of course.  If your target audience doesn't like the work, well, then that's a big problem.

My point is, the market will handle the publishers.  No one is claiming that publishers can't publish whatever they want.  Of course they can.  But, when a segment of your customers is telling you that what you are publishing is putting them off the product, the response generally isn't, "Well, if you don't like it, leave".  That's the way things were done for a long time and that's why D&D stayed a tiny niche product in a tiny niche hobby, while things like Magic the Gathering are global brands that absolutely dwarf RPG's.  

Now that RPG's have finally managed to break free of the "boys club" image, suddenly we're seeing massive growth.  And, a very, VERY large amount of that growth is with women joining the hobby.  

It's pretty hard to argue that we should ignore complaints when apparently listening to complaints means that we have massively grown the hobby.  Heck, even the edition wars stuff worked that way.  Had WotC listened earlier on, things probably would have been very different.  But, all they listened to was the RPGA and their own message boards.  And it was a disaster.  

Funny how listening to customers gives good results.


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 26, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> No, these creators did not in fact publish those modules to insult or exclude you. No, really. That just weren't their motivations.



No? Then what is the motivation? I don't think they can remotely claim that they believe the art is "realistic", it'd be very hard to be unaware of the controversies about specifically female art representation in games, so unless they're totally oblivious as to the effect of their art choices then their motivation is rather less obvious than you seem to suggest.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 26, 2021)

@Hussar (and everyone else) I do not tell you to leave. I do not want you to leave. You are all completely free to want whatever content you desire. And not purchase the content you dislike.

But it's a delicate balance. Of course I realize that women gamers might want supplements with no nudity (say, just focusing on one aspect of this complex discussion, chiefly because, well, read the thread title). (No "tasteless" nudity I might add, for whatever value of "tasteless" you prefer)

And it follows it is a good thing writers are nowadays much more likely to exclude content that excludes.

But sometimes the arguments spill over to a place which is not good for the community - where any content that does contain female nudity (again, just an example) is interpreted as attacking people.

We just can't go to the place where any nudity (yes, I am specifically including exploitative cheesecake now!) is interpreted as attacking female gamers, we just can't. It opens the door to a very bad place, where we give the power to everybody to call for censure based on the argument "this offends me". I desperately hope everybody reading this understands why this means the death of creativity.

Art must be allowed to be free. And sometimes offensive. It just isn't attacking you, no matter how strongly you feel it does. No, really, it isn't. (Except when it is - read me quoting myself below)

I'm going to quoute Hussar here - not because I want to start an attacking argument, but because he set up my point perfectly:


Hussar said:


> You do recognize the incredible amount of privilege that shows right?  It's ok to be obnoxious or risqué just because it doesn't bother you?



My point is that it is ok to be obnoxious or risqué *full stop*. Even if it bothers me. Even if it offends or aggravates me.

You are right, though. Yes, I am a white cis het male, so yes, it is probable far fewer things will come across as hurtful to me than some other parts of the demographic. But I ask you to consider my point to be valid despite my privilege.

Which brings me to a possibly related topic. Again, I realize writing "[something] must be free" will inevitably be misinterpreted, so I feel obligated to quote myself:


> That does not mean I secretly want hate crimes or right-wing propaganda.
> 
> Other cultured folks are able to separate the hateful from the merely provocative, and so should we.




Actually reading my previous posts is a great idea, before you think I am saying something I really am not.

Now then, I am not accusing you for anything, Hussar. I might have been sloppy with my usage of "you" above, so let me assure you I am not saying anything about where on this line you fall, Hussar. I realize it is possible to construe my argumentation as strawmanning - so let me say it outright: nobody has called for all content to strip out "bad stuff". Not in this thread anyway. I am simply bringing up a discussion born out of consternation and frustration about how the ttrpg discourse is perilously close to capsizing in my opinion.

Yes, this is difficult to talk about. But the only way to successfully avoid a new morale panic is to have a dispassionate discussion. Thank you for your thoughts, Hussar.

Best regards, Zapp

PS. Here's one possibly constructive idea: before you (or I!) condemn any new roleplaying supplement, how about considering how it would have been received in the greater world of culture. That it, if it was a book or painting or movie (or play or poem etc).

If it glorifies white power or some other idiocy it would be rightly shunned and ignored completely. But what does not happen (thankfully) is that infrequent instances of "bad stuff" overtakes the entire reception the way it can do in our hobby, with entire threads devoted to picking the content apart. We can have great (or at least popular) art that includes nudity, even of the gratuitous exploitative kind, just to pick one example. (Example again not random because thread title)


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 26, 2021)

I can come up with several examples (re: PS in my previous post just above), but will discuss them within spoilers, not because they might spoil works (they might) but because it is a sidetrack for this thread:



Spoiler



Showrunner Misha Green made a misstep when the only transgender native american character on Lovecraft Country was killed off almost as quickly as the character was introduced. It didn't help the character was introduced in a vulnerable state (featured in fully frontal nudity). However, the series as a whole was lauded and Misha Green does not face accusations of being an naughty word generally.

The 2015 movie Youth features a textbook case of gratitious nudity, when Mădălina Diana Ghenea decides to enter the pool where Michael Caine and Harvey Keitel sits, completely in the nude, with the camera definitely in "male gaze" mode. While director Sorrentino might get a pass "because Europe" and thus being outside the reach of morally indignant Americans, actors Caine and Keitel have faced zero pushback for their participation.

The Netflix series Altered Carbon got a mixed reception to say the least (talking season one here). It does many things to naked females that can't be said to be politically correct, and that's not my point. My point is that the showrunner Laeta Kalogridis sure faced a lot of criticism, but not of the "you are excluding women" kind. Full disclosure: I personally loved its sleazy uncompromising take on classic cyberpunk.

Margot Robbie is a very successful and talent actress. But would she have been where she is today without her fully nude scene in Scorcese's Wolf of Wall Street? (I wouldn't call it a "debut" since Wikipedia tells me she had half a dozen acting credits pre-2013) And would another, less culturally entrenched, director get away with such a scene? Would another actor than Leonardo diCaprio? This example is admittedly less potent of its relative age, since 2013 is pre #metoo. But does that mean Margot should consider herself lucky to have made her big break before that door shut? I cannot recall a single instance of somebody claiming Robbie is overrated because she took the "easy" way to fame.

_(only __two__ four examples for now. I might add a few more if and when I think of them. Hopefully this is enough for you to see my point. Note: I am deliberately aiming to include at least as many works by female and/or PoC creators than rich white pasty dudes, just because)_


I could add many more examples (and please do, possibly in a new thread?) but the point stands: these are works of art that can be construed as offensive to somebody. Definitely. Without question. That is *still* not a good reason to censor or block them. It is a good reason to avoid them, though.

Of course, I'm not arguing for frontal nudity in products like D&D aimed partially at an underage audience, but I don't need to say that. Roleplayers don't limit their dissections of gaming material to only PG supplements after all.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 26, 2021)

Bluenose said:


> No? Then what is the motivation? I don't think they can remotely claim that they believe the art is "realistic", it'd be very hard to be unaware of the controversies about specifically female art representation in games, so unless they're totally oblivious as to the effect of their art choices then their motivation is rather less obvious than you seem to suggest.



I'd think their main motivation was to sell product. A possible secondary motivation is that they liked the art.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 26, 2021)

Edit: following @S'mon sensible advice, I am self-censoring and will just say that your concern is well-founded and I think we're on the losing end by advocating free speech for artists in RPG context.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 26, 2021)

Galandris said:


> This debate no longer constrainted to graphical art. A thread was closed recently and people given warning for lamenting...



I think it's best to avoid broadening the discussion, otherwise this thread will inevitably be locked too.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 26, 2021)

Reynard said:


> I think we can certainly make some allowances for "cool factor" without overly fretting about realism.



Agreed, but at some point it gets just a bit out of hand.  My cutoff came when 3e art started portraying weapons as bigger than their wielders...


----------



## Dioltach (Dec 26, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Agreed, but at some point it gets just a bit out of hand.  My cutoff came when 3e art started portraying weapons as bigger than their wielders...



But how else do you represent a 1d8 hp character wielding a 1d12 great axe?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 26, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Agreed, but at some point it gets just a bit out of hand.  My cutoff came when 3e art started portraying weapons as bigger than their wielders...


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> We just can't go to the place where any nudity (yes, I am specifically including exploitative cheesecake now!) is interpreted as attacking female gamers, we just can't. It opens the door to a very bad place, where we give the power to everybody to call for censure based on the argument "this offends me". I desperately hope everybody reading this understands why this means the death of creativity.



Is this all hypothetical?  Or do you have specific examples in mind?  Because, to be honest, I'm not seeing this.  I'm not seeing the "death of creativity" when we're talking about choosing to not include exploitative art in game books.


----------



## Voadam (Dec 26, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Agreed, but at some point it gets just a bit out of hand.  My cutoff came when 3e art started portraying weapons as bigger than their wielders...



Tastes vary.

I enjoy a lot of Warhammer art.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I can come up with several examples (re: PS in my previous post just above), but will discuss them within spoilers, not because they might spoil works (they might) but because it is a sidetrack for this thread:
> /snip
> 
> _(only __two__ four examples for now. I might add a few more if and when I think of them. Hopefully this is enough for you to see my point. Note: I am deliberately aiming to include at least as many works by female and/or PoC creators than rich white pasty dudes, just because)_
> ...



LOL, this is what happens when you reply before continuing to read.

Ok, 4 examples.  NONE of them from RPG gaming.  And none of them resulting in any sort of censorship whatsoever.  So, what's your point?  Altered Carbon went on for two more seasons  plus an animated one.   Wolf of Wall Street was a huge success.  Where was anything censored?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2021)

A further thought. 

To me, the fundamental question is; Is it better for the hobby to have more people playing?

Again, totally just speaking for myself, the answer is an unqualified yes.  It makes the hobby more socially acceptable, it ensures that we still have a hobby in the future, it makes it easier to find players and DM's.  It means that there's more money for creatives to bring out more goodies for me to enjoy.  So, yeah, it is better for the hobby to have more people playing.

Which, alternatively, means that anything that results in less people playing is bad.  Adding nudity to gaming art has not increased the number of gamers over the years - no one says, "Hey, yeah, I totally got into AD&D for that succubus picture."  OTOH, removing cheesecake art from the game has coincided with huge growths in the hobby.  Additionally, other companies, like Paizo, had moved down this road, pathfinding a route so to speak, even before WotC did it, so, there is a considerable precedence here.

So, in what way does the game or the hobby benefit from using this type of art?

Oh, and on a total side note - I too am a cis white dude creeping up very close to 50.  Sigh.  So, yeah, take from that what you will.  And, I've got a stack of Heavy Metal magazines to prove that I'm hardly a prude when it comes to art.  But, again, time and place.  I love artists like Luis Royo.  Fantastic stuff.  Frazetta, Vajello, Julie Bell.  All fantastic stuff.  Love it to pieces.  However, I don't think that they really have a place in D&D material.  Or, at least, not without some set up first.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 26, 2021)

Reynard said:


> View attachment 148907



Were that image done in 3e-art style the blade of the sword would be about as wide as the man's shoulders...


----------



## Voadam (Dec 26, 2021)

Hussar said:


> It's wrong for the fandom to argue against change knowing that not changing something is keeping someone from enjoying the hobby.



There are problems with that as a general proposition.

Paizo has and has had LGBT inclusive representation in their fantasy gaming for years and years.

As an element of the stories and art and such it makes some uncomfortable or they find such elements objectionable and they argue that this status quo should change to exclude such elements so they do not feel uncomfortable and can enjoy the fantasy gaming without the LGBT aspects and it has driven some away who wanted to be part of pathfinder.

The general Paizo fandom argue against changing it, even knowing that not changing it is keeping somebody from enjoying the hobby.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 26, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Were that image done in 3e-art style the blade of the sword would be about as wide as the man's shoulders...



I never really cared for the surfboard style swords that were in vogue for a number of years.  I'm thinking the influence came from either anime or JRPGs but I might be wrong. 







Voadam said:


> I enjoy a lot of Warhammer art.



Part of the reason Warhammer models have oversized weapons is because of the limitations of modeling tiny figures for a table top war game.  However, I'm with you.  I happen to like the Warhammer aesthetic partly because it's ridiculous.  Why I like the image of the Chaos Warrior you posted and dislike the Pathfinder Barbarian I'm not exactly sure.


----------



## Voadam (Dec 26, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I never really cared for the surfboard style swords that were in vogue for a number of years.  I'm thinking the influence came from either anime or JRPGs but I might be wrong.
> 
> View attachment 148921



I think it is an anime and video game thing, where visual distinction is similar to the minis issue. I keep getting references to Cloud whenever I search big sword.

For the Pathfinder iconic barbarian though, she has a backstory for it of having taken it as spoils from fighting giants, it is a weapon not originally designed to be used by a human but she rages and gains enough strength to counterbalance the problems of using an oversized blade.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 26, 2021)

I think the oversized swords came from Final Fantasy and computers JRPGs.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> For the Pathfinder iconic barbarian though, she has a backstory for it of having taken it as spoils from fighting giants, it is a weapon not originally designed to be used by a human but she rages and gains enough strength to counterbalance the problems of using an oversized blade.




And in the CRPG, she's better respec'ed to use another type of weapon anyway until like two-third of the game, so they aknowledge that it's real pain to use this kind of blade.


At some point, the most inclusive solution for art will be no art:

It costs less than having art (and with so many customers wanting very cheap products, it might be the way to go)
Il is easier to print in an era where PoD is expensive and people might be tempted to print at home part of the book they'll use
It avoids all accusation of imbalanced representation
It removes accusation of historical errors ("why is there full plate in a setting without firearms? That's overkill!")
It avoids all concerns about nudity
It avoids accusations of drawing a monster with elements of a real-world culture and/or a real-word ethnicity
Blind people aren't left out.
The drawback list is rather limited:

There is no art to drive the imagination, so it must be driven by words only.
I really don't know the part of art in the total price of a book, but if there was a lower pricepoint for, say, products with no art and "basic printer-friendly layout" and another for a full-fledged book, I'd certainly go for the cheaper one, unless the difference was minimal.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 26, 2021)

Hussar said:


> It's wrong for the fandom to argue against change knowing that not changing something is keeping someone from enjoying the hobby.



That's such an overly broad comment I can't agree.  I'd need to look at the art in question and decide for myself whether it was wrong for the fandom to argue against changing it.  There will no doubt be times where I agree the art should be changed and other times were I do not.  I don't think it's necessarily wrong to disagree that something needs to be changed.



Hussar said:


> Yes, it really does. The only reason you can argue, "Well, if you don't like it, leave." is because you have the privilege of knowing that your voice will ALWAYS be heard. That everything you want and like will be catered to.



This isn't true.  As I grow older, fewer hobby materials are created to cater to my tastes.  And one of the reasons I bring up Avalanche Press in threads about art, is because it's a good example of how I was alienated from a product I actually had an inclination to purchase.  I took one look at the covers of their book and decided they weren't interested in me as a customer.  I reject the idea that everything I want and like will be catered to.  



Hussar said:


> Swift, at no point, was punching down. He was very deliberately writing satire to effect social change. Are you now claiming that we should include pin-up art in game books as a vehicle for social change?



I'm not arguing for the inclusion of pin-up art in game books.  Like I said, I avoided some game books specifically because of the cheesecake cover art.  I would argue that it's probably appropriate for some products, and it's okay for it to exist even if I don't always care for it.  Just because it makes someone uncomfortable is not a good enough reason for the fandom to want to change it.  It's okay to like different things.  It's okay if something isn't designed for everyone.


----------



## Erik Alt (Dec 26, 2021)

I think anything sexual that heterosexual men like is bad and should be banned.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 26, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Ok, 4 examples. NONE of them from RPG gaming.







> So, what's your point?



My point I want the ttrpg hobby to react to new content the way the art world or the world of cinema reacts to new paintings or movies.

All the examples were taken from outside the ttrpg hobby deliberately, to show how other "hobbys" offer alternative solutions.

How does these culture circles marry respecting women with the freedom to portray females in objectifying situations? How do they reconcile objectionable art without censure?

That's a great question and I suggest we could perhaps apply any answers to our own hobby.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 26, 2021)

Erik Alt said:


> I think anything sexual that heterosexual men like is bad and should be banned.



I don't think anyone here has argued from that point of view and it's an unfair characterization of those who have expressed concerns about art being inclusive.


----------



## Erik Alt (Dec 26, 2021)

What does inclusive mean in this case? Sexy dressed men as well? If so I'm totally for it. The current prudishness is very annoying.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 26, 2021)

I just bought Fizban's. There is a picture of Laurana fighting Kitiara from Dragonlance. Kitiara hasn't changed much, but Laurana now looks more like Kitiara than her original pic.
I noticed something similar in Curse of Strahd, the maiden Strahd lusts over now looks more like a pretty sexless hard bitten adventurer than a traditional Gothic Romance damsel.
To me these are both examples of inappropriate de-sexualisation of female characters, though the Strahd one is worse. At least Laurana was already a warrior, it's just now she looks not much different from the villain (shades of Captain Marvel, perhaps - a female hero who was scripted more like a traditional villain).

Like I said earlier, sexy/sensual art has its place, as well as having places where it doesn't work well. Removing sex from Dragonlance art heroines isn't a huge deal, though I think it's good to at least preserve a sense of virtue and even innocence. Removing sex from vampire art I think weakens the mythology, and creates something different and less fun. For me, at least.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 26, 2021)

Erik Alt said:


> What does inclusive mean in this case? Sexy dressed men as well? If so I'm totally for it. The current prudishness is very annoying.



It's not about prudish sensibilities,  it is about avoiding objectification and harassment as well as making people that aren't cis-het white dudes feel welcome. Sexy isn't always sexist, but it's easy for it to be if people are only thinking about how hawt the girl in distress is.


----------



## Erik Alt (Dec 26, 2021)

Who are the people harassed and why are "cis-het" white men so different from anybody else? Humans are sexual beings and like attractive people, especially in fantasy. If you want the game (or whatever) to be made for children I can understand, but D&D and most roleplaying games are for the 15+ demographic.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 27, 2021)

Erik Alt said:


> Who are the people harassed and why are "cis-het" white men so different from anybody else? Humans are sexual beings and like attractive people, especially in fantasy. If you want the game (or whatever) to be made for children I can understand, but D&D and most roleplaying games are for the 15+ demographic.



That's not, nor has it ever, been true.  D&D has been PG since day 1.  Says so right on the covers.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 27, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> My point I want the ttrpg hobby to react to new content the way the art world or the world of cinema reacts to new paintings or movies.
> 
> All the examples were taken from outside the ttrpg hobby deliberately, to show how other "hobbys" offer alternative solutions.
> 
> ...



The problem is, you appear to be looking for a one size fits all solution.  That's never going to happen.  What works in one area doesn't work in another.  It's a very complex issue and has to be dealt with on an individual case basis.  And, the line is going to be shifting back and forth all over the place.

What's acceptable in one venue certainly isn't in another.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 27, 2021)

Voadam said:


> There are problems with that as a general proposition.
> 
> Paizo has and has had LGBT inclusive representation in their fantasy gaming for years and years.
> 
> ...



But, they made the change, people accepted it and moved on.

Good on them.


----------



## Orius (Dec 27, 2021)

What the hell is this "maybe oversized weapons came from JRPGs" crap?  There's no doubt at all about it:


----------



## MGibster (Dec 27, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I noticed something similar in Curse of Strahd, the maiden Strahd lusts over now looks more like a pretty sexless hard bitten adventurer than a traditional Gothic Romance damsel.



This is Ireena Kolyana next to a portrait of Tatyana from the original I-6 module.  She's actually a level 4 Fighter who might join the PCs and take part in combat.  Ireena's an attractive woman, but I wouldn't actually describe this as a sexed up picture. 





And this is Ireena from _Curse of Strahd.  _She's different, she's a Noble in this version instead of a Fighter, but she doesn't look at all sexless to me. 






S'mon said:


> To me these are both examples of inappropriate de-sexualisation of female characters, though the Strahd one is worse. At least Laurana was already a warrior, it's just now she looks not much different from the villain (shades of Captain Marvel, perhaps - a female hero who was scripted more like a traditional villain).



I'm just not seeing it.  I think the original Castle Ravenloft was influenced by Hammer horror movies but fast forward to 2016 and I'm thinking most D&D players probably haven't seen one of those movies.  It made sense to me to update the art.  I've got a special place in my heart for the original, but I don't have any objections to the newer version.


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 27, 2021)

Hussar said:


> To me, the fundamental question is; Is it better for the hobby to have more people playing?




I think the fundamental question for a publisher is "who do I think my target audience is and will my product appeal to them". If a publisher thinks their target audience is everyone yet includes gratuitous nudity then they are fooling themselves because its likely many potential buyers will turn their nose at a book full of "porn".

Movie studios target PG ratings for a reason - it maximises the audience numbers therefore revenue/profit. RPG publishers should also make similar decisions including whether they want a larger market for their products or not - if they're happy to cater to a niche market then good for them.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 27, 2021)

Crusadius said:


> I think the fundamental question for a publisher is "who do I think my target audience is and will my product appeal to them". If a publisher thinks their target audience is everyone yet includes gratuitous nudity then they are fooling themselves because its likely many potential buyers will turn their nose at a book full of "porn".
> 
> Movie studios target PG ratings for a reason - it maximises the audience numbers therefore revenue/profit. RPG publishers should also make similar decisions including whether they want a larger market for their products or not - if they're happy to cater to a niche market then good for them.



They do target ratings to maximize profit by maximizing audience, but sometimes that’s not the story they want to tell and thus go for R. And that’s appropriate too. Both Logan and Deadpool would have sucked had they been stepped down to get a PG from the MPAA. Fortunately, they didn’t do so and those of us interested in more adult superhero stories were able to enjoy them.
The same is true of more adult themes and situations or topics that require a more adult approach in RPGs. The hobby in general should cast a wide net, but individual products can and should pick their audiences and label/market accordingly.


----------



## Voadam (Dec 27, 2021)

Hussar said:


> But, they made the change, people accepted it and moved on.
> 
> Good on them.



You seem to have misunderstood the example.

Paizo is and has been LGBT inclusive and representative in its stories and its art. This is the baseline.

This is uncomfortable and/or objectionable to some and they have expressed a desire that the stories and art not include such elements and just be Pathfinder fantasy RPG stuff they can enjoy. That is the requested change.

The majority of the Paizo fanbase and Paizo hears these requests for change and exclusion of material that makes some uncomfortable or that they object to and reject the calls for change even knowing it will keep somebody from enjoying the hobby.

This is sort of the flipped mirror image situation of [nudity] makes [women] feel not welcome.

Your statement seems to condemn the Paizo fandom for objecting to getting rid of the LGBT representation in Pathfinder stuff.

"It's wrong for the fandom to argue against change knowing that not changing something is keeping someone from enjoying the hobby."

Its possible to still say that as a general principle but specific other principles are more important when considered together (inclusiveness, representation, whatever) but on its own as people have wildly different and contradictory tastes and preferences it will lead to cutting out a lot and give a ton of people veto over lots of stuff.


----------



## ProfessorDetective (Dec 27, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> Well, yes and no. Presuming the artwork is meant to reflect the rules of the game world, which the characters live by, a character who isn't allowed to wear armor (e.g. a D&D wizard) wouldn't be decked out in plate mail or anything of that nature. Quite often they'll instead be using a combination of spells and magic items for personal defense, which can be hard to present visually ("that cape she's wearing is actually a _cloak of resistance +5_, and her pendant is an _amulet of natural armor +3_").




Yeah, I've always been of the "crunch informs fluff" and "crunch reflects fluff" schools. If you want your PC to be viable in a harsh, usually combative, environment while seemingly ill equipped for said environment, I prefer some justification for it.

For examples: the 5E classes who can get by with minimum gear most, in my eyes, are Barbarians (Unarmored Defence and Rage making them damage sponges with only sword and/or board, plus the classic Celtic Berserker is always a fun image), Monks (Unarmored Defence and Movement allow them to dodge most attacks and dish out damage with nothing but their bare hands, plus I'm a fan of Korra and Beau), Druids (because Wildshape, plus the traditional metal taboo) and, honestly, most back-line spellcasters (plenty of protective spells), but especially Sorcerers (advantage on CON saves and the lack of a spell book). Hell, if your DM is generous with magic items or just willing to play into your concept, you can just stack on a bunch of AC boosting items (Cloak/Ring of Protection, Bracers of Defense, Brooch of Shielding, Barrier Tattoos) and wear whatever you want or nothing at all besides.

Yes, I put some thought into this beforehand. The idea of "skyclad" (a common pagan term for ritualistic nudity) adventurers gives me my kicks. I even homebrewed magic items to facilitate that "extreme minimalist" idea (a port of the Ring of Nourishment and the Ring of Comfort AKA Resist Flame/Frost since those also give you higher tolerances for extreme heat/cold). I'm weird and these theory builds are unlikely to see actual play.

In short: I'm more than fine with nudity in D&D, especially in the appropriate contexts (even if said context is 'because I want to go streaking through the dungeon"), but I don't think WotC should actively add such content to the game, they ARE marketing more to kids and families these days. And its not like the homebrew scene can't fill on the gaps.


----------



## ProfessorDetective (Dec 27, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> It's an interesting point. Thieves would be in leather, and wizards using, say, bracers, cloak, and ring (I'm showing my age here) wouldn't necessarily be completely covered up. Of course, they're used to being in back and avoiding missile fire, so dressing to attract attention might not be the smartest thing. But we could easily see an arrogant magic-user with a high CON showing off their physique, and some of the newer spellcasting classes like sorcerer or warlock that are charisma-based might make it part of their shtick--seductive enchantresses are a thing in mythology. Indeed, it wouldn't even have to be gendered the usual way--if it's _magically enhanced _charisma, it's not impossible to imagine a warlock distracting people (even if they don't usually swing that way) with his supernatural studliness.




And, of course, Bards. Nothing but DM Fiat stopping them from making a form of Exotic Dance their performing art of choice.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 27, 2021)

Voadam said:


> Your statement seems to condemn the Paizo fandom for objecting to getting rid of the LGBT representation in Pathfinder stuff.



Sorry, wasn't clear. 

I have zero problems ejecting people who want to keep things in the game that make other people feel not welcome.  And, frankly, I have zero sympathy for anyone who feels that they can't enjoy the game if the game is representational of all people.  

So, good on Paizo.  They made the changes and they stuck to them.  Well done them.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 27, 2021)

I can't tell if this thread is about art/sex in D&D books published by WotC, or art in RPG books generally.

I don't have the most recent imprint of Apocalypse World, but the version I have, which is about 10 years old, has (black and white) art that is not sexuality-free. And every character type has a special move that is triggered by having sex with another character (PC or, in some cases, NPC). That aspect of the game was inspired by an earlier RPG supplement called Sex and Sorcerer.

So I guess I'm not seeing where the censorship is in RPGing. But I think it's going to be a while before a WotC-published book deals in mechanical or even serious story terms with human intimacy, and I wouldn't expect a WotC-published book to have very sexual art. Who would?


----------



## Morrus (Dec 27, 2021)

Voadam said:


> There are problems with that as a general proposition.
> 
> Paizo has and has had LGBT inclusive representation in their fantasy gaming for years and years.
> 
> ...



If the mere reminder that one's fellow gamers dare to even exist is objectionable to some, it is they who need to leave. We'll brook no advocation for anti-inclusive stances like this on this site, please.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 27, 2021)

Hussar said:


> The problem is, you appear to be looking for a one size fits all solution.  That's never going to happen.  What works in one area doesn't work in another.  It's a very complex issue and has to be dealt with on an individual case basis.  And, the line is going to be shifting back and forth all over the place.
> 
> What's acceptable in one venue certainly isn't in another.



My concern stems from my perception that all of role-playing (at least all of mainstream role-playing of which discussion is encouraged at major rpg boards) is trending towards a one-size fits all solution. I honestly believe my tastes aren't extreme (or extremist!) and it would sadden me greatly if each product not deemed safe and inclusive for _everyone_ is shunted away.

Lots of content that are inclusive and sensitive? _Hell yes!
Only_ content that are inclusive and sensitive? I certainly hope not.

I trust you appreciate the difference, Hussar. Is this because I want to denigrate women or any other group? No. I chose to believe we must be able to handle difficult subjects in ttrps just as we are able to in other areas of culture and art. Just because a product contains problematic elements cannot mean it should be censored or banned. See my earlier four examples from movies, for instance. Again, unless "provocation" bleeds over into "hate crime". 

So I would not characterize my approach as one-size fits all. In fact, I am pretty sure I am advocating *the exact opposite*, where all rpg supplements aren't judged by the same standards, and instead works much like the rest of the world, where art is judged separate from its artists, and you and I are both able to tolerate or ignore the supplements you or I are offended by.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 27, 2021)

Crusadius said:


> I think the fundamental question for a publisher is "who do I think my target audience is and will my product appeal to them". If a publisher thinks their target audience is everyone yet includes gratuitous nudity then they are fooling themselves because its likely many potential buyers will turn their nose at a book full of "porn".
> 
> Movie studios target PG ratings for a reason - it maximises the audience numbers therefore revenue/profit. RPG publishers should also make similar decisions including whether they want a larger market for their products or not - if they're happy to cater to a niche market then good for them.



I would agree, except you make it sound like every non-PG movie is targeting a "niche market", which to me is absurd - in that if it is true, then I cry for America; you guys are losing out on So. Many. Things.

Luckily you have the Internet. I don't mean soulless plastic porn. I believe the drive towards a near-complete separation of love, sex, and nudity from other content (like action, romance, scifi or fantasy) so you can only choose between sexless "mainstream" content on one hand and hardcore pornography on the other is deeply problematic and bad for you. Take Game of Thrones for example. Luckily it was broadcasted before anyone could seriously consider removing it from the air because it contained elements that clearly and unequivocally offended or excluded women. Yes, Game of Thrones did objectify women, but I remain convinced the pros far outweighed the cons of keeping it on the air.

In the meanwhile let me recommend outlets like Netflix where you can view content created without restrictive "American sensibilities" from countries like Japan, the Philippines, or France.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 27, 2021)

At this time, I feel I have said everything I can think of, and further discussion (from me) at this point would be repetitive. 

So I will pause my participation in this thread for a while. Here's the first post (where I restarted the thread) if you want to read what I wrote again: 



CapnZapp said:


> What I wish for Christmas is that the tide soon turns - that tabletop rpgs can once again be discussed in similar ways to art, literature and film where there's no criteria for acceptability that all works need to please or even respect everybody. In art, literature and film you can have content that titillate or shock; annoy or offend. There you can openly discuss the incorrect and the avant-garde. There, the proper course of action if you dislike something is to ignore it, rather than argue for it to change and conform.




So once more, cheers to more games that are offensive, lewd and generally just annoying!  Not because we can then feel equally excluded and offended, but because diversity and risk-taking means we are more likely to both find something that astounds us! 

/Zapp


----------



## S'mon (Dec 27, 2021)

MGibster said:


> This is Ireena Kolyana next to a portrait of Tatyana from the original I-6 module.  She's actually a level 4 Fighter who might join the PCs and take part in combat.  Ireena's an attractive woman, but I wouldn't actually describe this as a sexed up picture.
> 
> View attachment 148927
> 
> ...



We'll have to agree to disagree then!


----------



## alegur (Dec 27, 2021)

Geoffrey said:


> We MUST have nudity, and we MUST NOT have nudity.
> 
> "Huh?"
> 
> ...



Now I want to see a picture of a Red Dragon in a sweater.  Preferably an ugly Christmas sweater


----------



## Voadam (Dec 27, 2021)

alegur said:


> Now I want to see a picture of a Red Dragon in a sweater.  Preferably an ugly Christmas sweater



So close.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2021)

Galandris said:


> I think we're on the losing end by advocating free speech for artists in RPG context.




You are on the end of not understanding the right of free speech, at least.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 27, 2021)

Umbran said:


> You are on the end of not understanding the right of free speech, at least.




I mentionned free speech (ie: "_artists, do whatever you want according to your creative impulse, not caring for how it is received and potentially containing offensive elements like nudity (among others), if it fits your own creative vision_" so that more products are created, resulting hopefully in everyone finding art they like, possibly in different products), not right of free speech (which would imply a state is regulating what they can or can't publish, which I never claimed). The latter isn't really the topic of this discussion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 27, 2021)

If artists ought not to care how their creations are received, they also ought not complain about how their creations are received.

(FWIW, that’s my personal approach.  Someone liking or disliking my stuff is on them, not me, and their opinions generally don’t affect my future output.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 27, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> Art must be allowed to be free. And sometimes offensive. It just isn't attacking you, no matter how strongly you feel it does. No, really, it isn't.



If you’re offended by art, it probably IS attacking you.

The real questions are, is that attack _justified_?  Is it _intentional_?


----------



## Voadam (Dec 27, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you’re offended by art, it probably IS attacking you.



I can think of a bunch of situations where that is not the case.

You can easily be offended by racist art that does not attack your own race for instance.

You can feel that vulgarity is offensive without feeling that it is an attack on you.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 27, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If artists ought not to care how their creations are received, they also ought not complain about how their creations are received.



I think any person brave enough to put their work out there for the world to see has got to have a thick skin when it comes to criticisms both legitimate and unfounded.  (This is not to imply that any artists should be subject to abuse.  There's a difference between being critical and being abusive.)  But I don't know of many artists who literally don't care how their creations are received.  I think I heard Iggy Pop once say about criticisms of sellouts, "I don't know anybody who gets up on stage in the hopes that nobody listens to them."  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you’re offended by art, it probably IS attacking you.



Eh, the Avalanche Press cover art certainly offended me, but I'm not sure I was the one who was attacked.  Though if we want to get all deep into it, I suppose they attacked my sensibilities.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If artists ought not to care how their creations are received, they also ought not complain about how their creations are received.




And now we get to the "What is art, and what is it for?" portion of our discussion.

This is simplified in this case, as we are talking about art for commercial reproduction and distribution.  If you are trying to make money at art, and do not care how it is received, you are not going to be making much money.  This is art _as communication_, and proper communication requires consideration of the audience as much as the speaker.

If artists and publishers _really_ don't care what people think of the art, why isn't it in crayon scribbles by a 5-year-old?  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> (FWIW, that’s my personal approach.  Someone liking or disliking my stuff is on them, not me, and their opinions generally don’t affect my future output.)




Yeah, I mean, I don't care about what people think of my singing, when I do it in my kitchen while cooking supper - other than my wife, that is, as she has to put up with hearing it, but she's a forgiving audience.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 27, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you’re offended by art, it probably IS attacking you.




Er? How does that follow at all? People take offense at all kinds of things, whether or not that thing was intended to target them.

"The real questions are, is that attack _justified_? Is it _intentional_?"

No, not at all. And on the latter point, what even is an "unintentional attack"?

Sometimes I really do think people are inhabiting two different thought-worlds now.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 27, 2021)

Umbran said:


> If artists and publishers _really_ don't care what people think of the art, why isn't it in crayon scribbles by a 5-year-old?




Scrap Princess seems to do pretty well.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2021)

S'mon said:


> No, not at all. And on the latter point, what even is an "unintentional attack"?




There's systemic bias, for example, that shows up in loads of media, but often isn't an intentional slight.


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 27, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I would agree, except you make it sound like every non-PG movie is targeting a "niche market", which to me is absurd - in that if it is true, then I cry for America; you guys are losing out on So. Many. Things.
> 
> Luckily you have the Internet. I don't mean soulless plastic porn. I believe the drive towards a near-complete separation of love, sex, and nudity from other content (like action, romance, scifi or fantasy) so you can only choose between sexless "mainstream" content on one hand and hardcore pornography on the other is deeply problematic and bad for you. Take Game of Thrones for example. Luckily it was broadcasted before anyone could seriously consider removing it from the air because it contained elements that clearly and unequivocally offended or excluded women. Yes, Game of Thrones did objectify women, but I remain convinced the pros far outweighed the cons of keeping it on the air.
> 
> In the meanwhile let me recommend outlets like Netflix where you can view content created without restrictive "American sensibilities" from countries like Japan, the Philippines, or France.



I am not an American, but perhaps "niche market" is not exactly accurate for movies. "Smaller market" may be better since an R-rated movie has excluded children under 13 (and their parents who are looking for a movie to take their children to) from its audience.

This isn't to say that targeting a smaller/niche market isn't a bad idea for role playing games. A publisher may get a better reception for their product when catering to a smaller audience than having it ignored as just another "generic fantasy" product in a market awash with them.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Scrap Princess seems to do pretty well.




I don't get the reference, but I can do a google search.  There seems to be some confusion over whether it is "Scrap" or "Scrapped"...

The funny bit being that this seems an exception that proves the rule - it wouldn't be interesting art if the rest of the art world looked that way.  It works only in contrast, and would fall on its own.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 27, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I don't get the reference, but I can do a google search.



Scrap Princess is the New Zealand blogger and artist.

Scrapped Princess is a Japanese light novel/manga/anime series.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> Scrap Princess is the New Zealand blogger and artist.
> 
> Scrapped Princess is a Japanese light novel/manga/anime series.




Google gives me both in a big heap mixed together.  But, I can see some of the art either way, so my comment seems to hold fine.


----------



## Weiley31 (Dec 27, 2021)

Erik Alt said:


> I think anything sexual that heterosexual men like is bad and should be banned.



_the world was destroyed by bewbs later that day._


----------



## Weiley31 (Dec 27, 2021)

To make it fair and equal: both Fantasy RPG guys and gals gotta all wear cheesecake armor now. Yes. Yes that _also includes._ the Half-Orc Barbarian wearing the two-piece string bikini.


----------



## Weiley31 (Dec 27, 2021)

ProfessorDetective said:


> And, of course, Bards. Nothing but DM Fiat stopping them from making a form of Exotic Dance their performing art of choice.



And daily reminder: WoTC _themeselves_ made this canon by turning the Brothel into a Music Hall/Venue, which means all the lovely ladies in there have levels in Bard that they can perform with.

_Now that would be an art picture in a new gen Book of Erotic Fantasy. Now that was terrible art in that book._


----------



## Galandris (Dec 27, 2021)

Umbran said:


> And now we get to the "What is art, and what is it for?" portion of our discussion.
> 
> This is simplified in this case, as we are talking about art for commercial reproduction and distribution.  If you are trying to make money at art, and do not care how it is received, you are not going to be making much money.  This is art _as communication_, and proper communication requires consideration of the audience as much as the speaker.




Making money shouldn't be seen as the only drive to produce things. The huge amount of "PWYW" (for which people are paying 0) and free products shows that some people are creating without the intent to make money (they might have a Patreon, but I never really considered that as a payment, just a way for people who appreciate something to "tip", without requirement that anything more will be given in return). Plus, there isn't necessarily a single audience. Films are made both for "all audiences" and very niche market. Look at Starship Troopers. It is offending many people while others are finding it a very good film (I am in the latter camp but that shouldn't matter since I only use it as an example). I am pretty sure, at all levels, people involved wanted to make money out of it since it's an industry. Yet it is obvious that they didn't try to be catering to everyone, most notably families (since it's rated R) or fans of the original story (because it's not an adaptation of the novel) and others. And from the audio commentary, Verhoeven was absolutely conscious of catering to a specific subset of the audience and wasn't trying (and failing) to properly communicate with everyone.




Umbran said:


> If artists and publishers _really_ don't care what people think of the art, why isn't it in crayon scribbles by a 5-year-old?




I'd differentiate artists and publishers. For publishers, I was very serious when I wondered that in this day of printing RPG products on your own crummy printer at home, it could be better to put out content without illustration (maybe just a cover) at all if it ended being cheaper to market. Sure I like art to which I connect and that I find pretty, but  "average" art doesn't improve the feel of a product, so if there was a choice between an art-free product for cheaper and one including art, I'd go for the former (unless the price difference was minimal). It has been attempted by novel authors for centuries, to evoke a world with words only, and we still buy novels so the formula can't be _that _bad.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 27, 2021)

Weiley31 said:


> To make it fair and equal: both Fantasy RPG guys and gals gotta all wear cheesecake armor now. Yes. Yes that _also includes._ the Half-Orc Barbarian wearing the two-piece string bikini.



I had a player that played a path of the Berserker Barbarian that wore a lemon yellow mankini, does that count.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 28, 2021)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I had a player that played a path of the Berserker Barbarian that wore a lemon yellow mankini, does that count.



Made out of what? I have to draw the line at synthetic polymers.


----------



## J.Quondam (Dec 28, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Made out of what? I have to draw the line at synthetic polymers.



Wait... Do they even make mankinis out of anything other than yak hair?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 28, 2021)

Voadam said:


> I can think of a bunch of situations where that is not the case.
> 
> You can easily be offended by racist art that does not attack your own race for instance.
> 
> You can feel that vulgarity is offensive without feeling that it is an attack on you.



Even if it isn’t attacking your race in particular, that you are offended by it probably indicates it is attacking your _friends_, _family_ or _values._

Indirect though it may be, that’s still an attack on you.


----------



## Kaodi (Dec 28, 2021)

I think that the difficulty for RPG products that some may view as transgressive comes down in part to the reality of group dynamics: for the most part it is hard enough to find a group of people who want to play the same game on the same schedule without factoring in variable tastes and narrative expectations. 

Playing D&D or any other RPG is not like paying to go to the movie _you_ want at theatre. It is more like watching the TV in a common room.

I have no idea whether you could even sell enough copies of an erotic coffee table art book depicting a more sexualized fantasy world a la Game of Thrones or True Blood to make it worth it. Not because "free porn" is everywhere - contextual porn is not quite so common as that. But simply because people are probably not going to want to spend the money for a crunchless product. But you cannot gatekeep crunch behind exclusive art choices.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2021)

Galandris said:


> Making money shouldn't be seen as the only drive to produce things.




Strawman - I _didn't say_ it was the only drive.  So, what follows after this is not terribly relevant.

By all means, enter into a career of commercial art, but have no care about how your art is received.  See how that goes for you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 28, 2021)

S'mon said:


> what even is an "unintentional attack"?



Exactly what it sounds like- an attack that lands on a target you do not intend to hit. 

To use an extreme RW example, a man took a new rifle out on his yacht and went out quite a ways.  He fired it towards land.  It killed a woman  driving along the costal highway.

Same kind of thing happens with all forms of communication, art included.  I know of a former klansman who quit the white supremacy movement when he realized the rhetoric of his local leadership included attacks on the developmentally disabled.  The man had a brother with Downs.  He realized they were coming for HIS family.

Ask an Australian aboriginals person how they feel about tourists walking on Uluru.  But if you ask the tourists, few of them actually intend to offend.

There are numerous occurrences of music, film and other art forms that have used elements from other cultures that those cultures find *deeply* offensive, possibly sacrilegious.  It is rarely done with the intent to offend.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Dec 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> A further thought.
> 
> To me, the fundamental question is; Is it better for the hobby to have more people playing?
> 
> ...



 I'm going to try to lay out a different view on the matter...but it's easier to do so via subject matter rather than visuals because I can articulate so mething that is personal to me.

I do not like roleplaying romance in my games.  It makes me uncomfortable.  I really only have romantic relationships stated matter of factly, never do I indulge in playing out a scene between individuals (PCs or NPCs alike).  Same goes for sexy time encounters.  It's just a topic that I don't enjoy roleplaying, have no interest in exploring in an RPG, and quite frankly would be happy never existed.

I don't begrudge others from including romance/sex in their games.  I'm sure there are many many people who find that the spice that makes the game worth playing.

This in mind, I don't think it is fair for me to advocate removal of something from the game that I dislike just because it's a sore spot for me.

Now, to transition this to pinup artwork in the game, my personal view is that I can take it or leave it.  I don't actually pay that much attention to art in general (other than monster art I show to players) and I have yet to run into anything in RPG art more aggregious than what you can see on Witcher or GoT or at the beach.

Where I take issue with your blanket statements is that you are stipulating that some things are factually true ...

1. A majority of female players did not engage with DnD because of artwork contained in it's books.

2. The rise of female players is caused by (at least in part) better depictions of female characters in the artwork.

While both of those statements MAY be true, I don't think we have enough data to actually answer those questions factually.  You may see the trends and assign art as a factor, but there very well may be many more female gamers who push past the content they don't enjoy (like I do with romance/sex) rather than treat it as a hard stop to using that material.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 28, 2021)

Umbran said:


> And now we get to the "What is art, and what is it for?" portion of our discussion.



There’s no objective definition of art.  It’s all subjective.

Art is what the artist says it is. See Duchamp’s _Urinal, _Mapplethorpe’s _Piss Christ_, stuff like Andre’s_ Equivalence VIII, _or works by Christo, Pollack Mondrian, Warhol, Rothko, or Kostabi.

But it is equally true that just because it is art to one person, it isn’t necessarily true that it’s art to all people. Maybe not to anyone else. That list above? I don’t even consider all of them artists. But _someone_ does.

(Shrodinger’s cat thus becomes the final arbiter on if something is art or not.)


Umbran said:


> This is simplified in this case, as we are talking about art for commercial reproduction and distribution.  If you are trying to make money at art, and do not care how it is received, you are not going to be making much money.  This is art _as communication_, and proper communication requires consideration of the audience as much as the speaker.
> 
> If artists and publishers _really_ don't care what people think of the art, why isn't it in crayon scribbles by a 5-year-old?



I was just addressing the creative freedom assertion above.

Short of actual problems with the laws of physics or man, the only thing actually stopping you from creating something is YOU.

Now, if you want your work to be commercially successful, that’s a different consideration entirely.  Than, you do have to take your intended audience’s sensibilities into account.  

In an early interview, members of Garbage talked about how their earliest efforts were so experimental as to be unsalable…until Shirley Manson was brought in as the vocalist.  Shirley’s head snapped around to tell her bandmate off for implying she was the reason they curbed their experimentation.  Backpedaling, clarifying and reframing initiated immediately.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 28, 2021)

Sabathius42 said:


> Where I take issue with your blanket statements is that you are stipulating that some things are factually true ...
> 
> 1. A majority of female players did not engage with DnD because of artwork contained in it's books.
> 
> ...




I have seen trends over the years, GMing a lot in RPG student clubs and then later Meetups in London. Vampire: The Masquerade was the '90s was the first RPG to get a really substantial proportion of female players. It had sexual themes (and art). Running public RPG games at University, I don't remember TSR art being an issue, female D&D players were a minority but that was unlike Traveller - no women played Traveller at all, as far as I can tell. This was not because of the art.
One thing I remember that is not part of the general narrative afaict is that 4e D&D, while not a great success, brought in a much higher proportion of female players than 3e had. The look of the art may have been a factor. And 5e D&D much more again, of course. While I love a lot of Clyde Caldwell art, I suspect that 5e with him as the cover artist would not have had the same effect.  IRL, people rarely feel 'attacked' or 'harassed' by commercial art at the kind of levels discussed here, but I do think it has an effect, as do other elements and themes. Eg I'd never seen multiple black players* at one Meetup game table until I played_ Tomb of Annihilation_ - and several African people I know commented how much they loved the _Black Panther_ film.

*I later GM'd for one, a young black woman. Her favourite PC Nemesis was a topless busty blonde white Amazon warrior woman (originally an NPC she'd asked to play as a PC) with a photo pic that would meet with STRONG disapproval from many here.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 28, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Mapplethorpe’s _Piss Christ_




An example of art that actually is an attack on someone!


----------



## reelo (Dec 28, 2021)

S'mon said:


> An example of art that actually is an attack on someone!



It is not. Who would that be, anyway?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 28, 2021)

S'mon said:


> An example of art that actually is an attack on someone!



Yes…on one level.  

But he was _also_ using the piece to reveal- in an inflammatory manner that hid his other message- something artists have known for centuries. Namely, that uric acid was used to artificially patinate certain statuary, including religious ones.

Say your church’s statue of a saint was stolen or destroyed.  You commission a replacement.  In order to have it look more like the piece it will be replacing, you ask for it to be aged to resemble the other statues in the church.

By the time the church has its replacement installed, it has been subject to immersion in urine for quite some time.

…but it’s not like that fact was communicated to the patrons or public.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 28, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Made out of what? I have to draw the line at synthetic polymers.



Goat hair of course.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 28, 2021)

Leaving aside Marxist dialectical framing, I do think people immersed in a particular culture may be unaware of 'attacks', because they are so ubiquitous ('systemic'). One that occurs to me is the very common anti-Catholicism in mainstream British Establishment culture; nowadays most frequently expressed through an Atheist lens, but really still owing a lot to traditional Protestant Reformation anti-Catholicism. I think because I was raised an atheist in an Ulster Protestant milieu, it's easier for me to see this than it is for many English people raised in a largely post-Christian milieu. I think this kind of subconscious ('systemic') stuff can also feature in racial depictions, and to a lesser extent in 'objectifying' depictions of women, the latter two much moreso in a US context than in other Anglo countries, just as Establishment anti-Catholicism is much more 'systemic' in a British context than in the modern USA (pre-WW2 USA was quite different). Visiting the US from the UK, and marrying an American, I know I was nearly as shocked by US Patriarchalism (sp?) as by the racial polarisation. I don't think Hollywood or the news media really inform at all about the cross-national cultural differences. And the Americans I know who've settled in the UK keep expecting to see US-style sexism and racism in everyday interactions ("That Yorkshireman called me _Love_!") while being oblivious to UK classism & sectarianism.

Edit: So I guess what I'm saying is, while it is hard for me to emotionally understand people who see eg a sleazy Avalanche Press cover, or old Mongoose Publishing stuff, as a sexist 'attack' on anyone, I do intellectually somewhat understand where this view is coming from.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 28, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Strawman - I _didn't say_ it was the only drive.  So, what follows after this is not terribly relevant.




Well, you wrote that "This is simplified in this case, as we are talking about art for commercial reproduction and distribution." and I countered your argument about "simplification" about art is by narrowing it to commercial art destined to the general audience, by pointing out that (a) some art was produced without commercial intent even in the context of TTRPG (b) being commercial doesn't mean it necessarily target the masses, two arguments that were extremely relevant to the simplification I thought you proposed. If you didn't intend to narrow the discussion to commercial art, then I didn't understand your point, and effectively what followed was irrelevant. Please do not assume I am arguing in bad faith when I fail to understand what was your point, the hostility doesn't make me want to discuss with you anymore.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 28, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Leaving aside Marxist dialectical framing



Why would we do that?!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There’s no objective definition of art.  It’s all subjective.




Don't really need an objective one for this discussion - just a _functional_ one, meaning, a definition of the function of art, as used in RPG products.  Heck, we don't even need an explicit definition, but we ought to agree that there's some specific functions in mind.  And, for RPG products, they mostly depend on the opinion of the person _buying the product_.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Art is what the artist says it is. See Duchamp’s _Urinal, _Mapplethorpe’s _Piss Christ_, stuff like Andre’s_ Equivalence VIII, _or works by Christo, Pollack Mondrian, Warhol, Rothko, or Kostabi.




Yes, but as you've effectively noted, if nobody else says it is, the artist has done something for themselves, and that's all.  Art without communications is a solo practice, with an audience of the artist, and no others.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I was just addressing the creative freedom assertion above.




Yes, and I was trying to put that into a useful context for discussion on an RPG board, in which creative freedom is not the sole, or necessarily even the largest, consideration.  This lofty "I am an _ARTISTE_!" stuff  is largely immaterial when talking about selling RPGs, because there's that annoying bit about _selling_ - which means making something that people want to buy.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2021)

S'mon said:


> One that occurs to me is the very common anti-Catholicism in mainstream British Establishment culture;




*Mod Note:*
How about we not get into religion and politics, please and thank you.


----------



## Weiley31 (Dec 28, 2021)

In the end, I'm so we all can agree that ultimately no matter how you feel about this subject matter there is one certain fact that is unshakeable or true, especially here on Enworld. If your Pro then you are automatically seen as wrong for it and no thing will ever change that fact short of Orcs/Drows, Halflings with 20 STR, Paizo's announced/unexplained removal of _redacted: your cat has been confiscated for heresy_ and other lockable topics.


----------



## Weiley31 (Dec 28, 2021)

Mighty Veil said:


> tay away from silly "punk" or "goth" appearance to their look (that's so 90s and ugly.



Whoa , whoa, whoa there mate, I think that's the one part of that statement we can agree to disagree on. There is totally nothing wrong with those looks as well.


----------



## Voadam (Dec 28, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even if it isn’t attacking your race in particular, that you are offended by it probably indicates it is attacking your _friends_, _family_ or _values._
> 
> Indirect though it may be, that’s still an attack on you.



I feel it would be a mistake to conflate an attack upon someone I care about or my values as an attack upon myself.

I also feel it would be a mistake to conflate offense with an attack.

I would consider it an unnecessary escalation to treat something that offends my values as an attack upon me.

Ridicule and mocking and such can be an attack, but I think conflating offending and attacking is a mistake in such a discussion.


----------



## Eltab (Dec 28, 2021)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I had a player that played a path of the Berserker Barbarian that wore a lemon yellow mankini, does that count.



Fellow player has a half-orc Barbarian who wears only a loincloth (sometimes even less).


----------



## aco175 (Dec 28, 2021)

Has anyone used the Tipper Gore definition of pornography for this art.  She was the vice president's wife back in the 90s and on a panel for explicit lyrics in songs.  She said something along the lines of; "I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it."


----------



## Voadam (Dec 28, 2021)

aco175 said:


> Has anyone used the Tipper Gore definition of pornography for this art.  She was the vice president's wife back in the 90s and on a panel for explicit lyrics in songs.  She said something along the lines of; "I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it."



The quote is usually attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter's dissent in a 1964 obscenity case.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 28, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Don't really need an objective one for this discussion - just a _functional_ one, meaning, a definition of the function of art, as used in RPG products.  Heck, we don't even need an explicit definition, but we ought to agree that there's some specific functions in mind.  And, for RPG products, they mostly depend on the opinion of the person _buying the product_.
> 
> (edit)
> 
> Yes, and I was trying to put that into a useful context for discussion on an RPG board, in which creative freedom is not the sole, or necessarily even the largest, consideration.  This lofty "I am an _ARTISTE_!" stuff  is largely immaterial when talking about selling RPGs, because there's that annoying bit about _selling_ - which means making something that people want to buy.



It’s an old conundrum for the artist- as old as the first art purchase: doing what you want Vs doing what you can sell.

For most of recorded history, artists didn’t really have to choose one or the other.  You could do what you want, and still have commercial success.  That’s how many subsidized their “pure” artistic endeavors.

But with the advent of the Information Age, that’s becoming less and less of an option.  If you do controversial art _today_, it’s more likely you’re going to have a tougher time getting commercial work.

And that’s for any form of artistic expression.  Look at the backlash Ludacris got when he became a soft drink pitchman.  Or how the choice of Kehinde Wiley for the Barak & Michelle Obama official portraits was fraught with controversy.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Dec 28, 2021)

Geoffrey said:


> We MUST have nudity, and we MUST NOT have nudity.
> 
> "Huh?"
> 
> ...



Wow, 18 pages of thread, and here I am replying to the first one. Whew. Should I?

Well, where are the centaur schlongs? Ogre balls? Ettin junk? Oh, sorry, girl monsters are supposed to show tits to increase our sense of verisimilitude, but lets not get further.

Yeah, the adventurers in many books sure look tough and realistic: a white sausagefest on the road. Now and then we have a girl to help us fill the quota.





Yeah, attack the monster. Distract it! Show it that leg! Sad you forgot your bra when we had to quickly break camp, but stuff like that happens.

Of course, for Dragonlance, this was turned into an art form. Rough adventurers all, and the girls are experts at showing glistening thighs and perfectly styled Farah Fawcett hair. If they are not slave girls, of course, then all bets are off.




Play "where is Goldmoon" on this pic. Don't worry, it's not hard, Caldwell added some extra glisten this time.

But I like Caldwell. He was creative.




A gargoyle head spewing gems on string from your crotch. Masterclass of understated design!

Ha, I wonder what the official D&D artbook wants to tell us.



Oh.

I am old. Old D&D art was often sexist trash. It was good, 80s sexist trash, perfect to catch and keep adolescent boys. Yes, there are exceptions. Warrior princesses, maybe someone hid a token black character somewhere in the background.

But mostly its all Alias: men thinking drawing tits on a warrior woman is female empowerment. Stuff that worked 40 years ago, but thank god it wouldn't work today.


----------



## Weiley31 (Dec 28, 2021)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Well, where are the centaur schlongs? Ogre balls? Ettin junk?



Well: gotta make things fair. _BRING EM ALL ON!_

It's the right thing to do.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 29, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are numerous occurrences of music, film and other art forms that have used elements from other cultures that those cultures find *deeply* offensive, possibly sacrilegious.  It is rarely done with the intent to offend.



Hmmmm given how a huge percentage of the religious population consider the gender of someone else's love interest *deeply offensive *I find that not such a valuable measure of what to avoid


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 29, 2021)

Garthanos said:


> Hmmmm given how a huge percentage of the religious population consider the gender of someone else's love interest *deeply offensive *I find that not such a valuable measure of what to avoid



You might not, but (for example) using elements from a culture’s or religion’s sacred ceremony for a pop video certainly displays a lack of respect.

“Respect is a two-way street” is a common aphorism.  But so is “two wrongs don’t make a right.”  While you might consider their interests in others sexuality disrespectful, it doesn’t follow that you have free license to be equally disrespectful in return.  “An eye for an eye” eventually leaves everyone blind.  

In any process of ending or de-escalating a conflict or disagreement, someone usually has to be first to let something go in order to convince the others involved that they’re bargaining in good faith. That’s part of why the Golden Rule is central to most major religions and even non-theistic ethical frameworks.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 29, 2021)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Well, where are the centaur schlongs? Ogre balls? Ettin junk?



Good questions.  As someone already said, bring 'em on. 


Keefe the Thief said:


> Yeah, the adventurers in many books sure look tough and realistic: a white sausagefest on the road. Now and then we have a girl to help us fill the quota.
> 
> View attachment 149041
> Yeah, attack the monster. Distract it! Show it that leg! Sad you forgot your bra when we had to quickly break camp, but stuff like that happens.



She's not distracting the dragon by showing it her leg, she's got its attention because it's realized (in part due to her lack of armour and warm clothing) that a) she's the caster in the crew and thus the biggest threat, and b) she must have some magic item keeping her warm.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It’s an old conundrum for the artist- as old as the first art purchase: doing what you want Vs doing what you can sell.
> 
> For most of recorded history, artists didn’t really have to choose one or the other.  You could do what you want, and still have commercial success.  That’s how many subsidized their “pure” artistic endeavors.




I think you vastly overstate the case of how successful artists are if they just do what they want.  If nothing else, for most of recorded history, I suspect most art ever created has been in form of practical goods (clothes, pottery, etc), rather than art that has no function except as art. The form of practical art is dictated by the need of the buyer, not the artist.  I make an artwork of a bowl because bowls sell, and I took it as my craft, and so on.

From there, the Warhols, Dalis, and Michelangelos of the world are small in number, a handful, in comparison to the masses who produce art, and cannot make a living at it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 29, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I think you vastly overstate the case of how successful artists are if they just do what they want.  If nothing else, for most of recorded history, I suspect most art ever created has been in form of practical goods (clothes, pottery, etc), rather than art that has no function except as art. The form of practical art is dictated by the need of the buyer, not the artist.  I make an artwork of a bowl because bowls sell, and I took it as my craft, and so on.
> 
> From there, the Warhols, Dalis, and Michelangelos of the world are small in number, a handful, in comparison to the masses who produce art, and cannot make a living at it.



Pfft!  The vast majority of artists aren’t successful, period!  That’s no secret.

Thing is, up until relatively recently, even though you might know an artist did a work for ________, unless you experienced it in person, you might not be aware of details that might make it controversial.

It could be coded iconography.  It could be things that can only be perceived from a certain angle or under certain conditions (Holbein’s _The Ambassadors_, for instance).  At least one operatic solo was composed in such a way that the juxtaposition of high and low notes made a _particular_ soloist bob her head like a chicken.

Now, so much of that stuff is archived so that secrets simply can’t be kept for long.   Skeletons will be dug up.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 29, 2021)

Sabathius42 said:


> I'm going to try to lay out a different view on the matter...but it's easier to do so via subject matter rather than visuals because I can articulate so mething that is personal to me.
> 
> I do not like roleplaying romance in my games. It makes me uncomfortable. I really only have romantic relationships stated matter of factly, never do I indulge in playing out a scene between individuals (PCs or NPCs alike). Same goes for sexy time encounters. It's just a topic that I don't enjoy roleplaying, have no interest in exploring in an RPG, and quite frankly would be happy never existed.
> 
> ...




The difference being is that romance has never been a thing in DnD. There’s no rules for it. It’s barely mentioned in any game book. It’s almost never central to any storylines. And it is something you likely will never come across in a published work. 

OTOH, pinup art at one time was pretty prevalent. Gracing covers of Dragon magazine and lots of interior art in game books. 

So not quite the same thing.


----------



## FatPandaMonk (Dec 29, 2021)

Geoffrey said:


> We MUST have nudity, and we MUST NOT have nudity.
> 
> "Huh?"
> 
> ...



Have you spent  eight hours a day, every day, walking around in armor, not eating junk food, swinging a weapon etc? It makes you mean and lean and can give you abs. Those six packs aren't unique to people who go to the gym.


----------



## FatPandaMonk (Dec 29, 2021)

megamania said:


> I have no problem with this BUT then keep it real.  The men and women shouldn't be perfect.  Not to many super models go into combat.



Same with out of shape, fast food eating slobs. They die at first level. Adventurers are athletes.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 29, 2021)

Didn’t Michelangelo basically do work for hire? It’s not like he made art and then showed it. He made art to spec for specific patrons.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 29, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Didn’t Michelangelo basically do work for hire? It’s not like he made art and then showed it. He made art to spec for specific patrons.



He did.  So did a majority of the ones we call Old Masters…and their students.

But many times, if you dig deep enough, you’ll find those artists…_taking liberties.  _See Bernini’s _Ecstasy of St. Theresa, _for example.
_

_



Not only that, just because you do something pure and chaste for Patron #1, doesn’t mean you won’t do a pornographic ceiling for Patron #6.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 29, 2021)

"You might not, but (for example) using elements from a culture’s or religion’s sacred ceremony for a pop video certainly displays a lack of respect."

Where does it end? Any and every movie portraying a religious figure is considered disrespectful in some way by someone. And every cartoon portraying native americans is considered disrespectful by someone else.  Whose standard can one use?

There are currently active religious ceremony in my opinion which should be illegalized due to endangering newborns ie just because something is "sacred" does not make it, something to honor. The label is not magical.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> While you might consider their interests in others sexuality disrespectful, it doesn’t follow that you have free license to be equally disrespectful in return.  “An eye for an eye” eventually leaves everyone blind.



Right(still leaves us without a standard), as when you cannot take their own definitions of what is disrespectful as that is highly suspect you are left speculating and applying your own ... (How can you golden rule based on their assertions?) what they consider disrespectful is often itself just a demand we "respect" their desire for others to conform to their issues, whether it is being in the closet to continue the example, or to refrain from using certain words or clothes worn or whatever. To me it is part of their disrespect ie the one where they want, others to conform to their religions limits. And its not like that desire never ends up entrenched in law, when it is allowed like the illegalization of polygamy by one sect in the guise of government or the existence of blasphemy laws (or even tadah on topic reference ones about obscenity/nudity) or deeper the effective illegalization of abortion by the evangelical church across the south.

Do I lump the "sacred" of both small and larger cultures together yes. Generally because they arent really different  save as a question of scale. In either case, it involves granting them arbitrary power. I would rather give less of it to both "sacreds" and not see bibles being used as a magic ceremony in courtrooms  for instance.

It is another form of the conundrum about tolerating intolerance ... don't.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 29, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> He did.  So did a majority of the ones we call Old Masters…and their students.




Yes, Bernini took liberties. Why is this angel depicted as a Monk using Deflect Arrows? And why is St Teresa... snoring heavily? Something is definitely amiss!



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not only that, just because you do something pure and chaste for Patron #1, doesn’t mean you won’t do a pornographic ceiling for Patron #6.




Exact, and I wouldn't call the commissionner of an artwork the audience in this case. The audience of a church statue is the faithful, I'd say the commissionner is, by establishing a theme and specifications, is setting limits to the work of art but not strictly the audience.

Let's take a profane example not to risk violating the prohibition against discussing real life religions, Ingres' La grande odalisque. It was painted at the command of the queen of Naples, yet it was widely considered offensive to the audience of the early 19th century. If we consider the patron to be the audience, then the result was she was very happy and the artist conformed to the specific subset of the audience (that one woman who bought the work), but the rest of the world was shocked, and it was a much larger audience. Ingres knew it, yet he did it.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 29, 2021)

Umbran said:


> *Mod Note:*
> How about we not get into religion and politics, please and thank you.



hmmm given the puritanical religious forbiddance of nudity ...  I think the subject is is bound to dance mighty close, I think I will just drop out of this one for now.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 29, 2021)

Keefe the Thief said:


> But mostly its all Alias: men thinking drawing tits on a warrior woman is female empowerment. Stuff that worked 40 years ago, but thank god it wouldn't work today.



I think the first work of art I noticed that looked ridiculous to my eyes was an issue of Catwoman way back in 1993 because the gravity defying proportions were just ridiculous.  I do have a soft spot for a lot of the old art found in TSR products partly because I prefer the techniques used by the artist but there's a bit of nostalgia there as well.  I much prefer Paladin in Hell over a lot of more recent work I acknowledge as technically better.  But you're right, stuff that worked 40 years ago won't necessarily work today and vice versa.  In 2035, what's acceptable or not acceptable might end up surprising us.  Who knows?  

Personally, I'll avoid RPGs with over sexualized images on the cover.  Admittedly, most of the art from AD&D 2nd edition won't bother me and the image below is one of my favorites.  I think the biggest problem with cheesecake in the 80s and 90s is their ubiquity.  A lot of young women didn't seem put off by the art in Vampire the Masquerade, some of which was pretty sexy, but I don't recall many instances of art that was just ridiculous.  If a vampire woman looked sexy it made sense in the context of the picture whereas in D&D is very often did not.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 29, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I think the first work of art I noticed that looked ridiculous to my eyes was an issue of Catwoman way back in 1993 because the gravity defying proportions were just ridiculous.  I do have a soft spot for a lot of the old art found in TSR products partly because I prefer the techniques used by the artist but there's a bit of nostalgia there as well.  I much prefer Paladin in Hell over a lot of more recent work I acknowledge as technically better.  But you're right, stuff that worked 40 years ago won't necessarily work today and vice versa.  In 2035, what's acceptable or not acceptable might end up surprising us.  Who knows?
> 
> Personally, I'll avoid RPGs with over sexualized images on the cover.  Admittedly, most of the art from AD&D 2nd edition won't bother me and the image below is one of my favorites.  I think the biggest problem with cheesecake in the 80s and 90s is their ubiquity.  A lot of young women didn't seem put off by the art in Vampire the Masquerade, some of which was pretty sexy, but I don't recall many instances of art that was just ridiculous.  If a vampire woman looked sexy it made sense in the context of the picture whereas in D&D is very often did not.
> 
> View attachment 149062



I dunno man. The lacks of pants by the female ranger always bugged me in that picture. What happened to her pants. Did the dragon eat them? I notice that the female fighter's pants are torn. Was that a pants thief but only from females?


----------



## Weiley31 (Dec 29, 2021)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I dunno man. The lacks of pants by the female ranger always bugged me in that picture. What happened to her pants. Did the dragon eat them? I notice that the female fighter's pants are torn. Was that a pants thief but only from females?



I'm pretty sure there are Mimics out there that take the form of clothing.

Imagine your best bro being a Mimic Tuxedo.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Pfft!  The vast majority of artists aren’t successful, period!  That’s no secret.




I think that in the "recorded history" thing, you're wrong.  Until the industrial revolution, most art was made by _artisans_, as part of practical use objects of daily life.  That beautifully woven Navajo blanket?  That's art.  It isn't "art for art's sake", isn't independent of the wants and needs of other humans.   Art, but also, you know, a useful blanket. 



Spoiler: Or how about this?



Handmade, Tolkien elvish script around the edge there, ought to be sitting on Bilbo Baggins' countertop.  Totally art.  Also totally made considering what the audience will think of it, specifically of a form to be displayed in your everyday life.  Beautiful, nontheless.  I'm happy to have found it at my local sci-fi convention art show.








It seems to me that this whole drive for artists to create without consideration of the audience is kind of bunk, and likely acts to put distance between the art and appreciation by normal humans.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2021)

Weiley31 said:


> I'm pretty sure there are Mimics out there that take the form of clothing.
> 
> Imagine your best bro being a Mimic Tuxedo.




Sorry - Venom is already covered by copyright.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 29, 2021)

Garthanos said:


> "You might not, but (for example) using elements from a culture’s or religion’s sacred ceremony for a pop video certainly displays a lack of respect."
> 
> Where does it end? Any and every movie portraying a religious figure is considered disrespectful in some way by someone. And every cartoon portraying native americans is considered disrespectful by someone else.  Whose standard can one use?
> 
> ...



Some situations simply can’t be resolved with an easy, clear-cut, one size fits all standard.  They’re messy.  So all you can do is either start from a position of respect or be prepared to deal with potential blowback.

Look at the historical discussion of using Native American culture for sports mascots in North America, for instance.  You have some organizations that straight up lampoon First Nations people or use racist epithets as part of their suite of actions & images.

OTOH, other organizations have gone to the tribal leadership and actually asked if what they were doing was OK or not, and if not, what they could change.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 29, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I think that in the "recorded history" thing, you're wrong.  Until the industrial revolution, most art was made by _artisans_, as part of practical use objects of daily life.  That beautifully woven Navajo blanket?  That's art.  It isn't "art for art's sake", isn't independent of the wants and needs of other humans.   Art, but also, you know, a useful blanket.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I’m making a distinction between craftsmen who are artists vs those we’d view as pure artists.* 

Craftsmen who master their craft have definitely made an indelible mark in history.  “Tony from Cremona” (Stradivarius) springs immediately to mind.

But history is also littered with canvases signed by names nobody cares about, and stories of impoverished masters whose greatness was not apparent to their contemporaries.



* and no, it’s not a bright-line distinction


----------



## Smackpixi (Dec 29, 2021)

The resources required to make art used to be rare, valuable, and the luxury of time to make art similarly rare and valuable, daily survival not so easy.  Even artists famous and successful in their time, say Rembrandt, only had the luxury of doing side projects like self portraits because the dedicated most of their time performing for patrons.  Say what you want about him and his contemporaries, other artists of the time, for peasants like we would have been then, the luxury of even a pencil and sheet of paper would have been just that, a luxury, a waste of resources better spent on an orange.

Just saying, sitting around and doodling whatever the hell you want is a recent invention.


----------



## Voadam (Dec 29, 2021)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I dunno man. The lacks of pants by the female ranger always bugged me in that picture. What happened to her pants. Did the dragon eat them? I notice that the female fighter's pants are torn. Was that a pants thief but only from females?



The elf on the left? The brown on her legs are a distinctly different color than the skin on her neck and face, indicating to me that she is wearing leggings/tights/pants. 

The female fighter's pants are more torn than the big guy's, but his has three clear claw mark tears as well. It looks like the two torso armored fighters were front line in melee with the dragon with no leg protection.


----------



## Smackpixi (Dec 29, 2021)

As to noods in game art, I mean, it’s a game, not a wall, not a museum, what are you making and for whom?  Is it designed to be the most popular rpg of all time, maybe you fill it with pedestrian colorful art wherein people have their cloths on.  You making something niche, with dice rolls for @#@! then sure, why not Heavy Metal or more.  It’s ok to be naked.  We’ll, some people don’t think so, but I do, it does matter when and why though.  And chicks lying naked on a dais like treasure while some knife battle takes place in the other half of the room is always gonna be weird, but if that’s what you’re selling, ok.  Just, I’m not buying that, cause that’s not the game I want to play.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Dec 29, 2021)

Hussar said:


> The difference being is that romance has never been a thing in DnD. There’s no rules for it. It’s barely mentioned in any game book. It’s almost never central to any storylines. And it is something you likely will never come across in a published work.
> 
> OTOH, pinup art at one time was pretty prevalent. Gracing covers of Dragon magazine and lots of interior art in game books.
> 
> So not quite the same thing.



In not quite sure I follow.

There are as many rules for romance/sex as there are for how much skin you show with your clothing.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 29, 2021)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I dunno man. The lacks of pants by the female ranger always bugged me in that picture. What happened to her pants. Did the dragon eat them?



I don’t think she went into the fight wearing pants.




Voadam said:


> The elf on the left? The brown on her legs are a distinctly different color than the skin on her neck and face, indicating to me that she is wearing leggings/tights/pants.



I think the color difference is because her face is in the light and legs in shadow.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 29, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I think the color difference is because her face is in the light and legs in shadow.



It really doesn't look like any of the other shadows or shaded skin tones. I'm pretty sure she's wearing some kind of legging/hose.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 29, 2021)

The amount of time guys can spend looking at a girl's legs...


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 29, 2021)

Galandris said:


> The amount of time guys can spend looking at a girl's legs...



#NotAllGuys, some - like God - are boob men:


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Dec 30, 2021)

These things are sometimes hard to articulate if you dislike both sexism and prudery. And don't get me wrong, the former is obviously a far greater issue, but still. Especially in America nudity seems to always be associated with sex, and sexual themes are frowned upon far more than violence.

Funny anecdote from my time as a freelance illustrator for White Wolf's Exalted. They wanted an artwork of some beasmen preparing a human baby for food for a naked woman reclining on a divan, holding a heart (or perhaps a liver, I can't remember.) That was the description, that's what they wanted, I didn't invent this. So I drew the picture, containing the desired elements. They however asked me to tone down the nudity (which they had asked for) as the woman's crotch was (barely) visible. Baby eating was perfectly fine though!

Now nudity or sexual themes don't bother me. Granted, if done poorly, it will just seem tacky. Like the Avalanche Press covers. But thing's like Frazetta's art are of course just pure awesome. However, in this day and age, if such themes are depicted, there needs to be equality. The double standard of realistically armoured men and scantily clad women simply is not acceptable.

And of course such themes are not appropriate for every product. That should be obvious. I'm perfectly fine with the core D&D being pretty family friendly. But not everything needs or should be family friendly. There needs to be room for stuff like Exalted or Sword & Sorcery. And even in D&D Ravenloft must be allowed to do horror and people in Dark Sun to be scantily clad pulp adventurers. Just make sure that there are also pictures of musclebound warrior ladies protecting silk-thong-wearing lads in distress!


----------



## S'mon (Dec 30, 2021)

Crimson Longinus said:


> These things are sometimes hard to articulate if you dislike both sexism and prudery. And don't get me wrong, the former is obviously a far greater issue, but still. Especially in America nudity seems to always be associated with sex, and sexual themes are frowned upon far more than violence.
> 
> Funny anecdote from my time as a freelance illustrator for White Wolf's Exalted. They wanted an artwork of some beasmen preparing a human baby for food for a naked woman reclining on a divan, holding a heart (or perhaps a liver, I can't remember.) That was the description, that's what they wanted, I didn't invent this. So I drew the picture, containing the desired elements. They however asked me to tone down the nudity (which they had asked for) as the woman's crotch was (barely) visible. Baby eating was perfectly fine though!
> 
> ...



I liked your post, but IME female players don't want their musclebound warrior ladies PCs protecting silk-thong-wearing lads in distress  (maybe some gay male players might want musclebound warrior male PCs protecting silk-thong-wearing lads in distress, but I've not really seen this either). I definitely have seen (in S&S settings) female players play nearly nude musclebound warrior lady PCs, with scantily clad and attractive male youth NPCs as their sidekicks, _but_ IME it's very important the youth be a brave, competent Gabrielle or (young) Iolalus type, someone worthy to bask in and reflect the glory of the PC.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 30, 2021)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Baby eating was perfectly fine though!



Babies are delicious.  What?  You don’t like babies?




Crimson Longinus said:


> I'm perfectly fine with the core D&D being pretty family friendly. But not everything needs or should be family friendly.



As am I.  I don’t need nudity or graphic violence in my D&D art.


----------



## Asisreo (Dec 30, 2021)

I want to have D&D inclusive to all, including children. I don't want my kids to think they have to bare all to properly play a barbarian. 

D&D has been appealing to younger and younger audiences and I want that to continue, but when the game reminds me of an R-rated movie, it makes it harder to feel comfortable with children using it as a basis. Like how concerning it is for children to roleplay viciously violent scenes.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2021)

Sabathius42 said:


> In not quite sure I follow.
> 
> There are as many rules for romance/sex as there are for how much skin you show with your clothing.




But there are FAR more examples of gratuitously showing skin than any depictions of romance.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 31, 2021)

Hussar said:


> But there are FAR more examples of gratuitously showing skin than any depictions of romance.



[Channeling Maxwell Smart]Would you believe that being unburdened by armor or conventional garments leaves her mobility intact allowing her to dart in and out of her opponent's reach making her a more effective combatant?  No?  Well, would you believe that she needs all that exposed skin in order to absorb the energy of the sun so she can photosynthesize?  No.  Well would you believe it's laundry day? [/Maxwell Smart]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2021)

(From MST3K’s _Outlaw _episode.)


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2021)

MGibster said:


> [Channeling Maxwell Smart]Would you believe that being unburdened by armor or conventional garments leaves her mobility intact allowing her to dart in and out of her opponent's reach making her a more effective combatant?  No?  Well, would you believe that she needs all that exposed skin in order to absorb the energy of the sun so she can photosynthesize?  No.  Well would you believe it's laundry day? [/Maxwell Smart]



I loved that Scarred Lands actually had an in game reason for scantily clad sorceresses but, then flipped the trope on its head by having elderly, overweight, clearly unhealthy wizards baring all to cast spells.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 31, 2021)

Hussar said:


> I loved that Scarred Lands actually had an in game reason for scantily clad sorceresses but, then flipped the trope on its head by having elderly, overweight, clearly unhealthy wizards baring all to cast spells.



I have a vague memory of this one, was going to mention it but could not remember the game.


----------



## Voadam (Dec 31, 2021)

Hussar said:


> I loved that Scarred Lands actually had an in game reason for scantily clad sorceresses but, then flipped the trope on its head by having elderly, overweight, clearly unhealthy wizards baring all to cast spells.



My memory is that there were a few countertrope scantily clad weak wizards but it was mostly topless Albadian sorceresses and buff badass power guys when the "using arcane magic generates heat so they dress appropriately" aspect came across in the art. It was very much a Frazetta D&D setting in many ways.

Here is the first piece of art - the Blood Witch prestige class - from Relics and Rituals for example.





And a decently fit guy from the beginning of Relics and Rituals 2


----------



## alegur (Jan 8, 2022)

Voadam said:


> So close.
> 
> View attachment 148951
> View attachment 148952
> ...



Love it


----------

