# R&C Art, the Women of R&C



## Stormtalon (Dec 21, 2007)

There's something I've noticed thru my many perusals of R&C, something that may have been overlooked due to the whole "dragonborn with boobs" controversy....

Of all the females depicted in the book, only the Elves, Eladrin & Halflings are truly slender.  The human women actually have a quite non-supermodel fullness and curve to them.  William O'Connor seems to have a nice eye for more "realistic" female figures.  They're still "ideally proportioned," of course, but they've all got a solidity that's been lacking in D&D art of late.


----------



## mara (Dec 21, 2007)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> There's something I've noticed thru my many perusals of R&C, something that may have been overlooked due to the whole "dragonborn with boobs" controversy....
> 
> Of all the females depicted in the book, only the Elves, Eladrin & Halflings are truly slender.  The human women actually have a quite non-supermodel fullness and curve to them.  William O'Connor seems to have a nice eye for more "realistic" female figures.  They're still "ideally proportioned," of course, but they've all got a solidity that's been lacking in D&D art of late.




Cool.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 21, 2007)

If ya can afford metal armor, ya can probably afford a sammich.


----------



## sidonunspa (Dec 21, 2007)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> There's something I've noticed thru my many perusals of R&C, something that may have been overlooked due to the whole "dragonborn with boobs" controversy....
> 
> Of all the females depicted in the book, only the Elves, Eladrin & Halflings are truly slender.  The human women actually have a quite non-supermodel fullness and curve to them.  William O'Connor seems to have a nice eye for more "realistic" female figures.  They're still "ideally proportioned," of course, but they've all got a solidity that's been lacking in D&D art of late.




Yes

Very cool


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 21, 2007)

And also... None are dressed in a sexist cheese way, like chainmail bikini.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 21, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> And also... None are dressed in a sexist cheese way, like chainmail bikini.



I'm not sure the dwarf cleric with the bare midriff is really dressed for combat, though.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 21, 2007)

The God- sorry, Deities/Gods&Goddesses/Godfolk made women with Curves, by Dieties/Gods&Goddesses/Godfolk!


----------



## mrtomsmith (Dec 21, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> If ya can afford metal armor, ya can probably afford a sammich.




Mmmmm... sammich.

If true (I have no book), I applaud them. Variety of bodies is a wonderful thing, and rarely seen in our pop culture.

But I will admit a fondness for the chainmail bikini. It's become a D&D cliche, but I like the cheesiness. It's like the dudes always wearing half-plate that shows off their chests - doesn't make sense, but it's part of the genre.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 21, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I'm not sure the dwarf cleric with the bare midriff is really dressed for combat, though.




Yes, but my point is that nothing that would really make a woman feels 'gee, another geeks orgasm...'.

At least, it's more or less neutral.


----------



## Mighty Veil (Dec 21, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> And also... None are dressed in a sexist cheese way, like chainmail bikini.




Too bad.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 21, 2007)

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> Too bad.




Too bad for you.

I may criticizes feminism, I agree with them on such stupidity. Fantasy needs to grow up and open to the non-white, non-male, non-nerd.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 21, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> At least, it's more or less neutral.



The women in the book are definitively on the good-looking side, I daresay "hawt" - but not "in-your-face", a la Chainmail bikini.

They're good looking, just as the men, because they are looking like _protagonists_, because they're adventurers - but no obvious cheesecake. Or because artists don't like drawing ugly things, just as with most art (unless it's supposed to be ugly for a reason) - and because they're all looking good as in "identification figures", not "I'd-date-it".

I like it - it's nice to see that balance.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 21, 2007)

They are at least functional, not maybe the most armor always, but it's dang functional and pratical.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 21, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I'm not sure the dwarf cleric with the bare midriff is really dressed for combat, though.




That one was probably part of their specific goal of making female dwarves "sexy." (IMO they did a pretty good job - all the dwarven women manage to be attractive without being undwarfy.)

But I actually flipped through the book with this specific issue in mind, and in general I'd say the female clothing in there doesn't stray much from 3e standards. Women tend to wear a bit skimpier stuff, but none of it lewd or too overtly sexual (at least by my reckoning). And hey, they've even got a shirtless guy or two in there For The Ladies™.

The humans do look pretty badass as well, male AND female. It looks like they took the "rugged badass" parts of the 3e "dungeonpunk" aesthetic and left behind most of the associated silliness.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 21, 2007)

Baby got back.

Seriously, yes, there isn't much cheesecake, but there wasn't a whole lot of that in 3e, either. And I'm getting a "D&D is Serious Stuff" vibe from a lot of the art, which removes what little there was in 3e.

I mean, even Miallee, impractical as her outfit was, wasn't really cheesecake...

....though arguably "Buckles" (aka Hennet) was.  

I also applaud the art team for going with more "vistas" like the human on horseback that give a context to the world, rather than just having character floating around in whitespace all the time.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 22, 2007)

My wife -- who is only intermittently interested in D&D, but loves WoW and before that, EQ1 -- looked through R&C with a critical eye and pronounced that she really liked how dwarf women were depicted and was actually enthusiastic about the piece proclaiming the end of the female dwarf beard controversy (EQ1 had a dwarf female face or two that had facial hair, so she was familiar with the trope).

She's normally pretty sensitive to stupid cheesecake looks -- she chooses her dwarf priest's gear based on how practical-looking it is -- and that she dug the dwarf women says a lot to me about the art direction for 4E.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 22, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I also applaud the art team for going with more "vistas" like the human on horseback that give a context to the world, rather than just having character floating around in whitespace all the time.



Dude, seriously.  I really did not like the "PC floating in a void" art that was so common in 3E.   I was very glad to see a reappearance of the actual game world.



> Of all the females depicted in the book, only the Elves, Eladrin & Halflings are truly slender. The human women actually have a quite non-supermodel fullness and curve to them. William O'Connor seems to have a nice eye for more "realistic" female figures. They're still "ideally proportioned," of course, but they've all got a solidity that's been lacking in D&D art of late.



I noticed that too.  I thought to myself: "This looks like a Trolllord Games book ..." 

But more seriously, kudos to the art team.  I was particularly impressed by the Dwarven women who were both attractive and "not undwarfy".


----------



## Mercule (Dec 22, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I'm not sure the dwarf cleric with the bare midriff is really dressed for combat, though.




What?  She's a cleric of the dwarven god(dess?) of navel piercings.


----------



## Lord Fyre (Dec 22, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> And also... None are dressed in a sexist cheese way, like chainmail bikini.




Okay, in that case, I am changing my mind.  

I am definitely NOT going to 4th Edition!


----------



## Lord Fyre (Dec 22, 2007)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Of all the females depicted in the book, only the Elves, Eladrin & Halflings are truly slender.  The human women actually have a quite non-supermodel fullness and curve to them.  William O'Connor seems to have a nice eye for more "realistic" female figures.  They're still "ideally proportioned," of course, but they've all got a solidity that's been lacking in D&D art of late.




That is awesome!  Such women would look hot in a chainmail bikini!    

But, wait, there are no chainmail bikinis in 4th Edition.    

I am definitely NOT going to 4th Edition.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 22, 2007)

Lord Fyre said:
			
		

> Okay, in that case, I am changing my mind.
> 
> I am definitely NOT going to 4th Edition!




The Playboy website is this way, mon ami.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 22, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Fantasy needs to grow up and open to the ... non-nerd.



Ooh, I was right there with you until that last bit.

If the non-nerds get into fantasy, aren't they just going to beat us up and take our PHB's?


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 22, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Ooh, I was right there with you until that last bit.
> 
> If the non-nerds get into fantasy, aren't they just going to beat us up and take our PHB's?




Then we will move to another hobby. Never yeld, mon frère.


----------



## Mighty Veil (Dec 22, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Too bad for you.




Not really. Good for me.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 22, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> The women in the book are definitively on the good-looking side, I daresay "hawt" - but not "in-your-face", a la Chainmail bikini.
> 
> They're good looking, just as the men, because they are looking like _protagonists_, because they're adventurers - but no obvious cheesecake. Or because artists don't like drawing ugly things, just as with most art (unless it's supposed to be ugly for a reason) - and because they're all looking good as in "identification figures", not "I'd-date-it".




That said, looking at pretty much all of the dwarf women in Races and Classes...

I'd date it.


----------



## mara (Dec 22, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Ooh, I was right there with you until that last bit.
> 
> If the non-nerds get into fantasy, aren't they just going to beat us up and take our PHB's?




Not if they're as sticky as every thread involving fan-service would imply.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 22, 2007)

The ease with which "a significant percentage of men and a given percentage of women have been known to enjoying seeing this" becomes, in the minds of some "men masturbate to this compulsively" always fills me with joy.

No, wait, what's that other thing?

Right. Loathing. That was it.


----------



## mara (Dec 22, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> The ease with which "a significant percentage of men and a given percentage of women have been known to enjoying seeing this" becomes, in the minds of some "men masturbate to this compulsively" always fills me with joy.
> 
> No, wait, what's that other thing?
> 
> Right. Loathing. That was it.




Pfft.  You've got all of pop culture aimed at titillating you.  Moaning about women being portrayed as people to play instead of sex objects for thirteen-year-old straight boys as if it's a horrible loss makes it seem like gaming books are the only access they've got to images of sexy women.  That's hilarious.  I don't know any guy who has actually masturbated to a gaming suppliment, but the guys I game with also like to mock Avalanche covers for their utter silliness.  Heck, a lot of guys on this message board aren't hung up on fan service, which makes the "Oh noes!  Where me gets my boobies!" stuff even funnier looking.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 22, 2007)

mara said:
			
		

> Pfft.  You've got all of pop culture aimed at titillating you.  Moaning about women being portrayed as people to play instead of sex objects for thirteen-year-old straight boys as if it's a horrible loss makes it seem like gaming books are the only access they've got to images of sexy women.  That's hilarious.  I don't know any guy who has actually masturbated to a gaming suppliment, but the guys I game with also like to mock Avalanche covers for their utter silliness.  Heck, a lot of guys on this message board aren't hung up on fan service, which makes the "Oh noes!  Where me gets my boobies!" stuff even funnier looking.




We're a pretty self-reflective bunch IME (it comes from the self-loathing obsessing over pretend elves gives us!), so I've been reading the "Oh noes! Where me gets my boobies!?" stuff as intended self-_satyrically_, because the alternative is too horrible to _conceive_ of. It just can't be borne.

(does that violate the Grandma rule? I mean, I wouldn't pun in front of my grandma...)


----------



## ThatGuyThere (Dec 22, 2007)

I always find this topic amusing, because in my regular playgroup, there are two women, and four men.

It's the women who look up semiclad pictures of people (generally famous people) on teh interwebs to portray their characters.

And my wife, for the longest time, refused to dress her female characters in medium or heavy armor because it "wasn't sexy" enough.

"Fantasy" can mean different things to different people; check the front cover of a Harlequin romance novel sometime (distinctly marketed toward women - distinctly "beefcake" art, for both male and female portrayals).

That said, I'm in favour of reasonably-build people wearing enough clothes / armor so as not to get stabbed and / or freeze to death.  The excuse for nearly-clothesless characters went out of print with Dark Sun.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Dec 22, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Too bad for you.
> 
> I may criticizes feminism, I agree with them on such stupidity. Fantasy needs to grow up and open to the non-white, non-male, non-nerd.




There are many feminists who support chainmail bikinis, or, at least, pinup art (and more) in general. Camille Paglia is first and foremost. Wendy McElroy is another.

But it really comes down to artistic preferences. On the one hand, there's art that is politically correct and not Romantic. On the other hand, there are chainmail bikinis. I strongly support the chainmail bikini.  The game is a fantasy game, chainmail bikinis are fantasy fun, and they don't hurt anyone.


----------



## Barastrondo (Dec 22, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> There are many feminists who support chainmail bikinis, or, at least, pinup art (and more) in general. Camille Paglia is first and foremost. Wendy McElroy is another.




I'm personally not wild about pinup art being treated as an illustration, though. There's a difference in purpose. An illustration is something you should be able to point to and say "Yes, that's what the things/people/geography you run into in the game world is going to look like." A chainmail bikini might make a fine pinup, but it's a pretty cruddy illustration for a lot of campaigns (including mine, to admit personal bias). Same deal as monsters not looking the way you want them to look, really.

I prefer characters being dressed in more practical clothing so that I can say "She's kind of dressed like the character on page 13." With pinup art posing as illustrations, the art has less utility for illustrative purposes, outside of "Okay, the image on page three? You see that hanging on the wall, painted on black velvet, in the tyrant's bedchamber, right next to the black velvet Boris Vallejo-looking oiled guy with the tyrant's face."


----------



## mara (Dec 22, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> There are many feminists who support chainmail bikinis, or, at least, pinup art (and more) in general. Camille Paglia is first and foremost. Wendy McElroy is another.
> 
> But it really comes down to artistic preferences. On the one hand, there's art that is politically correct and not Romantic. On the other hand, there are chainmail bikinis. I strongly support the chainmail bikini.  The game is a fantasy game, chainmail bikinis are fantasy fun, and they don't hurt anyone.




Citing a date rape apologist to excuse your ogling isn't establishing feminist cred.  It's more honest just to ogle.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Dec 22, 2007)

Barastrondo said:
			
		

> I'm personally not wild about pinup art being treated as an illustration, though. There's a difference in purpose. An illustration is something you should be able to point to and say "Yes, that's what the things/people/geography you run into in the game world is going to look like."




Good point. I think the core books should contain a mix of styles to suit the many different tastes out there. I'm just saying that the chainmail bikini style should be one of those styles, and that there's nothing wrong with it. As ThatGuyThere pointed out a post or two above mine, there are many women who want their characters to look like pinup art. Different strokes for different folks, and all styles are welcome in the core books, in my opinion.

Edit: mara, Camille Paglia and Wendy McElroy are respected feminists with major impacts on the movement, and they don't deserve to be smeared that way. I'm going to stop now since these boards aren't the place for any of this, but feel free to email me.


----------



## Barastrondo (Dec 22, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> Good point. I think the core books should contain a mix of styles to suit the many different tastes out there. I'm just saying that the chainmail bikini style should be one of those styles, and that there's nothing wrong with it. As ThatGuyThere pointed out a post or two above mine, there are many women who want their characters to look like pinup art. Different strokes for different folks, and all styles are welcome in the core books, in my opinion.




It just strikes me as weirdly counter to the idea that the dungeon is a dangerous place. I mean, we're talking about a game that would punish you for being the least bit careless about listening at doors, walking down a corridor, opening or even touching a chest, entering a pool of water, letting your skin touch a statue or idol or gem or monster — how exactly does that jive with "but you don't even bother to wear a durable pair of pants?" It does kind of imply that the character's an idiot (or that the DM will be a big softie and never let you come to any harm), and if there's a bias toward female characters dressing like idiots for the sake of titillation, yeah, I can see an ugly implication there.


----------



## mara (Dec 22, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> Good point. I think the core books should contain a mix of styles to suit the many different tastes out there. I'm just saying that the chainmail bikini style should be one of those styles, and that there's nothing wrong with it. As ThatGuyThere pointed out a post or two above mine, there are many women who want their characters to look like pinup art. Different strokes for different folks, and all styles are welcome in the core books, in my opinion.
> 
> Edit: mara, Camille Paglia and Wendy McElroy are respected feminists with major impacts on the movement, and they don't deserve to be smeared that way. I'm going to stop now since these boards aren't the place for any of this, but feel free to email me.




I know who they are and I'm not retracting my comment (which was aimed at Paglia).  I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 22, 2007)

I absolutely despise bikinimail, cleavage windows on breastplates, and all the other slutty armor crap.

That said, I wouldn't really mind if it shows up in 4e art sometimes, provided that a) it's relatively rare, and b) it doesn't try to be subtle.  Pinup babes are a trope of the genre, after all.  Just don't let them become the dominant portrayal of women in the art, and don't try to sneak sexy bits of bared skin into normal pictures.  A picture of a D&D woman should either be a serious portrayal of a tough and competent adventurer, _or_ fantasy-themed cheesecake.  Trying to do both at once is insulting.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 22, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> A picture of a D&D woman should either be a serious portrayal of a tough and competent adventurer, or fantasy-themed cheesecake. Trying to do both at once is insulting.



Agreed.

And, putting a gnoll or medusa in a chainmail bikini, and then saying "Look, it's even, cuz they're ugly!" doesn't cut it either.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 22, 2007)

So, no more boob-windows?


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 22, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So, no more boob-windows?



Those are, honestly, worse than armored bikinis.


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 22, 2007)

Also, if there are pinup girls in the art, let's see a few pinup boys too.  And no, burly Conan wannabes in loincloths don't count.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 22, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Those are, honestly, worse than armored bikinis.




I tend to agree.  And, seeing that there is a female with a boob-window on the cover of one of the new 4e core rulebooks, the elation in this thread seems rather premature.


----------



## Tewligan (Dec 22, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Then we will move to another hobby. Never yeld, mon frère.



Wouldn't moving to another hobby be, in fact, yielding?


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 22, 2007)

Alright, well, full marks in missing the point entirely in favor of The Struggle. Fight on, brave internet warrior.

This seems like a pretty silly (and inappropriate) place to have set up your soapbox, though.


----------



## megamania (Dec 22, 2007)

ThatGuyThere said:
			
		

> That said, I'm in favour of reasonably-build people wearing enough clothes / armor so as not to get stabbed and / or freeze to death.  The excuse for nearly-clothesless characters went out of print with Dark Sun.





Scarred Lands female mages.....   elderich energies keep them very hot so clothes are few and generally see through.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 22, 2007)

megamania said:
			
		

> Scarred Lands female mages.....   elderich energies keep them very hot so clothes are few and generally see through.



The thing that the designers forget is that 1) That also means naked dudes, and 2) Not all spellcasters are hot. I specifically reference the fat, slobbish aberration monsters that have a habit for spellcasting.

That seriously was a rule implemented by lusty nerd designers, I swear. That was the first thing I said, "Hahaha, not in my game" to.


----------



## Barastrondo (Dec 22, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The thing that the designers forget is that 1) That also means naked dudes, and 2) Not all spellcasters are hot. I specifically reference the fat, slobbish aberration monsters that have a habit for spellcasting.
> 
> That seriously was a rule implemented by lusty nerd designers, I swear. That was the first thing I said, "Hahaha, not in my game" to.




I'll go you one further: I invented coldweave specifically so I could have the greatcoat-and-hat, heavy-scarves conservative look of the Hollowfaust necromancers. The sword-and-sorcery "casters in loincloths" is definitely a classic, even if the casters don't look good in loincloths, but I wanted something more distinctive.

Which, to be totally circular, allows me to return to the original post and say that I too am very happy about William O'Connor doing art for 4e. His cover for the Hollowfaust book is absolutely fantastic, and it was just one of his many, many great works. He deserves the central role in visual design they're giving him.


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 23, 2007)

Barastrondo said:
			
		

> Which, to be totally circular, allows me to return to the original post and say that I too am very happy about William O'Connor doing art for 4e. His cover for the Hollowfaust book is absolutely fantastic, and it was just one of his many, many great works. He deserves the central role in visual design they're giving him.



I'm not familiar with his other work... he's not the one who did the 4e PHB cover, is he?


----------



## Gort (Dec 23, 2007)

To be honest, the girls dressed like strippers and the men dressed like they're out on the lash don't particularly bother me. I live in a country where I can get soft porn in a newspaper if I want it. It's the people who seem to want to combine their prostitute-wear with armour, leading to some sort of slight chainmail covering with a completely bare chest or boob-window that get to me.

Either you're dressed to titillate, or you're dressed for protection. One or the other. You think that zombie cares about your boobs beyond their high fat content?


----------



## Orius (Dec 23, 2007)

Good, I like women that look like women, not skeletons. 



> None are dressed in a sexist cheese way, like chainmail bikini.




I'd say damn, but honestly, the chainmail bikini never really did it for me.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 23, 2007)

Orius said:
			
		

> I'd say damn, but honestly, the chainmail bikini never really did it for me.



Me neither. Give us skimpily clad women drawn to titillate, or give us women dressed appropriately as adventurers; chainmail bikini pretends to be the latter while aiming to be the former. It's kind-of cloying.

On the actual subject of the thread, I've really liked almost all of William O'Connor's artwork I've seen, and if his pictures are prevalent in the 4e books, good!

The few preview pics I've seen of the R&C look very good as well; the look of the game appears to suit my tastes.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 23, 2007)

> I've really liked almost all of William O'Connor's artwork I've seen




I gotta say, I don't like how immense the tiefling horns and tails are. 

Aside from that, they've been fine.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Dec 23, 2007)

Having seen O'Conner utterly destory pictures in the L5R CCG/RPG - usually by mangling faces to the point you have to wonder if the creature you are viewing is human (despite that being the case) - I'm not so happy to see him so central to 4E.

He does some wonderful work, and so far his 4E stuff has been great, but he can also stuff things up royaly.

But yes so far the 4E art is good - supposed PHB cover being a noteable exception.


----------



## Gundark (Dec 23, 2007)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> It looks like they took the "rugged badass" parts of the 3e "dungeonpunk" aesthetic and left behind most of the associated silliness.




Yeah it looks like the are leaving some of the negative aspects of 3e art behind them. I noticed a return to more "old school" style of art.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Dec 23, 2007)

Cailte said:
			
		

> But yes so far the 4E art is good - supposed PHB cover being a noteable exception.



I thought that was a Wayne Reynolds job.  It's certainly got his trademark battlescowls.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 23, 2007)

Gort said:
			
		

> To be honest, the girls dressed like strippers and the men dressed like they're out on the lash don't particularly bother me. I live in a country where I can get soft porn in a newspaper if I want it. It's the people who seem to want to combine their prostitute-wear with armour, leading to some sort of slight chainmail covering with a completely bare chest or boob-window that get to me.
> 
> Either you're dressed to titillate, or you're dressed for protection. One or the other. You think that zombie cares about your boobs beyond their high fat content?




That is sort of how I see it.  With some of the lighter armors you can get some snug fits that are sexy/practical.  But the full on chain mail bikini thing looked silly and never felt very sexy to me either, it was just exposed flesh.


----------



## Nim (Dec 24, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I also applaud the art team for going with more "vistas" like the human on horseback that give a context to the world, rather than just having character floating around in whitespace all the time.




...that was a horse?

Overall, I give a solid two thumbs up to the art in the R&C book; I'm looking forward to seeing more from these folks. The warrior in that mounted pic looks great. The horse, though, had some serious issues. I think its mother got drunk, then snuck away in the morning without ever having any idea how she ended up in bed with a lion. 

And I'm sure this has been touched on elsewhere, but...the text says tieflings have small horns, thin tails, and can be mistaken for human at a medium distance. Obviously no one told the artists, though. Not sarcasm - the tiefling pics are all consistent with each other, so I'm assuming the difference between the art and the text isn't the artists' fault.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 24, 2007)

Nim said:
			
		

> ...that was a horse?
> 
> Overall, I give a solid two thumbs up to the art in the R&C book; I'm looking forward to seeing more from these folks. The warrior in that mounted pic looks great. The horse, though, had some serious issues. I think its mother got drunk, then snuck away in the morning without ever having any idea how she ended up in bed with a lion.
> 
> And I'm sure this has been touched on elsewhere, but...the text says tieflings have small horns, thin tails, and can be mistaken for human at a medium distance. Obviously no one told the artists, though. Not sarcasm - the tiefling pics are all consistent with each other, so I'm assuming the difference between the art and the text isn't the artists' fault.



Hehe, the horse looked strange indeed. And the text and the artists depiction don't match. I think I prefer the artists depiction, because, well, if we're going to have aliens with bumps on their foreheads, they should be noticeable and cost something in the make-up department. Broken bajorian noses and pointed ears are sooo 20th century.


----------



## Ander00 (Dec 24, 2007)

From skimming over Races & Classes yesterday, I'd say some of the females could've done with showing a little less skin. Granted, that's also true for at least one of the males, and there's nothing near the level of bad that is a fighter type in a chainmail bikini, but still.


cheers


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 24, 2007)

I applaude more scenic art, and a greater trend to viable clothing/armor... but... I'd still like to see a chainmail bikini now and again. 

Cheescake/beefcake shouldn't be the defining image of D&D by any means, but it _does_ fit the fantasy genre.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 24, 2007)

Ander00 said:
			
		

> From skimming over Races & Classes yesterday, I'd say some of the females could've done with showing a little less skin. Granted, that's also true for at least one of the males, and there's nothing near the level of bad that is a fighter type in a chainmail bikini, but still.
> 
> 
> cheers




My favorites are like the one with the woman in furs with the midrift exposed. "Is it chilly to anyone else here?"


----------



## Reynard (Dec 24, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Cheescake/beefcake shouldn't be the defining image of D&D by any means, but it _does_ fit the fantasy genre.




I think part of what makes fantasy "fantasy" is the idealization of it all, which comes through really well in art: mountains aren't just tall, they reach into the clouds; warriors aren't just powerful, they are mighty thewed; elves aren't just attractive, they have an unearthly beauty about them; the bad guys aren't just mean, they are vile and diabolocal; the city isn't just dirty, it is grimy and raining all the time and a hive of scum and villainy.  D&D shouldn't lose that idealization -- there's room for chainmail bikins as much as there's room for bone armored necromancers and 500' long dragons and magical storms that can eat a continent.


----------



## Mirtek (Dec 24, 2007)

No chainmail bikinis


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 24, 2007)

From the same site, more importantly, what really happened to gnomes!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 24, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> My favorites are like the one with the woman in furs with the midrift exposed. "Is it chilly to anyone else here?"



The artist might have been a bit inspired by contemporary women clothing. It's seems usual these days (not that I mind!) to wear something slightly to short so that your lower back is exposed when you're sitting on a bike (and it can get cold on a bike in the winter!).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 24, 2007)

I think of fantasy characters' wardrobes kind of like I think of runway fashion.

Is it practical? Does it make sense? No, but that's not the _point_.

The point is to look good and convey a particular message. 

I mean, Hennet's buckles make as much if not less sense than a chainmail bikini, but I've got no real problem with that because (a) it looks good on him and (b) it conveys the message that all the time you spend in the morning putting on full plate, this sorcerer spends idly buckling himself.

Mialee's outfit isn't about practicality, it's about looking like part of the forest, a leaf, a dappled treetop.

Spikey armor doesn't have to be logical, it just has to convey the "I am a dangerous and intimidating person" look.

A chainmail bikini isn't just about cheesecake (though it's about that, too). It's about true vulnerability under a veneer of toughness, about how our protections are absurd, and about how human beauty cannot be hidden.

I mean, it's important to think about this in terms of what it _means_, not just in terms of what it is. 

That doesn't mean ignore what it is, but that does mean that an outfit is SO MUCH MORE than a functional way to keep warm and/or protected, and that such elements might not even be the most important function of an outfit, even for adventurers in a D&D world.


----------



## Betote (Dec 24, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> But it really comes down to artistic preferences. On the one hand, there's art that is politically correct and not Romantic. On the other hand, there are chainmail bikinis. I strongly support the chainmail bikini.  The game is a fantasy game, chainmail bikinis are fantasy fun, and they don't hurt anyone.




Tell that to all those nipples' widows


----------



## John Cooper (Dec 24, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I mean, Hennet's buckles make as much if not less sense than a chainmail bikini, but I've got no real problem with that because...it looks good on him...



Surely you jest, sir.  All those buckles make him look like a clown.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 24, 2007)

John Cooper said:
			
		

> Surely you jest, sir.  All those buckles make him look like a clown.




"No sir, _Chuckles_ the Clown. Yes, I know what you've got written down, but that's not my name. Yes, they sound alike. Chuckles, sir. See Aitch. Chuckles."

Anyway: I don't think Hennet looks the worse for wear(ing the buckles). It's not a normal style, I don't know anyone who dresses that way, but remember who he hangs out with. If he dressed more... normally... he'd get ignored in favor of the heavily armed-and-armored compatriots.

If he's the face, he's got to draw attention to himself, and he's got the Charisma to pull off that look.

And, like KM, I think it's a chainmale bikini.


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 24, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Mialee's outfit isn't about practicality, it's about looking like part of the forest, a leaf, a dappled treetop.




Actually Mialee's outfit is fairly practical. She has a crapton of pockets in an easy to reach place, that are organized. The clothing is sparse and wont inhibit movement. Since protection isnt a factor, its reasonably well designed. Its certainly a lot better than a robe, the piece of equipment guaranteed to hamper you at every turn.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Dec 24, 2007)

Mialee's outfit doesn't want to be practical, it wants to be slutty!


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 25, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A chainmail bikini isn't just about cheesecake (though it's about that, too). It's about true vulnerability under a veneer of toughness, about how our protections are absurd, and about how human beauty cannot be hidden.



Even if it were about that - and honestly, can you even say that line with a straight face? - doesn't it say something that it's only female characters who get depicted with true vulnerability under a veneer of toughness, whose efforts to protect themselves are considered absurd, and who are in the end more about beauty than competence?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 25, 2007)

> Even if it were about that - and honestly, can you even say that line with a straight face? - doesn't it say something that it's only female characters who get depicted with true vulnerability under a veneer of toughness, whose efforts to protect themselves are considered absurd, and who are in the end more about beauty than competence?




It absolutely does, but the target you want to hit is much bigger than D&D art, much more deeply entrenched in Western society, and much more resistant to change. 

I'm not saying that D&D art should be embracing of chainmail bikinis, I'm just saying the "it's impractical!" argument is ultimately too shallow to get at what's going on here, and misunderstands the purpose of the art. I mean, _of course_ it's impractical. Practicality isn't the point. The point is to present the Damsel In Distress stereotype (or the Babe Kicking Ass stereotype or the Mysterious Woman stereotype) in a way that titillates the Greatest Demographic. 

I don't think D&D should really be embracing chainmail bikinis (or Buckles McGee), but I think it's important to understand, truly, why it's something the game shouldn't be supporting. Impracticality isn't why. 

And I think the stereotypes/archetypes are particularly challenging to be rid of in D&D, where the myths and tales the game is based on so often have a deeply entrenched male-centric (if not downright mysogynistic) angle. I mean, Save The Princess is a cliche, but it automatically assumes princesses can't save themselves.

*shrug*  We may cut out the chainmail bikini itself, but that's kind of treating the symptom, not the cause. D&D has done an admirable job treating these particular symptoms over the years (seriously, the last chainmail bikini or otherwise absurdly titillating piece I can remember was back in the '80s, in the days of Heavy Metal and comic book heroines with tripple-E-cups), but it will NEVER be rid of them. As long as there are nymphs and succubi and as long as the game draws inspiration from mysogynistic greeks and gynophobic medieval codecies (which will probably be forever), each generation will have it's chainmail bikinis, too.

The best we can hope for is to recognize them, minimize them, and give us a few "Buckles McGees" to boot. 3e did quite admirably in that regard, and I'm sure 4e will follow suit while taking a "D&D is Serious Business" turn into more practicality, particularly as a response to the "Buckles McGees" of the world.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Dec 25, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Too bad for you.
> 
> I may criticizes feminism, I agree with them on such stupidity. Fantasy needs to grow up and open to the non-white, non-male, non-nerd.




We should have a published adventured in which a group of gay, nonwhite pacifists protest the destruction of a forest! Or a group of transgendered elves go on a sacred quest to retrieve the orb of hiring quotas!

Politically Correct fantasy at last!


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Dec 25, 2007)

Orius said:
			
		

> Good, I like women that look like women, not skeletons.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say damn, but honestly, the chainmail bikini never really did it for me.




I prefer women with translucent flesh, not mud-women. 

Fafhrd's ghoul-friend was hot.


----------



## Werebat (Dec 25, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Too bad for you.
> 
> I may criticizes feminism, I agree with them on such stupidity. Fantasy needs to grow up and open to the non-white, non-male, non-nerd.




I concur that D&D could use many more hot non-white sorceresses (to get around the "bodily exposure isn't realistic for armored warriors" problem) in their art lineup.  Bring 'em on!

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Werebat (Dec 25, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> We should have a published adventured in which a group of gay, nonwhite pacifists protest the destruction of a forest! Or a group of transgendered elves go on a sacred quest to retrieve the orb of hiring quotas!
> 
> Politically Correct fantasy at last!




In all seriousness, why no artwork of nurturing males?  The burly half-orc barbarian coddling his precious infant son to his corded chest with huge, calloused, but lovingly gentle hands?  The enthusiastic gnome father instructing his sharp-minded daughter (his pride and joy) in the ways of illusion?  The kind elven father making funny faces at his tiny babe while he spoonfeeds her warmed berry mash?

The list goes on and on, and yet we never see these people in D&D artwork.  Do they not exist?  How unrealistic is THAT?

Speaking as a good father who has been through the family courts, I can assert with conviction that sexism is a two-way street in our society.

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## adembroski (Dec 25, 2007)

I would like to point out that none of this points to any overriding politically correct enlightenment on the part of the artists retained by Wizards of the Coast, but a general change in attitude of the consumer.

Now, this is opinion of course, but I think as we as gamers have grown... and Lord knows we've gotten old... our taste has matured, the game has motivated us to educate ourselves, and so rather than looking at a painting for it's beauty, we look at it with a critical eye and think to ourselves "That chick's gonna get skewered!". 

I'm quite happy with the change, despite being a militant anti-feminist. I prefer realistic art to that which is simply there to please the eye (not that I saw anything wrong with the Chainmail Bikinis... I'm also fervently anti-PC. The only people who can offend you are those you give the power to offend you.)


----------



## Lord Fyre (Dec 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *shrug*  We may cut out the chainmail bikini itself, but that's kind of treating the symptom, not the cause. D&D has done an admirable job treating these particular symptoms over the years (seriously, the last chainmail bikini or otherwise absurdly titillating piece I can remember was back in the '80s, in the days of Heavy Metal and comic book heroines with tripple-E-cups), but it will NEVER be rid of them. As long as there are nymphs and succubi and as long as the game draws inspiration from mysogynistic greeks and gynophobic medieval codecies (which will probably be forever), each generation will have it's chainmail bikinis, too.




We do need Chainmail Bikinis in 4th edition, or at least Mr. Ryan Nock needs to do an update of . . . Chainmail Bikini


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 26, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> We should have a published adventured in which a group of gay, nonwhite pacifists protest the destruction of a forest! Or a group of transgendered elves go on a sacred quest to retrieve the orb of hiring quotas!
> 
> Politically Correct fantasy at last!




This post is made of fail and lame.


----------



## Henry (Dec 26, 2007)

I still kind of like Ari Marmell's invented reason why adventurers, or rather Drow in particular, wear such revealing outfits: It's a 'screw you' outward expression that they're so dangerous, and they're so powerful, that they're intentionally wearing less to show that they don't consider you a threat.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 26, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I still kind of like Ari Marmell's invented reason why adventurers, or rather Drow in particular, wear such revealing outfits: It's a 'screw you' outward expression that they're so dangerous, and they're so powerful, that they're intentionally wearing less to show that they don't consider you a threat.



You mean like Spartans?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 26, 2007)

adembroski said:
			
		

> I'm quite happy with the change, despite being a militant anti-feminist. I prefer realistic art to that which is simply there to please the eye (not that I saw anything wrong with the Chainmail Bikinis... I'm also fervently anti-PC. The only people who can offend you are those you give the power to offend you.)



You're offending me right now.

Feminism = "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men."


----------



## adembroski (Dec 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> You're offending me right now.




Despite the fact that I have no clue who you are, and you have no clue who I am. I am not offending you, you are allowing yourself to be offended by my words. Your fault, not mine.



> Feminism = "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men."




A poor definition to say the least. If that's what feminism actually was, I'd be all for it.
(To get into why I believe that would probably take us out of the realm of what's within the rules of the forum, which I think we're treading the fine line against as it is. I still consider this conversation to this point philosophy rather than politics, but we're dangerously close)


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 26, 2007)

adembroski said:
			
		

> I'm quite happy with the change, despite being a militant anti-feminist. I prefer realistic art to that which is simply there to please the eye (not that I saw anything wrong with the Chainmail Bikinis... I'm also fervently anti-PC. The only people who can offend you are those you give the power to offend you.)




Victimized by racism, sexism, homophobia or religious intolerance much?

As someone who has been on the receiving end of racism (being half African American) and religious intolerance (being non-Christian) I can say that even though sometimes folks go too far....(No "HO, HO, HO" at Christmas because the word "HO" is offensive to women and some of the discussion of the word _goddess_ being sexist like I saw on this site) but the sentiment is IMO well intended and more positive than negative. Extremes in all things tend to come to a natural balance and IMO these excesses will work their way out of our collective consciousnesses eventually.

As social creatures we are impacted by others whether we want to be or not. This is especially in childhood and adolescent years. As an adult I have the strength of ego to tell others to "piss off" but when I was a kid, it was hard a lot of the time. The fact is that the whole PC thing is a desire to set things right in regards to the sensitivities of those who don't have the strength to just "shrug it off and move on."

Not everyone is as tough as you are.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## adembroski (Dec 26, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Victimized by racism, sexism, homophobia or religious intolerance much?




I'm a straight Irish-American male... doesn't that make me incapable of being a victim?



> As someone who has been on the receiving end of racism (being half African American) and religious intolerance (being non-Christian) I can say that even though sometimes folks go too far....(No "HO, HO, HO" at Christmas because the word "HO" is offensive to women and some of the discussion of the word _goddess_ being sexist like I saw on this site) but the sentiment is IMO well intended and more positive than negative.
> 
> As social creatures we are impacted by others whether we want to be or not. This is especially in childhood and adolescent years. As an adult I have the strength of ego to tell others to "piss off" but when I was a kid, it was hard a lot of the time. The fact is that the whole PC thing is a desire to set things right in regards to the sensitivities of those who don't have the strength to just "shrug it off and move on."




The PC thing is an attempt to soften the language so that we don't confront truths because we only communicate in delicate language incapable of offense. Sometimes, offense is necessary to make the appropriate point.



> Not everyone is as tough as you are.




Those people who think they're not are selling themselves short, or have a victim complex. Society continually tells blacks/latinos/homosexuals/women that they're victims, and they start to believe it. A close friend of mine, nearly full blooded Dakotah Sioux, was being told the other night over and over that he was a victim by a guy who couldn't believe that he had no anger toward whites and that he didn't consider himself oppressed. The guy actually told him "You're very smart, but you need to regain your integrity".

This was of course from a white guy.


----------



## Rel (Dec 26, 2007)

Alright, alright.  Let's take the confrontation down about a notch and a half.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 26, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> In all seriousness, why no artwork of nurturing males?  ... The list goes on and on, and yet we never see these people in D&D artwork.  Do they not exist?  How unrealistic is THAT?




In all seriousness, do you ever see this in any form of entertainment when it doesn't immediately precipitate the slaughtering of the loved ones of said nurting males, leading to a bloody ramged of vengeance (or something similar).

It is nice and all to suggest that men and male oriented entertainment can be cuddly and emotional, but it just ain't so.  Masculinity is as palpable and reala  thing as femininity, and as much as we, as indicual loving husbands and fathers, can share our softer sides with those we are close to, the fact is that male entertainment is build around boobs and blood.  Always has been, always will be and it isn't a bad thing.

That isn't to say that D&D can't make like other forms of entertainment that appeal to both, or at least try.  But it is a rare gem of a film or book or video game that resonates equally with men and women, and even those still resonate _differently_ with men and women.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 26, 2007)

adembroski said:
			
		

> A poor definition to say the least.



It's definition 1 from www.dictionary.com.

From wikipedia:

"Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and *equal rights for women*."

From Merriam-Webster:

"the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"


I think I'll continue to use the dictionary definition of the word rather than adembroski's definition, whatever it is. You might not understand what I mean but at least everyone else will.


----------



## adembroski (Dec 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's definition 1 from www.dictionary.com.
> 
> From wikipedia:
> 
> ...




Allow me to clarify, since you seem insistent on creating a battle over this... Actually, I'll simply reiterate: I'm militant anti-Feminist... not anti-Feminism. 

Modern feminists do not push political, economic, and social equality. They push favortism toward middle class white women. They quote statistics like "Woman make 70-some odd cent's on the dollar that men make" without acknowledging the fact that women tend to major in various humanities fields, while men major in things like engineering... women enter fields that pay less, knowing full well in advance that they pay less, and yet there is some sort of a social crime? I don't buy that. Furthermore, they attempt to criminalize normal dating habits between men and women, to the point where asking a woman on a date if you happen to ugly a jailable offense. They want companies to be required to hire and equal number of men and women, even in heavy industrial fields. They want men and women in equal numbers on the battlefield, even though to do so the military is required to set lower standards for its soldiers, seamen, marines, and airmen. 

They don't push for equal opportunity anymore, they want equal outcomes, regardless of ability or effort.

You can't make me feel like a bad guy here because I _am_ for equality. True equality... in other words, may the best man OR woman win. Not giving women special advantages or making normal male behavior a crime.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 26, 2007)

We're getting off topic. If folks want to talk about feminism, feel free to head over to www.circvsmaximvs.com or a different site. It's virtually impossible to discuss here without straying into politics, so I'll ask that the subject be dropped and the thread return to the art discussion.

Thank you.


----------



## adembroski (Dec 26, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> We're getting off topic. If folks want to talk about feminism, feel free to head over to www.circvsmaximvs.com or a different site. It's virtually impossible to discuss here without straying into politics, so I'll ask that the subject be dropped and the thread return to the art discussion.
> 
> Thank you.




My apologies. Consider the subject dropped.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 26, 2007)

Edit. Nevermind.

So... how bout them dragonborn eh?


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 26, 2007)

adembroski said:
			
		

> My apologies. Consider the subject dropped.



It's cool. Thanks for dropping it when asked; that's not always easy when it's something you feel strongly about. It's appreciated.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> So... how bout them dragonborn eh?



What's up with their boobs?


----------



## adembroski (Dec 26, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Edit. Nevermind.
> 
> So... how bout them dragonborn eh?




Mwahahaha I already saw your original post! 

Uhh... they shouldn't be a core race.

The art is good.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 26, 2007)

adembroski said:
			
		

> Mwahahaha I already saw your original post!
> 
> Uhh... they shouldn't be a core race.
> 
> The art is good.




Lol. I think we could disagree on the latter, but lets agree to disagree on that for now.

and for the record, I don't mind dragonboobies either...


----------



## Mad Mac (Dec 26, 2007)

> and for the record, I don't mind dragonboobies either...




  Don't let this spread too far, but I may or may not have recieved confirmation that the reference to Dragonborn _breath_ weapons is a typo.


----------



## Lord Fyre (Dec 26, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> In all seriousness, why no artwork of nurturing males?




Mostly because that kind of interaction is rarely part of "adventure gaming".    



			
				Werebat said:
			
		

> The burly half-orc barbarian coddling his precious infant son to his corded chest with huge, calloused, but lovingly gentle hands?  The enthusiastic gnome father instructing his sharp-minded daughter (his pride and joy) in the ways of illusion?




Those would be awesome images though.  I think that would add depth to both the Gnomish and Half-Orc steriotypes.  Pity that neither race looks like it will be part of 4th Ed's PHB1  




			
				Werebat said:
			
		

> The kind elven father making funny faces at his tiny babe while he spoonfeeds her warmed berry mash?




While appropriate, Elven men really don't need any more help to look silly.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 26, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> and for the record, I don't mind dragonboobies either...



Nor I.

Though it bothers me that they don't have _tails_. That's just... wrong.


----------



## Hairfoot (Dec 26, 2007)

Lord Fyre said:
			
		

> Mostly because that kind of interaction is rarely part of "adventure gaming".



It's a game in which many people play clerics of merciful gods, protecting the innocent from the rapacious forces of darkness, so I disagree.

Now, I don't think we need to see illustrations of Throthgor Fell-hand, barbarian master of the Desolate Wastes, feeding babies from a bottle, but how about a paladin selflessly interposing himself between a troll and some old villagers?  Or, similar to Werebat's suggestion, a fighter tutoring his apprentice in battle?

It would be misguided to include these types of themes and images simply to appeal to politically-correct sensibilities, but I've been playing D&D for twenty years and I've had my fill of battle scenes.  I now like to play PCs for whom battles are means to greater ends, and that's something rarely portrayed outside of novels.


----------



## Deekin (Dec 26, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> It's a game in which many people play clerics of merciful gods, protecting the innocent from the rapacious forces of darkness, so I disagree.
> 
> Now, I don't think we need to see illustrations of Throthgor Fell-hand, barbarian master of the Desolate Wastes, feeding babies from a bottle, but how about a paladin selflessly interposing himself between a troll and some old villagers?  Or, similar to Werebat's suggestion, a fighter tutoring his apprentice in battle?
> 
> It would be misguided to include these types of themes and images simply to appeal to politically-correct sensibilities, but I've been playing D&D for twenty years and I've had my fill of battle scenes.  I now like to play PCs for whom battles are means to greater ends, and that's something rarely portrayed outside of novels.




From Unearthed Arcana


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 26, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> It would be misguided to include these types of themes and images simply to appeal to politically-correct sensibilities, but I've been playing D&D for twenty years and I've had my fill of battle scenes.  I now like to play PCs for whom battles are means to greater ends, and that's something rarely portrayed outside of novels.




QFT

But how could you show off your cool powers if you weren't fighting several times a day, EVERY DAY?   :\ 


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 26, 2007)

Whoops, nothing to see here...

Um, the dragonborn look pretty interesting, right?


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 26, 2007)

*Well*

I can't believe this long discussion hasn't touched on the biggest heap of unrealism in D&D art:  The fact that female character illustrations don't reflect the use of CHA as a dump stat!

Let's have some really unattractive female barbarians, fighters, and wizards.  Come on, when was the last time you saw a CHA 16 wizard?  What is Miallee's CHA supposed to be, anyway?


Ken


----------



## Werebat (Dec 26, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> In all seriousness, do you ever see this in any form of entertainment when it doesn't immediately precipitate the slaughtering of the loved ones of said nurting males, leading to a bloody ramged of vengeance (or something similar).




Finding Nemo.  That recent based-on-a-true-story movie starring Will Smith.  I enjoyed both and felt that they were far more representative of what real-life fathers are like than, say, Gladiator.

You are right -- the media tends to focus on male nurturing only as a background for the "main event" of righteous violence.  But this constructed image hurts real fathers in the same way that the image of the big-boobed chainmail bikini heroine hurts women.




			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> It is nice and all to suggest that men and male oriented entertainment can be cuddly and emotional, but it just ain't so.  Masculinity is as palpable and reala  thing as femininity, and as much as we, as indicual loving husbands and fathers, can share our softer sides with those we are close to, the fact is that male entertainment is build around boobs and blood.  Always has been, always will be and it isn't a bad thing.




I have children.  I just fed and rocked my infant son to sleep.  My love for him goes well beyond a willingness to stop and punish anyone who would harm him.  I hardly think that I am an unusual father.  Yet when I am hauled into family court I am treated to a system that automatically assumes that I am a devious, violent, child-molesting ogre -- and that my ex is a helpless, faultless, long-suffering "real" parent.  Why is this?




			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> That isn't to say that D&D can't make like other forms of entertainment that appeal to both, or at least try.  But it is a rare gem of a film or book or video game that resonates equally with men and women, and even those still resonate _differently_ with men and women.




Men and women are different.  This fact cannot rightly be used to justify the dearth of images of male nurturing any more than it can be used to justify the dearth of images of female (insert traditionally masculine positive quality here).

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Werebat (Dec 26, 2007)

adembroski said:
			
		

> My apologies. Consider the subject dropped.




Don't feel too sorry.  You are articulate and hopefully inspired at least one person to do their own research and learn something.

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Werebat (Dec 26, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> From Unearthed Arcana




Good catch.  So, there's ONE image.    

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Rel (Dec 26, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> (insert traditionally masculine positive quality here).
> 
> - Ron   ^*^




Kicking ass?

My perception is that there are plenty of images of female characters kicking ass throughout fantasy gaming.  I also can't, off the top of my head, think of too many pictures of female characters being all that terribly nurturing in fantasy gaming.

I think that's because, thematically, a much greater portion of fantasy gaming focuses on kicking ass than it does on nurturing.  I mean sure, there's sticking up for the weak and oppressed.  But usually that involves seeking out their oppressor and...kicking their ass.


----------



## Werebat (Dec 26, 2007)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> What is Miallee's CHA supposed to be, anyway?




Mialee is female?    

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Werebat (Dec 26, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> Kicking ass?
> 
> My perception is that there are plenty of images of female characters kicking ass throughout fantasy gaming.  I also can't, off the top of my head, think of too many pictures of female characters being all that terribly nurturing in fantasy gaming.
> 
> I think that's because, thematically, a much greater portion of fantasy gaming focuses on kicking ass than it does on nurturing.  I mean sure, there's sticking up for the weak and oppressed.  But usually that involves seeking out their oppressor and...kicking their ass.




But this argument can be so easily turned around to support chainmail bikinis!  They LOOK GOOD, and looking good is part of what fantasy art is about.  Just like other equally implausible things in fantasy art like dire flails and spiky armor.

If we're going to ignore that fact or consider it less important than correcting the sociopolitical reality of sexism that is harmful to females, we have to be fair and do the same for sexism that is harmful to males.

Part of the problem is that we as a society are not ready to move sexism that is harmful to males out of our collective blind spot.  It is treated as though it does not exist.

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 26, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> Mialee is female?
> 
> - Ron   ^*^



Holy crap. Ron, I haven't seen you since I stopped reading rec.games.frp.dnd way back in 1999. You were shining light of interest in a vast sea of babble. Nice to see you around.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 26, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Too bad for you.
> 
> I may criticizes feminism, I agree with them on such stupidity. Fantasy needs to grow up and open to the non-white, non-male, non-nerd.



I embrace my white-male-nerdiness. I have no problems with chainmail bikinis.  


In all seriousness... when's the last time we even saw a chainmail bikini in D&D... why is it even a topic?


----------



## Rel (Dec 26, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> But this argument can be so easily turned around to support chainmail bikinis!




If I've done anything to cause you to think that I'm against chainmail bikinis, I offer my most sincere apologies.

I'm perfectly fine to just let the game be a game.  It needn't reflect anything about my personal morals or ethics.  I'm not a supporter of killing people for money but I wouldn't hesitate to play an assassin in an RPG (or to run a game for an assassin PC).  I'm not a supporter of vigilante justice but I wouldn't hesitate to have my barbarian cleave open the skull of some bandit that stole his horse.

If the game appeals to me visually, if it "LOOKS GOOD" as you say, well then dandy.  I'll buy it (I mean assuming the mechanics don't suck).  If the game doesn't appeal to others because it doesn't "look good" then I guess they won't buy it.  And if the game company that produces this game decides to change their art to appeal to a different or broader segment of the market...well I suppose we'll see how successful they are.


----------



## Werebat (Dec 26, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Holy crap. Ron, I haven't seen you since I stopped reading rec.games.dnd.rpg way back in 1999. You were shining light of interest in a vast sea of babble. Nice to see you around.




LOL, someone else who remembers me?  That's two in one day!  I feel like I'm home!   

What handle did you go by then?

I've read quite a few of your posts here, so I'm curious.

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Werebat (Dec 26, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> If I've done anything to cause you to think that I'm against chainmail bikinis, I offer my most sincere apologies.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine to just let the game be a game.  It needn't reflect anything about my personal morals or ethics.  I'm not a supporter of killing people for money but I wouldn't hesitate to play an assassin in an RPG (or to run a game for an assassin PC).  I'm not a supporter of vigilante justice but I wouldn't hesitate to have my barbarian cleave open the skull of some bandit that stole his horse.
> 
> If the game appeals to me visually, if it "LOOKS GOOD" as you say, well then dandy.  I'll buy it (I mean assuming the mechanics don't suck).  If the game doesn't appeal to others because it doesn't "look good" then I guess they won't buy it.  And if the game company that produces this game decides to change their art to appeal to a different or broader segment of the market...well I suppose we'll see how successful they are.




Fair enough.  And I don't personally feel that the gaming community is really an effective place to effect positive change for fathers in our horrid "family" court systems.  It's just difficult not to comment when people wax wistful about the plight of the American female, victimized by fantasy art.

I see it's my turn to change a diaper.  Heh, little cutie.  I'm hella lucky to have met his mother.  That'll be all for now.

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I mean, Hennet's buckles make as much if not less sense than a chainmail bikini, but I've got no real problem with that because (a) it looks good on him and (b) it conveys the message that all the time you spend in the morning putting on full plate, this sorcerer spends idly buckling himself.



To me the meassage it conveys is_ I'm hiding unspeakable deformities that only can be kept from writhing with dozens of leather straps_.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 27, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> Finding Nemo.




To be fair, as good a movie as Finding Nemo is, the whole point of the movie is that the father is _too_ nurting, too timid and he spends the entire movie "de-mommifying" in order to be a better dad.



> You are right -- the media tends to focus on male nurturing only as a background for the "main event" of righteous violence.  But this constructed image hurts real fathers in the same way that the image of the big-boobed chainmail bikini heroine hurts women.




I do not agree that these things "hurt" as a function of what they are, rather than as a reflection of how individual people see them because of ways they already are.



> I have children.  I just fed and rocked my infant son to sleep.  My love for him goes well beyond a willingness to stop and punish anyone who would harm him.  I hardly think that I am an unusual father.




I am a dad, too, and I love my kids more than anything in the world.  But that doesn't mean I have to be less masculine in order be a good dad -- just smarter than I was when I was 25.



> Yet when I am hauled into family court I am treated to a system that automatically assumes that I am a devious, violent, child-molesting ogre -- and that my ex is a helpless, faultless, long-suffering "real" parent.  Why is this?




In absolute seriousness, I am so sorry you had to go through such a thing.  But the idealized portrayal of things masculine and feminine didn't cause your situation -- it was a culture that vilifies and attempts to emasculate men that did that to you.



> Men and women are different.  This fact cannot rightly be used to justify the dearth of images of male nurturing any more than it can be used to justify the dearth of images of female (insert traditionally masculine positive quality here).




It can't be used to justify their inclusion either.  Indivual artists will create the images they desire and the consuming public will determine what fits our wants, needs and dreams.  People like to complain about the images of men and women we see, but if you look closely, you see lots of different kinds of images, different stereotypes and archtypes.  Spend an evening watching network TV.  Forget the shows.  Watch the commercials.  You'll see how diverse our unrealities really are.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> What handle did you go by then?
> 
> I've read quite a few of your posts here, so I'm curious.
> 
> - Ron   ^*^



Lord knows, it's been a while. Iceweasel, maybe? I didn't post much. I mostly lurked.

In any case, welcome.

(And sorry about the hijack, folks!)


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2007)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> In all seriousness... when's the last time we even saw a chainmail bikini in D&D... why is it even a topic?



The "Chainmail bikini" is not just a specific bikini made of chainmail, but a general notion of 'revealing clothing that serves little purpose aside from titillating, while it _looks_ as though it might prevent the barest scrap of protection."

The last time I saw that in D&D? The 4e PHB cover.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The "Chainmail bikini" is not just a specific bikini made of chainmail, but a general notion of 'revealing clothing that serves little purpose aside from titillating, while it _looks_ as though it might prevent the barest scrap of protection."
> 
> The last time I saw that in D&D? The 4e PHB cover.




To me eyes, it was more or elss neutral... could be more practical, but it was at least workable and usefull.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

so just to ask a question... most people here have a problem with revealing clothing because its not practical? If thats the case, then casters who don't need armor should be ok to wear any type of revealing clothing right? you would be ok with that right? if no why not? and why did you say you didn't like reviling clothing because of its practicality?

Personally i think many of the people here saying that they don't like boob armor is not because of its impractically, but see it as a good excuse to hide the real reason. 

Also what I don't get is most gaming girls i have met Like boob armor, so its just funny because thats another excuse that commonly comes up that doesn't seem to hold much water. 

To these people, have you ever met a gamer girl who was offended seeing boob armor? I'm going to say that most girls with the pre disposition to play d&d are not offended by boob armor or sexy babes, and in fact want to see more then whats already in d&d.

i think the main reason guys don't like boob armor is because of embarrassment or because it distracts them (by taking away) 

I could be wrong, but thats what I'm going go with at the moment, and possibly change my view when i get more input. 

I personally like boob armor. I like Boris vallejo and his contermpries. I like heavy metal and I love the 70s and 80s and how it influenced fantasy.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I'm going to say that most girls with the pre disposition to play d&d are not offended by boob armor or sexy babes, and in fact want to see more then whats already in d&d.



Huh. I'm going to say that most boys with the predisposition to play D&D are not offended by 'realistic' sculpted codpieces or or sexy toy-boy art, and in fact want to see more then what's already in D&D.  Does that make either of us right?

Which is my probably-too-sarcastic way of saying that I don't believe your or my own personal experience is the data by which art direction decisions should be made. Please forgive the sarcasm; my back hurts.

I'm totally okay with the fact that you like it. That doesn't mean that most women gamers do.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 27, 2007)

The girls are tired to see stupid cheesecake shots aimed at teen boys. It's the fact. Because it's sexism.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Huh. I'm going to say that most boys with the predisposition to play D&D are not offended by 'realistic' sculpted codpieces or or sexy toy-boy art, and in fact want to see more then what's already in D&D.  Does that make either of us right?




I think men are more homophobic then women, but honestly i wouldn't mind seeing more codpieces or or sexy toy-boy art. anything to bring back what made Greek art great is fine by me.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I think men ore more homophobic then wemon, but honestly i wouldn't mind seeing more codpieces or or sexy toy-boy art. anything to bring back what made greek art good is fine by me.



Right, but - and maybe a Paizo staffer can jump in with a comment if they see this - I seem to remember that the half-naked Sun-God cover of Dragon got a huge number of complaints from male gamers. And you know the Golden Rule...


----------



## Reynard (Dec 27, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> The girls are tired to see stupid cheesecake shots aimed at teen boys. It's the fact. Because it's sexism.




Which girls?  I mean, since it is a *fact*, there should be a list somewhere, or at least a definitive description of type, right?  I mean, god knows nothing is more offensive the "the girls" than depictions of powerful and attractive women.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

do you have a link to the image?

and do you know any woman that play d&d and dislike boob armor?


----------



## bgaesop (Dec 27, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Right, but - and maybe a Paizo staffer can jump in with a comment if they see this - I seem to remember that the half-naked Sun-God cover of Dragon got a huge number of complaints from male gamers. And you know the Golden Rule...




Link?


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> do you have a link to the image?
> 
> and do you know any woman that play d&d and dislike boob armor?




Ask any mature and serious girl/woman her opinion on such fantasy cheese art.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

I larp a bit and most of the females that I game with don't have a problem with boob armor. in fact some even wear boob armor, so forgive me pirate cat, but until i see some testimonies or evidence, I'm going to rely on my personal experiences when it comes to this kind of thing. Im also going to bring up anime cons. Lots and LOTS of fan girls that could be d&d players if someone would just give them what they want. thats a reservoir of untaped sales just waiting to happen. the typical gamer girls wants to see sexy men (not beef cakes though) and probably doesn't mind boob armor as its common in anime. 

again i admit i could be wrong about all this, but I have yet to see evidence of it.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Which girls?  I mean, since it is a *fact*, there should be a list somewhere, or at least a definitive description of type, right?  I mean, god knows nothing is more offensive the "the girls" than depictions of powerful and attractive women.



Most powerful and attractive women I know are offended by being referred to as 'girls.'  

Moon-Lancer, I may not be making my point clear enough. I know lots of female gamers, and I have no doubt that some of them dislike sexualization of women in D&D art, and some of them don't give a damn. My point is that even though I can name 50+ women gamers, "gamers that Piratecat knows" is not a big enough sample size to base a decision on. Who cares what my friends think? It's a tiny sub-set of the market, without any statistical significance. You really don't want to make big decisions on hearsay.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2007)

bgaesop said:
			
		

> Link?



The letters columns following the initial issue. I'm way, waaay too lazy to go hunt for it right now. I may be able to dig up the art or issue number from a different thread here, though. I'll look.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Ask any mature and serious girl/woman her opinion on such fantasy cheese art.




what age group are we talking here? my experience has been in the 20-35

and again "do you know any woman that play d&d and dislike boob armor?"

any at all?

most geek girls I know are pretty easy going about this kind of thing. so I am pretty shocked that boob armor has such a negative standing. But so far its been mostly men (on this forum at least) that have taken a stand against it. are their any woman here that dislike like boob armor in rpg art. are thier any that do?


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> The letters columns following the initial issue. I'm way, waaay too lazy to go hunt for it right now. I may be able to dig up the art or issue number from a different thread here, though. I'll look.




thanks


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 27, 2007)

D&D is a FANTASY game, as far I know. So, there.

Don't wonder why girls don't play the game as much as expected (and other reasons are there too).


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> what age group are we talking here? my experience has been in the 20-35
> 
> and again "do you know any woman that play d&d and dislike boob armor?"
> 
> ...




I'm not a woman, but I know many female gamers who dislike boob armor. As Piratecat said, my personal experience isn't a large enough sample to base an argument on. My experience is with female gamers between the ages of 19 and 45.


----------



## adembroski (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer has a great point in all this... to put another spin on it, why must we always cater to "The Offended", who generally is a very small group of people compared to the whole. Women admire one another in a way that men cannot quite understand, because it's entirely platonic. A man does not look at a scantily clad man and say "Damn, that's a handsome man", as we do not recognize male beauty. Women, however, recognize feminine beauty and can appreciate each other's beauty.

Take some time to click around deviant art sometime and note the number of chainmail bikini pictures made by women.


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 27, 2007)

I would like to say that I am in no way offended by boob-armor. I just think it's ridiculous.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 27, 2007)

adembroski said:
			
		

> to put another spin on it, why must we always cater to "The Offended", who generally is a very small group of people compared to the whole.




Heh.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 27, 2007)

No - women and girls look at boob armor shots, and it clearly send then a message 'girls, in this game, the MEN do the work and you are just there to look sexy'.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I'm not a woman, but I know many female gamers who dislike boob armor. As Piratecat said, my personal experience isn't a large enough sample to base an argument on. My experience is with female gamers between the ages of 19 and 45.




thank you for your input. It would seem that we have had different experiences, so i can no longer say that my experiences are universal.

can you be more specific? do these girls play d&d only or do they play other games as well. do they larp? are they geeky female gamers or just casual players?

But i do wonder why many boob armor artists are female. It really makes the issue confusing.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> No - women and girls look at boob armor shots, and it clearly send then a message 'girls, in this game, the MEN do the work and you are just there to look sexy'.




do you know any girls that have gotten this kind of message from boob armor art? if so were they new to gaming?


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2007)

Ah, there it is: Dragon #294. 







This was the issue where Paizo decided to equalize the male cheesecake factor a little.

Incidentally, I personally like a lot of D&D art; chainmail bikinis are a longstanding staple of the genre. But I have had at least three female players who have actively disliked the art style, and another three or four who mocked it. Getting women into the game is a great idea in my opinion, and some art actively works against that.

(Incidentally, feel free to read through this train-wreck of a thread for the last time this conversation was held.)


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 27, 2007)

adembroski said:
			
		

> Moon-Lancer has a great point in all this... to put another spin on it, why must we always cater to "The Offended", who generally is a very small group of people compared to the whole. Women admire one another in a way that men cannot quite understand, because it's entirely platonic. A man does not look at a scantily clad man and say "Damn, that's a handsome man", as we do not recognize male beauty. Women, however, recognize feminine beauty and can appreciate each other's beauty.
> 
> Take some time to click around deviant art sometime and note the number of chainmail bikini pictures made by women.




Why must we always cater to those who read role-playing books to get their jollies?   

There are some people who get turned off on the entire hobby (thinking it's only for horny teenage boys) by the fact that rpg artwork is dominated by exposed women in soft-core porn poses. Does anyone think that there is a would-be gamer anywhere who would say, "I would love to get into D&D, but there aren't enough pictures of half-naked women in boob-armor in the books!"

Is it necessary to have this kind of artwork in the game books? Does it bring anything to the gaming table? Why have D&D miniatures gone the other route, portraying both male and female characters in practical armor and clothing? I don't have any sales figures on me, but I believe I've heard somewhere that WotC is making a little bit of money on them.   

Lot's of women have no problem with this sort of art, but many others do. Why is it necessary to have this kind of art providing the face of our hobby, when it is so divisive? If you don't think it is divisive, just look at the reaction on just about any gaming forum when the subject comes up.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2007)

By the way, a heads up: this is a divisive issue. We've been pretty good so far about avoiding insults against people who disagree with us. Please, keep it that way. Report problem posts - using the tiny button in the bottom left of every post - if you see any exceptions crop up.


----------



## perchy (Dec 27, 2007)

the offended complain loud, the supporters cheer quietly

Women should be an option for play in any game. and if anyone really wants to play a homely woman, well, grats. Now we've accepted women are going to be attactive, it's just down to personal taste with how much armour they're ok to wear before they just become sex objects.

I think the teifling on the 4e PHB is right on that line. You could make the case for a bit too much thigh, but i'd tell you to sod off.

Most 4e art is like this, the women are sexy, but they ain't shoving boobs in your face.

And out of the 4 gamer girls I asked about this, 3 agree'd with me. and I know the one that didn't agree with me is in to bondage secretly.

you could probably find a group where this is not the case, but equally you could find a place where "bloody" is a swear word.


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> thank you for your input. It would seem that we have had different experiences, so i can no longer say that my experiences are universal.
> 
> can you be more specific? do these girls play d&d only or do they play other games as well. do they larp? are they geeky female gamers or just casual players?
> 
> But i do wonder why many boob armor artists are female. It really makes the issue confusing.




I organize gaming at science-fiction conventions. I am talking about women of all age ranges. Some play D&D, other GURPS, HERO, White Wolf games etc.... Some are fantasy artists. Some are science-fiction or fantasy authors. Some are dedicated gamers, while others are casual gamers. Yes, I have even heard the artwork used as a reason by some women as to why they don't game.

My circle only includes a few hundred _in toto_, so it's not a decisive sample. I will also add that some of the women like this style of art. It is my experience, however, that the number of women who actively like this style of art (as opposed to those who merely tolerate it) is somewhat small.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> and again "do you know any woman that play d&d and dislike boob armor?"



I do. 

In fact, I remember one specifically complaining about the races spread in the 3e PHB. That all the women are in bras, and yet all of the men (sans the half-orc) have their chests fully covered.

I've seen countless female gamers on the forums complaining too. Just go on Astrid's Parlor on the WotC boards and ask. 

Hell, _in this very thread_ on page 2, Gloombunny (an actual female gamer) said:


> I absolutely despise bikinimail, cleavage windows on breastplates, and all the other slutty armor crap.


----------



## resistor (Dec 27, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

>




Having just watched 300, that image kind of makes me go play a Spartan!

In all seriousness, though, I don't see what's objectionable about it.  I mean, it's not as eye-candy-ish to me, a straight male, but it's certainly a reasonable phenotype for male fantasy heroes.  I could imagine playing him.


----------



## Barastrondo (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> To these people, have you ever met a gamer girl who was offended seeing boob armor? I'm going to say that most girls with the pre disposition to play d&d are not offended by boob armor or sexy babes, and in fact want to see more then whats already in d&d.




I married one, and she's the most devoted gamer I know. She also does art direction, and while she likes well-done and tasteful depictions of the female body, "boob armor" does not qualify. (It's the sort of thing that makes me aware of the difference between illustration and cheesecake.) Most of the women I know aren't thrilled about the fashion statement (such as it is) in general; my WoW guild is filled with women who are not at all thrilled about the fact that their armor is cut differently than the exact same armor on a male. 

I'll say I know more women who aren't "offended" by boob armor (or "hookerplate"), but they're irritated if it seems to suggest that their characters should dress much the same (such as in WoW, or in illustrations in game rulebooks that imply "This is a player character."). 



> i think the main reason guys don't like boob armor is because of embarrassment or because it distracts them




Depends on the context. I don't like it in RPG art if there's any indication we're meant to take the characters seriously; the whole "it protects because it's distracting" has always seemed like a feeble rationalization that's embarrassing in its own right (seriously, do such campaigns never feature zombies or giant insects or even straight male sexually compatible warriors with a fragment of self-discipline?). There's just such a different context between a person in fandom looking to attract attention at a convention and a warrior slogging through a sewer full of rotting undead, you know?


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2007)

resistor said:
			
		

> Having just watched 300, that image kind of makes me go play a Spartan!
> 
> In all seriousness, though, I don't see what's objectionable about it.  I mean, it's not as eye-candy-ish to me, a straight male, but it's certainly a reasonable phenotype for male fantasy heroes.  I could imagine playing him.



How about this fella?






I say that "Pretty boys" fit D&D too. I mean, "Slender, androgynous and sexy" practically defines male elves. And then we have Tieflings...


----------



## Orius (Dec 27, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Holy crap. Ron, I haven't seen you since I stopped reading rec.games.frp.dnd way back in 1999. You were shining light of interest in a vast sea of babble. Nice to see you around.




I was thinking the same thing.  Ron always livens up a discussion.  

And speaking of people from rgfd, is Hong still around?  Nothing's more entertaining than a thread with Ron and Hong.


----------



## resistor (Dec 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> How about this fella?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Probably not a character I personally would play, but I've known some others' PCs that would have looked like that


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2007)

Barastrondo said:
			
		

> I'll say I know more women who aren't "offended" by boob armor (or "hookerplate")...



Ethan, that's a hilarious term.  Yoink.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2007)

resistor said:
			
		

> Probably not a character I personally would play, but I've known some others' PCs that would have looked like that



That wasn't my point.

Do you feel that the above picture is exploitative? Would you be perfectly okay flipping through a D&D book and see someone like that? 

On the same lines of the above:

[sblock="Cut, so this is less spammy"]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 27, 2007)

> How about this fella?




More of a genre consideration. I could see playing him in a goth-y d20 Modern adventure, or maybe something World-of-Darkness-ish, or even a D&D campaign that embraced modern sensibilities, but the dude doesn't even have a sword! He dresses a bit like some of the club-goers I know, so it's hard to imagine some of those kids savin' villages and killin' dragons. 



> On the same lines of the above:




That guy's totally fine, very much in a fantasy genre.

I've got no problem with the Dragon cover, either, and am BAFFLED as to how that could be a problem for anyone playing a fantasy game. I understand, broadly speaking, why some people would have problems with vulnerable chainmail bikini girls. That dude? He's a god, he's got a sword, he's ready to kick some butt, go Dark Age Greece on  your arse.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> More of a genre consideration. I could see playing him in a goth-y d20 Modern adventure, or maybe something World-of-Darkness-ish, or even a D&D campaign that embraced modern sensibilities, but the dude doesn't even have a sword! He dresses a bit like some of the club-goers I know, so it's hard to imagine some of those kids savin' villages and killin' dragons.



Work with me here, KM. I grabbed the first "lithe skinny boy" I could find. I'm talking about the way the picture looks, makes you feel. I was asking if it _looked_ exploitative. Forget the outfit for a second.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 27, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Ethan, that's a hilarious term.  Yoink.



I believe Sundragon was the first to use the term "hookerplate." 



From my perspective, that term is far more insulting than the art it's supposed to ridicule. The implication that a woman that dresses in a sexual manner is a whore or a prostitute is both priggish and mysoginistic. 

Avalanche Press covers are overly cheesy and blatently childish, but that is NOT equal to actual promiscuity. All who declare that sexual=whore have a mindset that I would say is far worse than some publishing company's poor choice of juvenile artwork.

Paizo has done several covers with both subtle and overt sexual imagery (both cheesecake and beefcake), but at least to my eye, they have shown that it can be done in a tasteful and mature manner. The Dragon sun god cover has some sexual overtones, but by no means does it proscribe that he's a man-whore, that a guy that veiws it is gay, or that a woman that digs it is a slut... 

...those thoughts strike me as the work of a shame-ridden viewer.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 27, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Ah, there it is: Dragon #294.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That some male gamers can be offended by what is an excellent representation of a sun-god (who wouldn't have any concerns about the praticality of his dress) bespeaks volumes about their insecurities as opposed to the painting itself. That painting is not a sexualizing of anything more than it is a glorification of a dare a say it, a strikingly good, male physique. Yeah, he is a handsome man and I would love to have his build...there I said it. Only an insecure male cannot ackowledge masculine attractiveness.

Maybe the male ego is as weak as some say it is. I would like to think not, but hostile reactions to a painting such as this seems to validate this stereotype.

Much of greek art glorifies the masculine form. Michaelanglo's David is a great sculpture. A lot of males are afraid of admiring the male form because they think that if they do they must be homosexual. This of course is nothing more than a cultural hang-up that IMO it is a bad idea to pander to.

There is a wierd  American hypersensitivity to anything that can be, even incorrectly, seen as sexualizing when it fact nudity is a very natural thing. A nudist beach is ironically one of the least sexy places on earth IMO. I went to a clothing optional beach with a girlfriend and outside of a couple women who looked great, most would have looked far, far better with some clothing on.

The ancient Celts, in some cases fought nude covered only in some paint. Native Americans were often very lightly clothed in battle (depending on the tribe and the climate of course). 

As in many things, one's reaction regarding a piece of art often tells others more about the viewer than about the piece in question.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 27, 2007)

> Work with me here, KM. I grabbed the first "lithe skinny boy" I could find. I'm talking about the way the picture looks, makes you feel. I was asking if it looked exploitative. Forget the outfit for a second.




Exploitative? Not really. I mean, it looks like the kid is trying to show off his skin, but, again, it's nothing you don't see at the goth clubs on a Friday night. It's not like he's being forced to do something against his will -- presumably, he chose the mesh shirt, for instance. 

The Dragon Mag cover and the second picture you posted are even less so. The mag cover is just "ancient guy." The elf's nudity is really incidental.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> How about this fella?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Androgyny scares the hell out of many males of all cultures, it violates deeply held tribal taboos regarding gender identity.

I remember two guys I know who saw the movie Alexander and were freaked out by one character, one who was androgynous that Alexander had a fling with. The fact that the movie was bathed in bloodletting and conquest was fine but that androgynous guy...well that's just wrong.

Amazing how cultural values can be so screwed up that violent, imperialistic conquest won't make someone raise an eyebrow but someone who crosses gender lines a bit can make that same person's hair stand on end. Looking at this from the outside in, in the manner of an anthropologist, will allow one to see how odd these, unfortunately all too rarely questioned, value systems actually are.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 27, 2007)

I think that "hookerplate" has its place, however that place isn't in a quasi-medieval setting where folks where chain and plate regularly and such armor is completely impractical. Its silly, not because of some cheesecake factor, but because such armor, or lack thereof, would get you killed.

However in setting where heavy armor (or any real armor) would kill you because of the climate there is nothing inherently wrong with a female warrior wearing a chainmail bikini. Maybe she revels in her sexuality and martial power, maybe her culture sees nothing wrong with warriors of either gender wearing very skimpy battledress. Not every culture is as sexually repressed as America.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Aloïsius (Dec 27, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Not every culture is as sexually repressed as America.



But only a sexually repressed culture can device something like the hookerplate.   
In place where a heavy armor would kill you (eg tropical climate) people use with very little clothing anyway. However, as soon as the tech level is high enough, women would use some kind of bras, because sports or fight without them can be very uncomfortable.


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 27, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> However in setting where heavy armor (or any real armor) would kill you because of the climate there is nothing inherently wrong with a female warrior wearing a chainmail bikini. Maybe she revels in her sexuality and martial power, maybe her culture sees nothing wrong with warriors of either gender wearing very skimpy battledress. Not every culture is as sexually repressed as America.



A woman from a culture like that wouldn't wear a mail bikini.  She'd probably wear skimpy clothing made of something lighter, like cloth or leather.  And it wouldn't be a bikini, though it might have roughly similar coverage.

And Aloisius is completely correct in that only sexually-repressed cultures come up with crap like hookerplate and chain bikinis.  It's only when nudity is seen as dirty that people try to sneak little peeks of it into nonsensical contexts.






			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> How about this fella?



I'd hit it!

I'm in favor of fantasy cheesecake so long as it's not exclusively female and it doesn't crowd out the more sensible depictions of serious adventurers.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Ah, there it is: Dragon #294.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I definitively see your point pirate cat, but i still think boob armor should stay, as it is too iconic my humble opinion. although all good things in moderation right?

oodly enough i really like the image you posted. it just screams Greek god. If cheesecake and Greek art seem to have alot in common in my humble opinion. This image has a touch of satyr but i still think its very Greek and very epic. I don't see why people have a problem with it. lets hope they never go to rome... eek.

*edit* ok i see one problem. he has a dark 1 o'clock shadow but his hair is blond. oh no Greek gods dye their hair!


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I do.
> 
> In fact, I remember one specifically complaining about the races spread in the 3e PHB. That all the women are in bras, and yet all of the men (sans the half-orc) have their chests fully covered.




your right. the bras should go. theirs nothing wrong with a nude sketch or illustration. 



			
				RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> I believe Sundragon was the first to use the term "hookerplate."
> 
> 
> 
> ...




wow. I couldn't agree more.



			
				Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> That some male gamers can be offended by what is an excellent representation of a sun-god (who wouldn't have any concerns about the praticality of his dress) bespeaks volumes about their insecurities as opposed to the painting itself. That painting is not a sexualizing of anything more than it is a glorification of a dare a say it, a strikingly good, male physique. Yeah, he is a handsome man and I would love to have his build...there I said it. Only an insecure male cannot ackowledge masculine attractiveness.
> 
> Maybe the male ego is as weak as some say it is. I would like to think not, but hostile reactions to a painting such as this seems to validate this stereotype.
> 
> ...



wow two posts, one right after the other. I don't want to sound like a broken record.... But I agree fully with this post too.

you two put my words to shame and my heart on fire.


----------



## Hairfoot (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> i still think boob armor should stay, as it is too iconic my humble opinion.



Thrashing one's wife for disobedience was also iconic at one time, but sometimes one is admired for adopting new icons.

I know how hyperbolic that is, but I'm too lazy right now to think of a better comparison.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

you mean the 70s and 80s? and isn't that a fallacy what you just did right their?


*edit* never mind, sorry. you admitted to as much.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 27, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> And Aloisius is completely correct in that only sexually-repressed cultures come up with crap like hookerplate and chain bikinis.  It's only when nudity is seen as dirty that people try to sneak little peeks of it into nonsensical contexts.




I have to say I agree with you both. After considering it from that angle...I must say that you are probably correct.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

I realize that if i supported sexy armor but didn't support guys who were attractive to woman i would be a Hippocrate, so I DO support sexy girls AND guys. I don't see whats wrong with that. I just don't understand why sexy is villainized and but violence never is. does anyone ever say ... who too much blood? what about the people who don't like blood? 

Its pretty clear some of you guys run in different circles then I do, so i will concede that many women don't like sexy armor. Will any of you concede that their are a fairly substantial group of woman that do like this kind of armor? 

I tend to find girls who like this kind of stuff at anime conventions, larps and other crazy events. I also find that it tends to be the ones that can pull off boob armor themselves.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2007)

> Its pretty clear some of you guys run in different circles then I do, so i will concede that many women don't like sexy armor. Will any of you concede that their are a fairly substantial group of woman that do like this kind of armor?



Seeing as how there are no statistics as to how many prefer it versus not, I can only concede that both groups exist, not that their size is sufficiently large. 



> I tend to find girls who like this kind of stuff at anime conventions, larps and other crazy events. I also find that it tends to be the ones that can pull off boob armor themselves.



You know, maybe I'm just tired, but the inference there seems to be that since the people you know are those that Could pull off hookerplate, that the ones who don't care for it couldn't.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I realize that if i supported sexy armor but didn't support guys who were attractive to woman i would be a Hippocrate, so I DO support sexy girls AND guys. I don't see whats wrong with that. I just don't understand why sexy is villainized and but violence never is. does anyone ever say ... who too much blood? what about the people who don't like blood?
> 
> Its pretty clear some of you guys run in different circles then I do, so i will concede that many women don't like sexy armor. Will any of you concede that their are a fairly substantial group of woman that do like this kind of armor?
> 
> I tend to find girls who like this kind of stuff at anime conventions, larps and other crazy events. I also find that it tends to be the ones that can pull off boob armor themselves.




It's true that America LOVES its violence but is terrified by sex while paradoxically addiction to pornography seems to have hit epic levels. America is filled with closet pervs.

Americans are obsessed with sex but we hate ourselves for it because deep inside there is still a hellfire and brimstone preacher from 1645 in our collective subconscious telling us that sex is dirty, nasty, wrongbadfun...unless tied to marriage and childbirth.

I feel that boobarmor or hookerplate is a bit silly and that cultures who go about unarmored would still probably not feel the need to look all hot for battle. Not saying it isn't possible. I just feel that such concerns would be low on their priority list when facing down a rampaging clan of ogres. However, I can also see a woman warrior desiring to embrace her sexuality and wear something attractive (in the context of her culture) both in and out of battle if armor was not an issue.

The women I know who game could honestly care less about this topic because they know that this art is geared to teen boys and it sells books and understand that this isn't likely to change. Teen boys like hot women in little clothing....news flash.

Personally I think that if it is mysogynistic, then boobarmor should go. I have heard arguments as to why it is demeaning. However, I have seen reasonable argument to the contrary so I have to admit some ambivalance.

I do find it interesting that so many people who don't give a hoot about reality in their gaming and would allow for buster swords, wildly unweildy weapons, silly spikey armors and PCs who can fall 200 feet and still fight the dragon in front of them have a problem with the impracticality of boobarmor. Curious how the practicality of armor and reality in fantasy should become such a vital concern once women's breasts, thighs and stomachs are at issue.

As a note, as a young man I loved me some boobarmor clad babes in fantasy paintings....yum...yum. 



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Hairfoot (Dec 27, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> I do find it interesting that so many people who don't give a hoot about reality in their gaming and would allow for buster swords, wildly unweildy weapons, silly spikey armors and PCs who can fall 200 feet and still fight the dragon in front of them have a problem with the impracticality of boobarmor.



I have a problem with all of those things, all for the same reason.  For me, spiked chains and chainmail crop-tops are interchangeable as examples of the unverisimilitudinous* themes I abhor.



* I got a headache just typing it


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 27, 2007)

I would like more hot shemales/transvestites/ladyboys etc in my D&D/fantasy art.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 27, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> I have a problem with all of those things, all for the same reason.  For me, spiked chains and chainmail crop-tops are interchangeable as examples of the unverisimilitudinous* themes I abhor.
> 
> 
> 
> * I got a headache just typing it




AMEN brother!

Versimilitude MATTERS!



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 27, 2007)

So we have:

*Boobarmor*

*Hookerplate*

How about:

*Stripperarmor*


I like that one too. Honestly, some of the outfits worn by female warriors in the old Caldwell paintings from the 80s would rather well suit the young woman who would like to change careers from exotic dancer to adventurer while at the same time allowing her to continue the fashion conventions of her previous lifestyle.

And anyone who cannot allow for the humor inherent in these terms I direct you to your local drugstore where they sell a variety of lubricants that may help you remove the stick you have inserted in your arse.   



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 27, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> I would like more hot shemales/transvestites/ladyboys etc in my D&D/fantasy art.




LOL

I suppose there can be a rather specialized cadre of mages who work partial transformations on willing individuals. As it stands most transformative magic is too completely transformative to allow for anything of the old gender to remain.

There may be a 3rd party niche book coming out for that in 4e. Maybe Mongoose Publishing could have one of their freelancers write it up. God knows they wrote an entire book on every other variety of magic.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 27, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> some of the old Caldwell paintings from the 80s




Never dug his art – too many gems splattered over everything.

…And then there was that _Ravenloft_ module (_From the Shadows_?) cover he illustrated that went too far.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 27, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Never dug his art – too many gems splattered over everything.
> 
> …And then there was that _Ravenloft_ module (_From the Shadows_?) cover he illustrated that went too far.




Way too many gems splashed everywhere. 

Never saw that cover. Got a link?



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 27, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> I suppose there can be a rather specialized cadre of mages who work partial transformations on willing individuals.




Totally, but not needed, look at countries like Brazil and Thailand etc, where even without any form of surgery or hormone therapy, there are some very, let us say, uh, pretty and shapely girls who are not what they seem (entirely).

…Drow would make for great trannies.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 27, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Way too many gems splashed everywhere.
> 
> Never saw that cover.




I mean pretty much _all _ of his covers – just look at the amount of gems everybody has on their armour and what not (I'm serious).


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Dec 27, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> I mean pretty much _all _ of his covers – just look at the amount of gems everybody has on their armour and what not (I’m serious).




I agree.

Not only too many gems, but big, gaudy, glassy gems. No facets to any of them. They look like junk jewelry.

But enough about Clyde....I don't want to derail the thread entirely.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Werebat (Dec 27, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> To be fair, as good a movie as Finding Nemo is, the whole point of the movie is that the father is _too_ nurting, too timid and he spends the entire movie "de-mommifying" in order to be a better dad.




Yeah, I know -- but his character flaws as a father are very refreshing compared to the Hollywood standard of "wife-beating child molester", or even just "deadbeat deserter".




			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> I do not agree that these things "hurt" as a function of what they are, rather than as a reflection of how individual people see them because of ways they already are.




There are only so many ways anyone can take a portrayal of a father as deserter (Treasure Planet), violent ogre (pick a television drama), or dummy (Berenstein Bears).





			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> I am a dad, too, and I love my kids more than anything in the world.  But that doesn't mean I have to be less masculine in order be a good dad -- just smarter than I was when I was 25.




Feminine and masculine strengths are not a zero-sum game.  Being better at nurturing does not make a man less masculine, other than in the myth of those who believe so.





			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> In absolute seriousness, I am so sorry you had to go through such a thing.  But the idealized portrayal of things masculine and feminine didn't cause your situation -- it was a culture that vilifies and attempts to emasculate men that did that to you.




I agree with your final statement, but the portrayal fed the culture.  I think we can agree on that.




			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> It can't be used to justify their inclusion either.  Indivual artists will create the images they desire and the consuming public will determine what fits our wants, needs and dreams.  People like to complain about the images of men and women we see, but if you look closely, you see lots of different kinds of images, different stereotypes and archtypes.  Spend an evening watching network TV.  Forget the shows.  Watch the commercials.  You'll see how diverse our unrealities really are.




You're dead on about commercials, but what images of fatherhood do you typically see in commercials?  Dummies and dopes who are domestically incompetent at best.  This feeds the culture and keeps (for example) anti-male bias in the family courts strong (but not nearly so much as the financial incentives in place to keep the system the way it is).

[Edit -- something I learned from research as an indirect result of this discussion is that recently Australia changed its family law system in a major way to support a rebuttable presumption of joint physical placement in divorce/custody cases.  Now this is a rare bit of good news for fathers everywhere!  The entire nation of Australia joins 5 US states (hopefully all 50 before I die) in an enlightened view of fatherhood.  This isn't the end of the fight (family court lawyers, gender feminists, and related rodentia in Oz are already trying to overturn the new law), but it is an important step in the right direction!]

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Werebat (Dec 27, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Ask any mature and serious girl/woman her opinion on such fantasy cheese art.




I smell a tautology...

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Werebat (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> most geek girls I know are pretty easy going about this kind of thing. so I am pretty shocked that boob armor has such a negative standing. But so far its been mostly men (on this forum at least) that have taken a stand against it. are their any woman here that dislike like boob armor in rpg art. are thier any that do?




Most men learn (consciously or not) to say what they think women want them to say, particularly if doing so doesn't appear to inconvenience them in a concrete way.  I have no doubt that this fact has a significant impact on this and similar discussions.

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Barastrondo (Dec 27, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> From my perspective, that term is far more insulting than the art it's supposed to ridicule. The implication that a woman that dresses in a sexual manner is a whore or a prostitute is both priggish and mysoginistic.




Yet, again, context. "Hookerplate" (which I cannot take credit for) is something I hear women use. Again, note that I'm in a WoW guild, and in WoW a pair of armor pants that provides full protection on a male character becomes a metal bikini bottom and scanty legplates on a female. Same exact armor: only women receive an illogical cut. They don't call it "hookerplate" because they mean to imply that their characters are turning tricks in the dungeon: they call it that because it looks as though it was designed by people who think all women dress like hookers, regardless of the situation. Cries that these women are misogynistic and by default self-loathing don't seem accurate to me. If anything, I'd say their protests have a stronger refrain of "We are not sex objects just because we are female: why do you insist on dressing us as though the opposite were true?" 

Now, when armor that is theoretically meant to provide protection is designed to look like lingerie, you really can't say it's as simple as condemning people who dress "in a sexual manner." Compare the character who wears metal armor when, say, adventuring, and a low-cut, slit-up-the-side dress when at a social function. I can't think of _any_ of my female friends who would find such a character demeaning* — it's the implication that they should be wearing low-cut, slit-up-the-side _armor_ in a life-or-death situation because the default "cut" for a woman's clothing is based on lingerie that they find irritating. 

* Though some of their _characters_ might, as they are prone to roleplay a wide variety of personalities, from prudish to promiscuous. Funny, that.



			
				Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I tend to find girls who like this kind of stuff at anime conventions, larps and other crazy events.




Sure. But that's an entirely different context than working a day job, going to the grocery store for cat food, or pushing to advance the lines on a battlefield. I would expect the women you're talking about would dress differently for those occasions, and would tend to wear protective clothing over provocative clothing if they were doing something like welding, splitting wood or raiding a crackhouse. I'm just saying that if the art depicts people doing dangerous things, it's respectful to show them dressed accordingly. I don't know too many gamers who would kick open the doors of a temple of Kyuss with characters dressed like they were halfway through a striptease. 



> I also find that it tends to be the ones that can pull off boob armor themselves.




Just a note, but that looks uncomfortably like you're implying that women who don't care for Frederick's of Moria armor are jealous, and that's a short trip to "they're jealous, so their opinions don't matter as much."


----------



## SteveC (Dec 27, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Ask any mature and serious girl/woman her opinion on such fantasy cheese art.



Wow. Just wow. I don't think I've seen such a sweeping and insulting generalization on the boards in a long time.

For the record. The last time we had this discussion, I asked my girlfriend, who, I assure you, is both a mature and serious *woman *this question, showing her some pictures of "cheesecake" art from WotC products. She also showed the art to several of her friends, one of whom actually does graduate work in gender studies.

The result? Combining that with the "Confessions" book, I'm going to run a D&D game for four women who've never played it before. Don't paint women in such a general way: there are all kinds of them in this world.

--Steve


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Wow. Just wow. I don't think I've seen such a sweeping and insulting generalization on the boards in a long time.



You know, you're right: whether meant to support women or not, this implies that any women who like the art style aren't mature or serious, which clearly isn't the case. And I agreed with it when I saw it instead of recognizing the problem. Sorry about that.

Clearly, it's easy to get carried away with sweeping generalizations. Work to avoid them anyways.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 27, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I'm in favor of fantasy cheesecake so long as it's not exclusively female and it doesn't crowd out the more sensible depictions of serious adventurers.




I endorse this candidate for President of Sensible Art Direction. I welcome our iron-fisty overlord of reasonable indulgence. Huzzah!


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 27, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> Deekin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uhm, I have always interpreted that Illo as the moment a child's play-attack inadvertently trigger's Krusks' Berserk Frenzy...


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> You know, maybe I'm just tired, but the inference there seems to be that since the people you know are those that Could pull off hookerplate, that the ones who don't care for it couldn't.




not sure, I just know that people who are comfortable with sexy armor in art, are ones that are comfortable wearing it themselves.

I'm not saying that those uncomfortable wearing sexy armor dislike sexy armor in art, i'm just saying that if your willing to wear that type of armor yourself, at a convention or whatever, seeing it in art is not such a big deal. 

I'm also NOT saying that its only people who wear sexy armor that are the ones like seeing it in art.


----------



## Rel (Dec 27, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> not sure, I just know that people comfortable with sexy armor are ones that are comfortable wearing it themselves.




Don't let them get you down, Moon-Lancer.  I'd LARP with you and your friends anytime.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2007)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Totally, but not needed, look at countries like Brazil and Thailand etc, where even without any form of surgery or hormone therapy, there are some very, let us say, uh, pretty and shapely girls who are not what they seem (entirely).



I promise that there are men in America who, without needing surgery or therapy, can pull it off. 

I went to the cabaret show at a local gay club and I was stunned at the female-impersonators' skills at femaleness. Surgery doesn't get you _hips_ and soft thighs.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 27, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> I smell a tautology...
> 
> - Ron   ^*^




Is masculism just a form of anti-feminism low key sexism? Because you sounded rather bitter toward women.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2007)

One last chance to keep the thread on topic, gang. We seem to be sliding off.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Dec 27, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> Don't let them get you down, Moon-Lancer.  I'd LARP with you and your friends anytime.




sure, next time your in west la and its a week-end, drop me a line, or pm.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Dec 28, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> In all seriousness, why no artwork of nurturing males?  The burly half-orc barbarian coddling his precious infant son to his corded chest with huge, calloused, but lovingly gentle hands?  The enthusiastic gnome father instructing his sharp-minded daughter (his pride and joy) in the ways of illusion?  The kind elven father making funny faces at his tiny babe while he spoonfeeds her warmed berry mash?




[falls on the floor laughing]


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And I think the stereotypes/archetypes are particularly challenging to be rid of in D&D, where the myths and tales the game is based on so often have a deeply entrenched male-centric (if not downright mysogynistic) angle. I mean, Save The Princess is a cliche, but it automatically assumes princesses can't save themselves.




Why is it that when a young man goes out with mystical aid and wins the hand of a princess (Sleeping Beauty) it's a sign of the Evils of Patriarchy, but when a young woman goes out with mystical aid and wins the hand of a prince (Cinderella), it's... ALSO a sign of the Evils of Patriarchy?

Mythology and especially folk tales contain female protagonists as often as male. If you're boiling it down to "misogynistic Greeks and gynophobic medieval codices," you're already ruling out a large portion of the available myths and stories. Cuchullainn, the big Irish epic hero, learned all his moves from a female blademaster. Morgan the Fey oumagicked and outsmarted Arthur at pretty much every turn. And so on. Yes, all of these characters existed within sexist conceptions of the world, but their male counterparts were stuck with societal expectations we'd consider just as ridiculous. 

D&D "medieval fantasy" isn't about historical accuracy, you're correct there. But it's not necessarily about mindlessly recycling outdated themes and tale-types, either. A lot of D&D "types" are really just modern-world "types" repurposed. The frail wizard is the stereotypical bookworm from high school, with a healthy dose of revenge. Obviously the women of D&D can't be "realistic" medieval women warriors, because by and large those didn't exist. So instead they seem to be sort of "modern woman" in chainmail: trying to balance sex appeal with practicality. 

Thus, the 4e women sneak a plunging neckline or a bare midriff into their plate mail at times. It may not be completely practical, but neither are the oh-so-phallic spikes sprouting out of their male peers' armor, and they see no reason why they should pay what could literally be a king's ransom, tens of thousands of gold pieces, to have magical armor specially crafted for them only to have it make them look like undergrown boys with overlong hair.

Basically, even if one accepts your argument that chainmail bikinis are wrong for the reasons you cite, it can be argued that the art style in 4e isn't just a compromise between chainmail bikinis and historic armor, but rather something more positive. And I think my interpretation is in line with the way not only a bunch of the WOTC people see it, but also the way a lot of female gamers see it: being a little sexy doesn't make you a pinup.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 28, 2007)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Why is it that when a young man goes out with mystical aid and wins the hand of a princess (Sleeping Beauty) it's a sign of the Evils of Patriarchy, but when a young woman goes out with mystical aid and wins the hand of a prince (Cinderella), it's... ALSO a sign of the Evils of Patriarchy?



Winning implies she did something to get it. To use your example, Cinderella didn't _do_ anything but look pretty. 

Let's review the story. Cinderella is told by her step-mother "Work hard and you can go to the ball"; she works hard and doesn't get to go. (Work is hard ladies, you get nothing in return). She gets a makeover (because expensive clothes and pricey shoes are so important to landing a man, ladies). She goes to the ball, the Prince saw her, but she ran due to curfew (be coy, ladies). The prince didn't catch her. But he went around with her glass slipper, trying on all the fair maidens until he found her (sit back and let the man do all the work to get you) and then she was happily married (Look pretty and be coy and you'll get what you want). 

Meanwhile, we also see the "Evil step mother and sisters" to drive home that women are really just backstabbing, cruel harpies.


----------



## Horacio (Dec 28, 2007)

I preferred to believe that Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella were only tales for children and not tools for gender opression...

What will be next, explaining how Little Red Hood story is a warning about pervert child molesters ?


Horacio, who will hesitate about telling old faery tales to his daughter anymore...


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 28, 2007)

Horacio said:
			
		

> I preferred to believe that Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella were only tales for children and not tools for gender opression...



They're both.  Where do people get their ideas about gender roles?  How do cultural ideas and values transmit themselves from one generation to the next?  The stories we tell our children are a major part of it.




> Horacio, who will hesitate about telling old faery tales to his daughter anymore...



It's rarely a bad idea to think about what messages one might be giving one's children, even unintentionally.  Especially unintentionally.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 28, 2007)

Horacio said:
			
		

> I preferred to believe that Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella were only tales for children and not tools for gender opression...



The point of children's stories is to teach lessons to children. Those lessons are often about how to live in our world, or what to expect.

After all, that's where "The moral of the story" comes from - fables and tales with messages.



> What will be next, explaining how Little Red Hood story is a warning about pervert child molesters ?



Close.

Aside from the obvious "Don't talk to strangers", Little Red Riding Hood has multiple interpretations, from Natural Cycles like the Sun and the Moon to Sexual Awakening.


----------



## Aloïsius (Dec 28, 2007)

Horacio said:
			
		

> What will be next, explaining how Little Red Hood story is a warning about pervert child molesters ?



It is. And not a subtle one, at that. Of course, the modern versions of Little Red Hood are less explicit. But remember the conclusion of the original fable (by Charles Perrault, where Little Red Hood is eaten by the wolf) : 
"Children,
Especially attractive, well bred young ladies,
Should never talk to strangers,
For if they should do so, they may well provide dinner for a wolf.
I say wolf, but there are various kinds of wolves.
There are also those who are charming,
Quiet, polite, unassuming, complacent, and sweet,
Who pursue young women at home and in the streets.
And unfortunately, it is these gentle wolves
Who are the most dangerous ones of all."
And I remember another version explaining that the more dangerous wolves are those walking on two legs..


And then, there is the D&D 4e version of Little Red Hood, where Little Red Hood is a young tiefling warlock that blast the werewolf with a fell ray, before asking her buddy cleric of Asmodeus to raise her grand-ma from the dead, so that she can have her personal zombie too.


----------



## Horacio (Dec 28, 2007)

With my Little Red Hood I was trying to be rhetoric, the answer was in the question 



			
				Gloombunny said:
			
		

> It's rarely a bad idea to think about what messages one might be giving one's children, even unintentionally. Especially unintentionally.




I understand that fairy tales are like fables, they have a lesson. Sometimes that lesson is outdated, as most of tales are centuries old. But the tales itself deserved to be told.

Not telling Cinderella or Sleepy Beauty tales to children because their lessons are not the kind of lessons we want for XXIth century children can be good from a politically correct point of view, but they will be losing a lot from a cultural background point of view.

I don't know what's the right way, but personally I prefer telling classic fairy tales to my daughter than telling her Sponge Bob politically correct silly tales. 

YMMV, of course



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> And then, there is the D&D 4e version of Little Red Hood, where Little Red Hood is a young tiefling warlock that blast the werewolf with a fell ray, before asking her buddy cleric of Asmodeus to raise her grand-ma from the dead, so that she can have her personal zombie too.




ROFLOL!

Oh merde! My coffee has been spilled over my screen thanks to you!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 28, 2007)

> I don't know what's the right way, but personally I prefer telling classic fairy tales to my daughter than telling her Sponge Bob politically correct silly tales.




Note that SpongeBob isn't necessarily a whole lot "better."  You've got, what, one or two female characters in all of Bikini Bottom? One is an alien squirrel who rarely appears and when she does her "tough girl" nature is exaggerated? One is a whiney teenage shark who needs dates to the prom and talks about boys all the time? 

It's just an awareness, really, of where a lot of our culture is coming from. Throughout history, many of our stories have been told about women putting them in a different kind of archetype than men, and those archetypes are so long-lasting that they're practically ubiquitous. In a game like D&D, which is based on evocative old legends and stories and archetypes, this is particularly relevant. The game in general has progressed by leaps and bounds to embrace new female archetypes equal to those of men, but the art overall has more moments of cheesecake girls than of cheesecake guys (though I still say Buckles McGee is the most cheesecake of all the pictures in the PHB3e). If that's all they see, there is a significant set of women who will laugh at the absurdity of it, and maybe not be so into playing the game, so to consciously move away from that is a laudable goal for the game.

However, people are very right when they say this is a fantasy game and cheesecake is a fantasy and there's a lot of people totally okay with it, who don't see it as necessarily absurd so much as just part of a style and look. 

And that, combined with mostly male artists and the strong archetype-based nature of the game, is going to lead to some pictures that are going to cause those chuckles. The game at least has moved on to "less of them, and some of them featuring men, too." I don't think 4e is going to be any different, really, but the art direction presented in R&C shows an emphasis on practicality and cohesiveness that was missing from a significant number of the 3e Core's art, so I think they're STILL moving in a direction of "Less chainmail bikini, less Buckles McGee, more plate armor, more dwarf women" for the new edition. That said, I still think the Succubus is going to be ridiculously sexualized, but the succubus is based on the archetype of the "controlling, evil woman who manipulates you with beauty and leaves you weak and drained because of it." I would expect the Nymph to be so, too, because the nymph is based on the archetype of "highly desirable untouched virgin wilderness and girls."

I'm sure there will be some women and men who huff at the very archaic notion of these feminine icons. I'm sure there will be some women and men (maybe a majority) who don't bat an eye over it. That doesn't mean that the huffers are hyper-PC misogynist police who see offense in a little innocent cheesecake, and that doesn't mean that those who don't have a problem are anti-feminist patriarchal chauvinists. It just means that people have different levels of tolerance for what we all basically perceive is a bad thing (treating women purely like sex objects). None of us, I think, want to treat our women like the ancient Greeks or medieval Europeans did, and we all want to use their cool stories to influence the games we play. Where we move the cultural goalposts on this is going to be largely a subjective issue, and the reasons for where we have our goalposts are much, much broader than a discussion on D&D art can really tackle. CM, as pointed out, would be the better place for the tale, but even there you're not likely to get any farther than "people have different opinions that are all strongly held." No one interpretation is universally the right one.


----------



## Aloïsius (Dec 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That said, I still think the Succubus is going to be ridiculously sexualized,



If it's not, then it's not a Succubus. A non-sexualised succubus is an abberation.


----------



## Kaffis (Dec 28, 2007)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> I do find it interesting that so many people who don't give a hoot about reality in their gaming and would allow for buster swords, wildly unweildy weapons, silly spikey armors and PCs who can fall 200 feet and still fight the dragon in front of them have a problem with the impracticality of boobarmor. Curious how the practicality of armor and reality in fantasy should become such a vital concern once women's breasts, thighs and stomachs are at issue.




The motivation for my vital concern when womens' breasts, thighs, and stomachs are at issue is the preservation of those lovely bits of skin! Protect those beautiful bodies! But then, what good is protecting them if I don't get to see a bit of that skin every now and then?



			
				Roboninja said:
			
		

> D&D "medieval fantasy" isn't about historical accuracy, you're correct there. But it's not necessarily about mindlessly recycling outdated themes and tale-types, either. A lot of D&D "types" are really just modern-world "types" repurposed. The frail wizard is the stereotypical bookworm from high school, with a healthy dose of revenge. Obviously the women of D&D can't be "realistic" medieval women warriors, because by and large those didn't exist. So instead they seem to be sort of "modern woman" in chainmail: trying to balance sex appeal with practicality.
> 
> Thus, the 4e women sneak a plunging neckline or a bare midriff into their plate mail at times. It may not be completely practical, but neither are the oh-so-phallic spikes sprouting out of their male peers' armor, and they see no reason why they should pay what could literally be a king's ransom, tens of thousands of gold pieces, to have magical armor specially crafted for them only to have it make them look like undergrown boys with overlong hair.




This is really insightful and has really struck a chord with me. I think I'm in concurrence with you in embracing the 4e aesthetic of saying "Let's all have our subtle nods to sex appeal without completely throwing practicality to the wind." I think the art in R&C has done a good job of balancing good coverage and practical material choices with a few strategically placed gaps to make the image appealing and easy on the eyes. And I don't mind, and would even encourage, the application of that standard to both genders.

I do also like that the evolution of D&D art has realized that we need not limit the coverage of the chainmail bikinis to approximately six square inches to be sexy and attractive. Hell, we've even realized that some alternative builds can be appealing, see the excellent dwarves. And that's a good thing, in my eyes.

So bring on the well-armored ladies! And the men! But don't be shy if this guy over here couldn't find vambraces, and must show off his well-muscled arms, or if this woman over here exposes a midriff when she crouches -- both are welcome, and excellent levels of concession to sex appeal without turning the game into Loincloths and Lingerie...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 28, 2007)

> If it's not, then it's not a Succubus. A non-sexualised succubus is an abberation.




Well, yeah, that's kind of my point. Succubi were inventions of gynophobic medieval (and earlier) religious folks who firmly believed that Eve's temptation in the Garden Of Eden was because women have inherently weaker wills then men and that it was a man's duty to resist a woman's temptation (and a woman's duty to not be tempting). It became a part of the game because the game harkens back to the myths of the olden days -- myths firmly founded on views about women that we no longer hold, in general, as a society, here in much of the westernized world. Sexuality is a part of that. It can't be ignored without destroying the archetype.

Which is an example of the reason why a game like D&D will ALWAYS have a measure of semi-sexually-explicit/semi-chauvanistic artwork in it. The archetype isn't limited to the succubus and the nymph, they're just the baldest examples. The female wizard, the princess that needs saving, the Cinderellas and the Red Riding Hoods and the Alices in Wonderland inherited that as a historical reality, and since we've inherited those tales and archetypes (and use them in our games), we've got 'em, too. 

Which is, I guess, my long-winded way of saying the PC Police are pretty rediculous if they're looking to banish objectified/patricized art from D&D entirely. It ignores what D&D is and the history that it draws from. Much more rational and workable is the opinion of Doombunny and those like her who say to embrace that old timey stuff, but embrace the new stuff, too, and the new stuff can definately be more "positive." And, heck, you could even plumb some of the more positive role models of history, religion, and myth. Joan d'Arc leaps to my mind first, and even Cleopatra (despite her hyper-sexualized portrayal as the exotic seducer, she WAS a potent and effective ruler) ranks up there. Exploring other cultures gets you more. The disadvantage is that many of these are very much stereotyped women's roles, but it's a game about archetypes, so I think working with that will get you more than working against it, like being the strong, violent, raging barbarian will get you more than trying to be some sort of educated "noble savage," or even a simple member of a hunter-gatherer people with stone age technology.

The "empowered woman" is pretty fresh for us as a culture, indeed, pretty fresh for a lot of humanity, so it has less archetypal weight, but the stories we create with these games are modern ones, using the past without being a slave to it, which gives us the opportunity to create new archetypes, work with recent cultural developments, and broaden the scope of what is possible in our shared mythos.


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 28, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> It's rarely a bad idea to think about what messages one might be giving one's children, even unintentionally.  Especially unintentionally.




I spend a lot of time thinking about the messages in the stories and artwork I expose my children to. Some of the books I thought were great when I was a teenager, I would never encourage my children to read. I wouldn't stop them, or actively discourage them, but I wouldn't encourage them.

My seven year old twins (a boy and a girl) are just starting to play SWSE (with me as GM). I have to say that I'm really glad that the Star Wars minis have plenty of sanely dressed female characters. I will start them on D&D when the new edition comes out.

My objection isn't to sexy art in D&D (and I think the 4e artwork does a pretty job at balancing different styles). I just think that boob armor and chainmail bikinis look stupid and impractical. There is a difference between going into battle wearing light or no armor, and wearing heavy armor with some of the vital bits exposed.

Witches, sorcerers and other non-armored characters can dress as sexily as they want when adventuring. Characters relying on armor, should have reliable armor.

I also would welcome more artwork depicting social situations and other scenes where armor isn't necessary. IMO, _this_ is the venue for sexy artwork (for both genders).

I also dislike spiky armor. The best and most realistic example I've seen of it (in textual format) is in an Eberron novel, where the warforged villain with armor spikes gets stuck to the wooden floor, and the hero keeps smashing him down until his spikes are so deep in the wood that he can't get out.


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 28, 2007)

Horacio said:
			
		

> Not telling Cinderella or Sleepy Beauty tales to children because their lessons are not the kind of lessons we want for XXIth century children can be good from a politically correct point of view, but they will be losing a lot from a cultural background point of view.
> 
> I don't know what's the right way, but personally I prefer telling classic fairy tales to my daughter than telling her Sponge Bob politically correct silly tales.




When my children were younger, I also read them fairy tales. (They're more fond of Harry Potter, et al. now). I usually followed it up with something along the lines of, _when this story was first told, people thought women had to wait around for a prince to save them. We know better now._

I would never deprive my children of folk/fairy tales. They are important to understanding our own culture. I would, however, shy away from modern stories that expressed the same ideas of gender and sexuality.

As a teacher (Middle School Latin, History, Mythology), I believe that when dealing with children, context is everything.


----------



## Werebat (Dec 28, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Is masculism just a form of anti-feminism low key sexism? Because you sounded rather bitter toward women.




Ah, the "bitterboy" card.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion.  However, I would encourage you to read what Judge Judith Shiendlin says about the topic of joint custody and the mistreatment of fathers in our family courts (try finding a transcript of her interview on Larry King Live).  It's pretty much the same as I've been saying, and you'll look pretty silly trying to play the "bitterboy" card on her.    

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Werebat (Dec 28, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> One last chance to keep the thread on topic, gang. We seem to be sliding off.




Well, seeing as how the many injustices facing the American father in our "family" court system are hardly on-topic, I shall (like the Ghost of Christmas Present) consent to hide them under my robe.

But still they exist.   :\ 

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Rechan (Dec 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, yeah, that's kind of my point. Succubi were inventions of gynophobic medieval (and earlier) religious folks who firmly believed that Eve's temptation in the Garden Of Eden was because women have inherently weaker wills then men and that it was a man's duty to resist a woman's temptation (and a woman's duty to not be tempting). It became a part of the game because the game harkens back to the myths of the olden days -- myths firmly founded on views about women that we no longer hold, in general, as a society, here in much of the westernized world. Sexuality is a part of that. It can't be ignored without destroying the archetype.



Well, the Succubus has many origins.

For instance, the first Succubi is supposed to be Lilith, Adam's first wife before Eve (Hebrew legend). The Succubus was an explanation for Nocturnal Emissions. And the stealing of that semen was then transferred to Incubi, who would impregnate women who had no husbands.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 28, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> And then, there is the D&D 4e version of Little Red Hood, where Little Red Hood is a young tiefling warlock that blast the werewolf with a fell ray.



I see that "Tiefling Warlock" = Aku.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 28, 2007)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> As a teacher (Middle School Latin, History, Mythology), I believe that when dealing with children, context is everything.



Totally off topic, but... Latin, in MIDDLE SCHOOL?

The mind, it boggles.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 28, 2007)

Hmmm.  Everyone seems to have dreadlocks in Points-of-Light-land, don't they?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 28, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  Everyone seems to have dreadlocks in Points-of-Light-land, don't they?




Hair conditioning products are not at the top of the priorities list in a POL setting.


----------



## Werebat (Dec 28, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Totally off topic, but... Latin, in MIDDLE SCHOOL?
> 
> The mind, it boggles.




As a teacher of ESL, I can say that the research indicates that middle school is just a wee bit LATE to be learning a new language.  Better than high school though.

   - Ron   ^*^


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 28, 2007)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> When my children were younger, I also read them fairy tales. (They're more fond of Harry Potter, et al. now). I usually followed it up with something along the lines of, _when this story was first told, people thought women had to wait around for a prince to save them. We know better now._




Interestingly modern tellings of the story often empower the women more. My little daughters love the 'Barbie Rapunzel' video, and as per many of those animated Barbie videos the heroine is the active, plucky heroine of the story. In this version of Rapunzel there is one dream of putting hair down and letting the prince climb up, but the majority of the story is basically about the girl winning the prince, rather than vice versa.

Similarly most of the recent disney cartoons that have a female lead have a basically strong character, while most of them that have a male lead are a doofus (Aladdin anyone?).

Cheers


----------



## Rechan (Dec 28, 2007)

Werebat said:
			
		

> As a teacher of ESL, I can say that the research indicates that middle school is just a wee bit LATE to be learning a new language.  Better than high school though.
> 
> - Ron   ^*^



Yes, but I don't think Latin qualifies as a new language the same way ESL or Spanish or whatever does. It's not like people are going around _speaking and writing_ it; it's purely an academic thing.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 29, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Hair conditioning products are not at the top of the priorities list in a POL setting.




Apparently not!


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Dec 29, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Well, the Succubus has many origins.
> 
> For instance, the first Succubi is supposed to be Lilith, Adam's first wife before Eve (Hebrew legend). The Succubus was an explanation for Nocturnal Emissions. And the stealing of that semen was then transferred to Incubi, who would impregnate women who had no husbands.




Also from a simply physical/mental slant, many people believe the mannerisms of the succubi/incubus arrised thanks to "sleep paralysis". 

Where you are consciouss but your body is still asleep so you can't move, there is a feeling of a weight on your chest (the succubi/incubus sitting on you), and since you are still slightly unconsciouss you can see figments of your imagination slip into your ordinary vision (seeing what you think is the succubi/incubus, this also people believe began the belief in shadow-people).

As for the original subject, from what I have seen so far, I am pleasantly surprised, they seem to be making more realistic-female characters. Now yes, most if not all of them are attractive, but that is to be expected. So far the clothing has been fairly good. The only one I didn't really like was the human-wizard.


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 30, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Yes, but I don't think Latin qualifies as a new language the same way ESL or Spanish or whatever does. It's not like people are going around _speaking and writing_ it; it's purely an academic thing.




No, but they do go around _reading_ and _writing_ it. Lots of middle schools teach Latin. My youngest students right now are 5th graders. Studies show that students who study Latin in school do better on the verbal section of standardized tests. 50% of all English words derive from Latin, but closer to 95% of all words on standardized tests.

In many schools parents demand to have Latin available to their children.

I have to say that I am amazed at how well some of my 5th graders do in Latin. I have taught 5th grade through the college level. Some of these kids learn faster than my college students.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 30, 2007)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> In many schools parents demand to have Latin available to their children.



Wow. 

I could see if they were being taught Spanish early on, but just wow. 

Then again, I just took my GRE and the stuff like analogies kicked my arse, so some latin familiarity would've been good.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 30, 2007)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> No, but they do go around _reading_ and _writing_ it. Lots of middle schools teach Latin. My youngest students right now are 5th graders. Studies show that students who study Latin in school do better on the verbal section of standardized tests. 50% of all English words derive from Latin, but closer to 95% of all words on standardized tests.
> 
> In many schools parents demand to have Latin available to their children.
> 
> I have to say that I am amazed at how well some of my 5th graders do in Latin. I have taught 5th grade through the college level. Some of these kids learn faster than my college students.




Odd. Almost _no_ schools in the Bible Belt (Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas) teach Latin, outside of private (and rather costly) institutions. You'd think that teaching archaic (though important) languages would be in high demand there, of all places.


----------



## Orius (Dec 30, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That said, I still think the Succubus is going to be ridiculously sexualized, but the succubus is based on the archetype of the "controlling, evil woman who manipulates you with beauty and leaves you weak and drained because of it."




The succubus better damn well be hot, since the concept has always been sexual:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> In Western medieval legend, a succubus  is a demon who takes the form of a beautiful woman to seduce men (especially monks) in dreams to have sexual intercourse. They draw energy from the men to sustain themselves, often until the point of exhaustion or death of the victim. From mythology and fantasy, Lilith and the Lilin (Jewish) and Lilitu (Sumerian) are, in redactive Christian fables (folktales not part of official Christian theology), considered succubi.




Likely succubi were in origin a medieval explaination for wet dreams or something.

In any case, the game mechanics for succubi have always stayed pretty close to the source material (eg, energy drain sex).


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Odd. Almost _no_ schools in the Bible Belt (Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas) teach Latin, outside of private (and rather costly) institutions. You'd think that teaching archaic (though important) languages would be in high demand there, of all places.




You forget one very important details...

The majority of the bible belt is PROTESTANT.

And Latin was the common tongue of the CATHOLIC church.

They wouldn't use a 'papist' tongue, except for humanist, old world conservatives...


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Odd. Almost _no_ schools in the Bible Belt (Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas) teach Latin, outside of private (and rather costly) institutions. You'd think that teaching archaic (though important) languages would be in high demand there, of all places.




I realize that it is probably a small percentage, but a quick check of the American Classical League Website showed 80 active chapters in Texas, most of which appeared (from the names) to be public high schools and middle schools. Only three in Nebraska however. I live in Tucson, so there could be something to the catholic vs. protestant post above.

The school I teach at is a public charter school, with an extremely secular nature.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Dec 31, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> You forget one very important details...
> 
> The majority of the bible belt is PROTESTANT.
> And Latin was the common tongue of the CATHOLIC church.
> They wouldn't use a 'papist' tongue, except for humanist, old world conservatives...




I'm a Catholic myself, but I still have to say that this is a ridiculous, nonsense strawman.  There isn't a Protestant in the WORLD who would actually oppose the teaching of Latin and describe it as a "papist" tongue.  Get real.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 31, 2007)

And that qualifies as both a religious tangent, followed by rudeness that could have easily been avoided while still disagreeing. The klunking noise you hear is this thread being pushed over the line.  

Happy New Klunk, everybody!


----------

