# Sexism and presumed sexism in RPGs



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 14, 2012)

Copied to split the topic, as this seems to be something that needs to be discussed in a hopefully civilized manner. 

Lwaxy


----------



## edemaitre (Jun 14, 2012)

*Women and role-playing*

I agree that there are some cultural factors and styles that may affect the participation of female role-players. However, it's best to approach promoting your game to individual women and groups.

Is there a lot of locker-room, sexist humor? Some of the women I've gamed with were thick-skinned, others less so. Does your wife prefer more narrative-style storytelling to hack-and-slash combat or statistically maximized resource management? Again, I've know both men and women who preferred one over the other.

_Blue Rose, Mouse Guard_, and various games based on FATE or _Cortex_ focus on building relationships and character development. Some of these systems are also less crunchy and thus more accessible to casual (vs. hardcore or competitive) gamers.

With any individual, Game Master, or group of gamers, it's best to find what rules set, subgenre, and style of play is most appealing. It's also a good idea to be patient -- a game in the style of _Dresden Files_ or _Game of Thrones_ usually won't capture the feeling or player interest in just one session.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 14, 2012)

Don't use insulting art.  A female fighter wearing a chainmail bikini is a no-go; it's obvious that what she is wearing is designed for attracting men, not for actually fighting.  It depicts her as an ornamental object with no power who is good for nothing but looking pretty.  

I'm not quite sure how to convey exactly how frustrating, insulting and rage-inducing it is to be told these things without a single word being spoken:

1.  As a female, you are powerless - you are good for nothing and can not actually fight even if you are supposed to be a fighter.  You can only stand there and look pretty in fake sexy armor while the real people get real stuff accomplished.

2.  You exist to be judged on your appearance and exploited for it.  Comments will always be made on what you look like and how big your bazongas are, not on anything you actually do or say.  Only what you wear is important.

3.  You are not a real person and can not just be treated like a person.  You will be treated and judged solely on the basis of your sex.  You have absolutely no chance of being seen or treated like a normal, ordinary human being.  

Seriously, that is the message that is being sent with every depiction of a female fantasy character who is being shown as passive and powerless - eg, wearing fake armor that might as well be silk stockings and a bra for all it covers.  Just don't do it, please.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Jun 14, 2012)

I have noticed that female players vary like male players. Most like being skillful and kick ass. Most females really hate system that forces them to play "females roles" and get sub-par stats because of that. Male players tend to have more female characters in those systems than femele ones, if allowed. 

You really can't make game for gender. Maybe to some culturally brainwashed little girls and boys but that really goes before people start playing rpg:s. 

Curiously I've noticed that many females including me kinda like named magic items. Some unique name for sword/armor etc and some little quality more than +1 to back it up is something really cool. Appearance of gear is secondary to that. IME females and males pay about same amount of interst for character looks, some are all over such little details, and some coudn't care less, as long as stats are ok.  Apperance likers are ones more likely to hide helmet/shouders in World of Warcraft MMO even if they otherwise wear things that look crappy just for stats.

There are about same amount of femele min-maxers than males. 

Most female players have one female friend that also plays. And they almost always pair up as type A and type B personalities. B is the one that just doesn't learn the rules and relies on other people what to roll. A-types are there to play rpg, B-types often socially hang and often get datinig someone in the group. I say often, since IME it has been pretty damn common. 

Avoid any "special rules" for girls. They exist to screw us up. No only-for females rules, unless you wish to make rules about pregnacy and childbirth, which might come up. In last game I played that caused so many stupid arguments I wish there had been rules. 
And with that never ever force that on character. It's annoying and should happen anyhow on personal (not-adventure) time.

If you can't be mature about such things avoid such rules altogether. 

I recently got into this new group that uses highly vulgar language and tells nasty in-game jokes. I am fine but I wouldn't ask my sister to play with these guys. 

Best kinda roleplay system for femeles is guite gender-neutral one. Sure it can have sexy things, I meant in way system doesn't differiate sexes a lot, but allows players to do that if they want to. 

Also system should support more combat focused game and more story-focused game equally White Wolf games did that quite well, even if rules kinda, um, failed sometimes.

Don't assume that all female gamers come from same mold. 

Also make the universe you write have some interesting qualities. Basic D&D universes are kinda boring. We have seen those. If you want to attact new gamers in any system use some old that works and add some new to get people interested. 

Also, we want "awesome powers". Most femeles dislike realistic historical simulations. There are those out there too, but they often have picked different hobby than rpg:s. Fsntasy is supposed to be, like, fantastic. All females I play with give you roll-eyes if its called "dungeons & dragons" and doesn't have real dungeons and no dragons. Femeles tend to draw deep conclusions about impressions. 

And we don't play games like Blue Rose. First of all its too uh... not really avarage female idea of cool/romantic. Plus the world was lame. Girls who are into relationship/romance fantasies do that with books/movies/famious unreachable people. White Wolf game worked because it was game about violence/politic/relationships of supernatural horrors. Who looked hot or at least bad-ass. But were not weak or vunerable. Or petite and virginal. You were crusider fighting for your purity if you were that, within system that was thinly veiled laws of the jungle.  And those games had lot of example character types ripped from movies/literature and they had inspirational guide for books/movies at end of each book. And it world similar to this one. 

Roleplaying is however quite quiet where I live, no more new players, and if, they are rare and often related to oldie rpg-players as their kids who maybe recruit some friends or just play with pap and hide the shame.

I think we need new coming of rpg:s if we want more of anything to like our games. But there is so much compettion for our time now and roleplaying games take lot of time.


----------



## Yora (Jun 14, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Don't use insulting art.  A female fighter wearing a chainmail bikini is a no-go; it's obvious that what she is wearing is designed for attracting men, not for actually fighting.  It depicts her as an ornamental object with no power who is good for nothing but looking pretty.



It's an insult to men as well.

"You don't want think about reality. Here, be distracted by boobs!"

But otherwise, I havn't seen art that 1930s-awful as TanithT described anywhere. I can't remember any princesses that have to be rescued in either 3rd or 4th edition of D&D as well.


I am with Morrus here, that the rules really are not important at all. I've actually run games for two almost exclusively female groups with one or to male players dropping by on occasion, and both time we were playing D&D 3rd Ed.
It's all about the campaign and the adventures that makes the difference.


----------



## Yora (Jun 14, 2012)

Like these?

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






























[/sblock]
Most of these are over 10 years old and they are from WotC, who really isn't the company I'd look for to find examples of well balanced characterizations.

Where is all that sexist art in RPGs?


----------



## Electric Wizard (Jun 14, 2012)

Most women I know are more amused than offended by how cheesy old-school fantasy art depicts women. That being said, I don't see a lot of that stuff in RPG art these days. I think there are lots of women who want to identify with sexy characters, as long as the characters also capable of holding their own and kicking ass/ruling the castle/researching magic. Almost all art for recent RPG's portrays this pretty well. You almost have to go back to the 80's to find many women portrayed according to negative stereotypes.

A few years ago I DM'd a group with two women. One played a Chaotic Evil tiefling cleric with 20 charisma who usurped the party leader position. The other played a soft-spoken eladrin wizard/aristocrat whose boyfriend played her bodyguard. Two very different people with very different characters, but the rules supported both, and they excelled at their roles.

The campaign worked while it lasted because we toned down the macho talk and dirty jokes. It was different than our typical "guys' night in" games, but we all had a great time. The campaign ended mostly because the tiefling cleric decided that the best way to settle a dispute with a corrupt landowner was to loot and burn down his house in broad daylight. 

So I guess I'm casting another vote for "It's up to the group." I think as long as men are welcoming and respectful of social boundaries, women shouldn't have problems.


----------



## Daeja (Jun 14, 2012)

My 2 cents are that I don't mind the existing art - I can suspend my disbelief re: the utility of chainmail bikinis if that's the style of armour in a given RPG. And I prefer it if the art suggests my character is hot .

I think the biggest barrier for me getting started was access to a group.  Until I got involved with my husband, I didn't have any friends who played (that I know about... maybe some people were getting together to play and not mentioning it....). I think that if I'd known others and probably at a certain age, specifically other girls who were playing, I would have gotten involved sooner.


----------



## Janx (Jun 14, 2012)

Yora said:


> Where is all that sexist art in RPGs?





Not only that, to play the "OMG, these games have art that is degrading to women!" card is to disregard all the blatant "women are sex objects" crap that bombards women now in TV and magazines.

the RPG industry has taken a lot of steps to improve their depiction of women, whereas the majority of mass media has done little.

To take offense at RPGs in general on this issue is disingenous and disrespectful of the real effort and progress the industry has made in the advancement of women compared to most of mass media.

While RPGs should continue to work to improve their depiction of women, there are more worthy battlegrounds to fight that cause on in society.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 14, 2012)

Yora said:


> Where is all that sexist art in RPGs?




Google "Avalanche Press d20" and do an image search and you'll find some. Sometimes I had to wonder if they were selling fantasy supplements for d20 games or stroke mags.

There's a lot of sexist art out there and a lot of blogs that will delve into the issue. There's also a lot of good sexy art out there that will be branded as sex*ist* by someone with an axe to grind.

Personally, I think the industry should think in terms of balance. There's nothing inherently wrong with a depiction of a woman or man as a sex object, as being passive, as being helpless and in need of rescue. The problem comes when that's a preponderance of the images. Art should illuminate, uplift, illustrate, attract, and, yes, even pander - all in reasonable balance.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 14, 2012)

Janx said:


> the RPG industry has taken a lot of steps to improve their depiction of women, whereas the majority of mass media has done little.




Do you want to use the, "The other guy is doing much worse than I am, so you should ignore me," defense?

Back in grade school, if there was a 2-on-1 scuffle on the playground, would your teachers accept, "Tommy beat him up worse than I did!" and let you off the hook?

I agree that, on the whole, the RPG industry has done a lot to clean up its art and presentation.  That should be commended.  But if the folks in question still feel put upon, it isn't perfect yet.  We should not say, "Well, women's magazines are far worse, so we don't have to worry any more..."


----------



## billd91 (Jun 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Do you want to use the, "The other guy is doing much worse than I am, so you should ignore me," defense?
> 
> Back in grade school, if there was a 2-on-1 scuffle on the playground, would your teachers accept, "Tommy beat him up worse than I did!" and let you off the hook?
> 
> I agree that, on the whole, the RPG industry has done a lot to clean up its art and presentation.  That should be commended.  But if the folks in question still feel put upon, it isn't perfect yet.  We should not say, "Well, women's magazines are far worse, so we don't have to worry any more..."




Off the hook? No. Perhaps not in need of as much extra effort to reform? Yes. 

If there's one problem I see in criticism of sexist imagery in RPGs (and other media) is too little acknowledgement of improvements. Rather, it often seems like the focus just gets keener when perhaps the effort would be better spent on shifting to a worse offender. And I think that's discouraging to those making efforts. It's a terrible feeling to work hard at doing something better only to face yet more criticism. You start to feel that the people you are trying to please can't be pleased, so why try?

Fortunately, I think I'm starting to see more of the focus hitting computer games and the CRPG industry where I think the issue is a lot worse than print RPGs these days. And that's what I think should be going on.


----------



## Yora (Jun 14, 2012)

Again, depends on where you are looking.

I don't really recall any sexist imagery in video games that I played in the last 5 years or so. Mass Effect sometimes seems to really want to get into fan service, but even then they never really get offensively sexist about it.

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	
























[/sblock]
Not seeing anything to be concerned about here.
(Okay, since I mentioned Dragon Age 2, there is also Isabella. But she's not a character who is offensively designed, that's a character who is designed to be an offensive person. ^^)

It's some people in the RPG industry and some people in the video game industry, but they all appear like individual cases and not as example of a fundamental value system that underlies the entire industry and associated sub-cultures. You can criticise the offenders, but I just don't see any guilt by association being the case here.


----------



## Halivar (Jun 14, 2012)

Since I started collecting RPG books in 2000, the only blatant cheesecake I've seen were the 3.5 nymph and the spine-twisting berserker from Complete Warrior.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 14, 2012)

Yora said:


> Again, depends on where you are looking.




It most certainly does.  But that means a small selection of images that you feel are okay does not really say that everything is okay.  There's dozens to hundreds of images in the WotC _oevre_, right?  So, a few select ones just don't prove the point.

A single offensive image is apt to weigh more heavily than a whole bunch of inoffensive ones.



billd91 said:


> Off the hook? No. Perhaps not in need of as much extra effort to reform? Yes.




As a man, it really wouldn't be for me to say, as I'm not one of the offended parties.  The measure of how much more reform is called for is not to be found in our assertions, but in how many women are still put off by the imagery, no?



> If there's one problem I see in criticism of sexist imagery in RPGs (and other media) is too little acknowledgement of improvements.




I don't think anyone's ever made a credible argument that the internet was an unbiased source of critique.


----------



## Yora (Jun 14, 2012)

Sure, there are dumb people doing dumb things. Go ahead and criticise them, I am all for that.
But I don't see any indication that it's something that affects the industry as a whole. To find habittual offenders, you have to go searching for them or stumble on them by accident. But it's not as if it's something you have to put up with and that's unavoidable if you want to be active in RPGs and video games. It's not something that is wrong with RPGs or video games.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 14, 2012)

Yora said:


> I don't really recall any sexist imagery in video games that I played in the last 5 years or so. Mass Effect sometimes seems to really want to get into fan service, but even then they never really get offensively sexist about it.




I notice you didn't include a lot of Asari cleavage and Asari strippers in your collection of images. Interesting that the only non-human race portrayed with any significant number of recognizably female characters is brimming with a lot of sexuality.



Yora said:


> It's some people in the RPG industry and some people in the video game industry, but they all appear like individual cases and not as example of a fundamental value system that underlies the entire industry and associated sub-cultures. You can criticise the offenders, but I just don't see any guilt by association being the case here.




There are a lot of critics who believe there's a lot more evidence of a fundamental value system underlying the video game industry. And once they point it out, it's not really hard to see it too. It's mostly a question of getting initially sensitized to it. You just have to try to not be over-sensitized to it if you want to shoot for a balanced approach.


----------



## Janx (Jun 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Do you want to use the, "The other guy is doing much worse than I am, so you should ignore me," defense?
> 
> Back in grade school, if there was a 2-on-1 scuffle on the playground, would your teachers accept, "Tommy beat him up worse than I did!" and let you off the hook?
> 
> I agree that, on the whole, the RPG industry has done a lot to clean up its art and presentation.  That should be commended.  But if the folks in question still feel put upon, it isn't perfect yet.  We should not say, "Well, women's magazines are far worse, so we don't have to worry any more..."




and here was me in my OP saying exactly that "While RPGs should continue to work to improve their depiction of women, there are more worthy battlegrounds to fight that cause on in society."

My point is, the industry has gotten better.  Raising the banner and rousing the rabble that the industry is chock full of offensive art is disingenuous to the real improvements that were made.  That is what I felt  [MENTION=87695]TanithT[/MENTION] was ignoring.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 14, 2012)

Janx said:


> My point is, the industry has gotten better.  Raising the banner and rousing the rabble that the industry is chock full of offensive art is disingenuous to the real improvements that were made.  That is what I felt   TanithT  was ignoring.




In my perception, and I take full responsibility for the fact that it is my perception, it truly has not.  I can't open a single RPG book or comic, or play almost any video game, without seeing a large number of sexualized female figures while the male characters are primarily presented as normal characters - eg, as the real people who are not sexualized.

It's not so much that I get personally mad or feel insecure when my boyfriend exclaims over the large amount of gratuitous bewbage there is for his delectation in just about every RPG sourcebook and video game.  Heck, I'll even save that stuff when I see it so he can enjoy it. Or we look at it together, though he is always guaranteed to get more than I do from it because we are both heterosexual and the vast majority of the sexualized images will be female.  There's a little for me here and there, but the percentages really stink.

Porn for consenting adults isn't a problem.  What I do mind is the sheer amount of gratuitously sexualized female imagery, including in places that don't really fit or make sense.  The message that is being overwhelmingly sent is that females are supposed to be sexualized.  Not just sexy with other consenting adults where it's totally appropriate to be sexy, but sexualized outside that context.  It's a subtle but pervasive and IMO very serious difference.  

I'd compare the atmosphere of generally sexualizing women to being immersed in an ocean.  If you have always lived there, it can be hard for you to really think about the fact that the water is wet, or salty.  It just seems like, yaknow, how things are, how things have always been, and how they are always supposed to be.  

Yes, it is *all the eff over* the gaming industry.  I see it just about every single day, and I facepalm to it just about every single day.  I respect that your experience may be different, but for whatever it's worth, this is mine.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 14, 2012)

TanithT said:


> In my perception, and I take full responsibility for the fact that it is my perception, it truly has not.  I can't open a single RPG book or comic, or play almost any video game, without seeing a large number of sexualized female figures while the male characters are primarily presented as normal characters - eg, as the real people who are not sexualized.
> 
> It's not so much that I get personally mad or feel insecure when my boyfriend exclaims over the large amount of gratuitous bewbage there is for his delectation in just about every RPG sourcebook and video game.  Heck, I'll even save that stuff when I see it so he can enjoy it. Or we look at it together, though he is always guaranteed to get more than I do from it because we are both heterosexual and the vast majority of the sexualized images will be female.  There's a little for me here and there, but the percentages really stink.
> 
> ...




It's a pity that's your experience and I doubt if you're alone in seeing it that way. It also seems unlikely to change any time soon.

This recent quote from a WotC post by the guy in charge of D&D Art kind of suggests there's some way to go yet:

'I'd like to dismiss the term sexism for a bit and get down to the meat  of the subject. I think that the term "sexist" is convenient,  inflammatory, and polarizing. It doesn't actually address the issue that  most folks are asking me to address—and that is the issue of the role  and depiction of women (and I get a surprising number of requests about  men as well) in fantasy.'


----------



## Janx (Jun 14, 2012)

TanithT said:


> In my perception, and I take full responsibility for the fact that it is my perception, it truly has not.  I can't open a single RPG book or comic, or play almost any video game, without seeing a large number of sexualized female figures while the male characters are primarily presented as normal characters - eg, as the real people who are not sexualized.




I think you have some fair arguments.

However, on the male side, consider this:

while almost every woman picture in a game looks good, where you consider the males as "normal characters" how many of the men in the games have bellies that extend past their belt line, or love handles.

The majority of those men will be in ripped shape.  Which is also not realistic.

What you might be calling sexualization of the women in the pictures and "realistic" for the guys might simply be the artist portraying the prettiest people possible. 

Or even sexualization of the men by making them look in good shape.  I think we all know what sexy outfits on a woman looks like, and could point to it and determine that outfit wasn't chosen for practicality.  I'm betting it's not so simple with guys in art because the standard is different, and there's not really a fashion industry around sexifying guys.  But I imagine gay guys probably appreciate looking at the men of gaming art.

And really, my core observation was that in RPGs, say from WotC, they have toned it down.  Compared to what women are bombarded with on TV, magazines and fashion, and how much exposure that is influencing young women today, that's your bigger fish to fry.  Fix that, and gaming art will probably come into line as it feeds off of what the societal expectations are.  

Whereas, if you attack gaming art as your keystone of women's denigration, you're only affecting a niche hobby, and thus a minority of society that should change and improve how it represents and views women.


----------



## thewok (Jun 14, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Seriously, that is the message that is being sent with every depiction of a female fantasy character who is being shown as passive and powerless - eg, wearing fake armor that might as well be silk stockings and a bra for all it covers.  Just don't do it, please.



It's funny, because all the players I know who end up drawing or describing their characters in extremely revealing attire are women, rather than men.  And, Tera, an MMO whose characters _literally_ wear lingerie, seems to be very popular with women.

I'm not sure that it's as black-and-white an issue as a lot of people (strangely, mostly men from my experience) seem to make it.

That said, I think there's room for all kinds of art in fantasy gaming.  There's just as much room for Red Sonja as there is for Joan of Arc.  A drow/elf/half-elf wizard who prefers to wear provocatively-cut silk gowns is just as valid as a wizard who prefers wooly robes.  The entire spectrum of clothing and armor should be represented in RPG artwork--not just one extreme or another.


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 14, 2012)

Maybe after she is done with this: Tropes vs. Women in Video Games by Anita Sarkeesian — Kickstarter , Anita Sarkeesian should start a new Kickstarter project for Tropes vs. Women in Role-Playing Games . 

Here is the first video in her original series:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA&list=PLBBDFEC9F5893C4AF&index=1&feature=plpp_video]#1 The Manic Pixie Dream Girl (Tropes vs. Women) - YouTube[/ame]


I do not necessarily agree with everything in all of her videos, but the Tropes series seems like a good rundown of some come themes.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 14, 2012)

Janx said:


> I think you have some fair arguments.
> 
> However, on the male side, consider this:
> 
> ...




Why should RPGs be last in line instead of taking the lead on this. We're not the worst seems a cop-out.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 15, 2012)

Kaodi said:


> Maybe after she is done with this: Tropes vs. Women in Video Games by Anita Sarkeesian — Kickstarter , Anita Sarkeesian should start a new Kickstarter project for Tropes vs. Women in Role-Playing Games .
> 
> Here is the first video in her original series:
> 
> ...




This is some of the abuse she had hurled at her. Not for the young or easily offended. Again, suggesting that simply going it's no big deal/ doesn't really affect people is out of touch.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Kaodi said:


> Maybe after she is done with this: Tropes vs. Women in Video Games by Anita Sarkeesian — Kickstarter , Anita Sarkeesian should start a new Kickstarter project for Tropes vs. Women in Role-Playing Games .
> 
> Here is the first video in her original series:
> 
> ...




Well, I guess my soul is untroubled by not having seen any of those films.

Ironically, while the video pretty much slams those films as not being a good representation of women, I'd classify all those films as chick-flicks.  Movies that women are more likely to watch than guys, or drag their boyfriends to go see.


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> Ironically, while the video pretty much slams those films as not being a good representation of women, I'd classify all those films as chick-flicks.  Movies that women are more likely to watch than guys, or drag their boyfriends to go see.




I forget which video it was, but there is one in which she mentions the chick flick thing. She also has one video where she does a rundown of Academy Award for Best Picture in the last 50 years, and another for the Bechdel test. Everyone who has not heard of the Bechdel test should definitely watch it.

And lastly, as I wrote my disclaimer, she has one somewhere as well: she enjoys a lot of the things she criticizes. So I do not think it is really the stereotypical, " If you like this you are bad, " sort of accusation.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

nedjer said:


> Why should RPGs be last in line instead of taking the lead on this. We're not the worst seems a cop-out.




again, my point seems to be missed.

Women are being trained to be skinnier, dress sexier, wear higher heels, perform like a pornstar and like it.   [MENTION=60907]thewok[/MENTION]'s example is a symptom of that.

You're not going to cure that by making RPGs not have pretty or sexy women on the cover.

You're going to cure that by changing what society accepts for the total depiction and expectation of women, which is largely in control of mass media.

Remember when showing a bit of ankle was a turn-on for guys?  The hemline has risen so far you can tell what brand of depilatory she uses.

The TV show Farscape had a pretty good line about how Earthlings must want to have sex with children, because they dress them up for that purpose.

Compared to the fashions and mores of today's youth, RPGs are downright enlightened.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> again, my point seems to be missed.
> 
> Women are being trained to be skinnier, dress sexier, wear higher heels, perform like a pornstar and like it.    thewok 's example is a symptom of that.
> 
> ...




Sexualisation through subtle, widely-dispersed media opportunism is arguably more affecting than obvious, in-your-face material. And it's likely effects are unpleasant and very expensive. Dealing with that calls for equally widely-dispersed action.

I, therefore, further object on grounds of being a taxpayer who has to help clean-up after industries in the same way as I pay for some of the 40% of hospital treatment spent on alcohol-related injuries.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 15, 2012)

Done with the moaning 

Practical reason - variety. The current enthusiasm for Old School art makes for a change from technically wonderful, colour realism. Other styles and approaches to figure drawing are imo preferable to more of the same.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jun 15, 2012)

Re. where is all the sexist fantasy art.

I just did a quick google image search for male and female images of elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, half-orc and tiefling.

First impression: There were a lot more sexualised images of women. Boob windows in armour; bikinis (chainmail and otherwise) for wearing while exploring dangerous wilderness areas; that sort of thing.

Biggest offender (no surprise to anyone I think) were the tieflings. A lot of the female representations were just soft porn. 

Next I'd say the elves had the second largest proportion of sexualised images of  women BUT at the same time they definitely had the largest proportion of sexualised images of men. (So many posing pouches...)

The fewest sexualised images by category were the gnomes, both male and female depictions had very few sexualised images.

So, on the basis of my ever so rigourous research <sarcasm> I'd say that depictions of women in fantasy art are still pretty sexist.

Why should we, as gamers, care about this? Because we are the market for fantasy art. We should clean up our own act. Saying that it's not important because X is worse is not an argument against improving one's own behaviour. It's a cop out. For things to improve they need to improve EVERYWHERE. We are part of "everywhere," therefore we need to improve.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> while almost every woman picture in a game looks good, where you consider the males as "normal characters" how many of the men in the games have bellies that extend past their belt line, or love handles.
> 
> The majority of those men will be in ripped shape.  Which is also not realistic.




Not so much seeing a lot of male depictions this way - for starters, they are much more statistically likely to be wearing clothes.  Even when their bodies are shown, the message is not "look at this submissive, powerless, sexualized object to be gazed at and acted upon".  The message is more like "Here is a big, strong, physically powerful man - he can get all the girls."




> What you might be calling sexualization of the women in the pictures and "realistic" for the guys might simply be the artist portraying the prettiest people possible.




If more pretty, silk-draped elfboys in helpless or submissive positions showed up in the art, I'd be good with that argument.  If we saw attractive, scantily clothed men with soft, 'come-hither - I am here for your pleasure" expressions, I'd certainly agree.  But we don't.  What we see are *powerful* male images that are attractive because of their strength and ability to act, not an invitation for them to be viewed, consumed or acted on. 




> Whereas, if you attack gaming art as your keystone of women's denigration, you're only affecting a niche hobby, and thus a minority of society that should change and improve how it represents and views women.




It goes kind of like this.  As a nerd, one of the things I really value about nerd subculture is that it's a safe space not to be one of the cool kids, and not to be judged for crap like what kind of shoes you wear or how popular you can make yourself.  It feels pretty horrific to me when I am treated as a "girl" or a "hot chick" in this kind of space, and judged - once again - for my conformity of lack thereof to prevalent social standards of what women are supposed to be.

The art is not the cause.  It's more the symptom, and the atmosphere, and the message.  I don't think porn or sexual imagery of any kind is bad or wrong at all, but I do think that the automatic, unthinking sexualization of all females to the point that it spills over onto real life gaming tables is a real problem.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

DrunkonDuty said:


> First impression: There were a lot more sexualised images of women. Boob windows in armour; bikinis (chainmail and otherwise) for wearing while exploring dangerous wilderness areas; that sort of thing.
> 
> Biggest offender (no surprise to anyone I think) were the tieflings. A lot of the female representations were just soft porn.




Honestly, I'm good with the porn.  It harms no one.  It's porn - it's sexual imagery, and there is no reason it should not exist.  

It's the former that has, IMO, much more serious social implications for how people should view and treat real live gamer women.  Automatic knee-jerk sexualization of *all* women under *all* circumstances, even utterly, obviously inappropriate and dangerous ones, sends a message.  The message is basically that if she's female, she's only good for being sexual - heaven forbid she wear normal and appropriate armor to fight in, or dress intelligently for wilderness conditions.  She's not allowed to do that, because she's female and therefore must be depicted and viewed primarily in terms of her sexuality.

Problematic, no?  

It is a quandary, because I'm truly not in favor of censorship, and I think it is every woman's right to be as sexual and sexy as she wants to be without being shamed or penalized for it.  Porn is good, mmmkay?  It's not the problem.  

The problem is not that men like to look at images of sexy women, or that some women find it empowering and enjoyable to be sexy.  That's all good.  The problem is when the equation of female = must be depicted and interacted with as a sex object becomes unthinking and automatic, because that's when it starts spilling over onto women who do not consent to it at that time or around that gaming table.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 15, 2012)

This again?







Alright... I really, really wanted to include some articles on misogyny in Game of Thrones to frame the argument; however, there be some naughty words so Let Me Google That For You  and read the top three articles produced.  They're pretty representative of the ones below and will give you a good framing of how a popular fantasy mythos is viewed by those who consider themselves notable commenters on culture.

I will wait.

::Brews tea, sits::

Okay.  You're back!  Hope you were not overwhelmed.  The discussions of sexuality! The evils of arranged marriage and lipstick feminism!  Why do we put up with all of this!

GoT is probably our biggest wellspring for new nerds at this point in the decade.  Lots of teens and adults may get their first brush with fantasy through this source.  It passes the Bechdel test with multiple character interactions through the seasons, and covers the gamut of sexuality... When was the last series you have witnessed that included the GLBT community so thoroughly in fantasy or 'reality'?

But women use their sexuality.  Or don't.  And either one is bad.  I mean if Brienne could just find a nice knight...

Yeah.  We have a group of cultures that intermingle freely, with racism, classism, sexism, and sexual orientation biases throughout... It discusses deformity and the psyche (The Hound, 



Spoiler



Jaime when he loses his hand


, expressions of strength when in a point of physical weakness (Bran Stark, Tyrion Lannister), the hazards of the sex trade, crime, and even a fat-positive asexual who has amassed power through turning perceived stereotypes against his enemies.  

But this too is offensive?  Yeah... I gave up on fantasy sexism a long time ago.  Bring me a fat-positive hero...

Oh wait.  You have two?

Sold.  But there are going to be uncomfortable truths discussed about medieval societal norms... And thus we have sexism.






But nothing that was sexist about this show's depiction of men.  Hrmm...

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> But nothing that was sexist about this show's depiction of men.  Hrmm.




Disclaimer: I watched the first GoT and quit there, so I have no idea who these people are.  

I see two kinds of depictions here.  The male imagery shows power.  Muscles, fitness, strength, fighting, armor and weapons are the descriptors that come immediately to mind.  Their expressions are bold and challenging and serious.  Clearly they are strong fighters, powerful people.  They can act, they can lead, they can do.  I would not say that they were being sexualized in a dehumanizing way at all.  The message here is, "Look, this man is big and strong enough to get all the girls".  He's not being shown as an object, he's being shown as a strong, fit, powerful and capable character.

The female imagery shows skimpy clothing and pretty much nothing else.  I don't get any feeling of power or even much in the way of character or individuality here.  It looks like a generic lingerie fantasy model lineup.  Is anyone in this picture a powerful person, or a unique personality?  Does she actually do anything other than look sexy in a bikini?  I dunno, but if she does, I can't see it in this picture.

You'll have to show me some much prettier boys depicted in essentially submissive or powerless positions before you can even come close to complaining that men get sexualized in a hurtful, dehumanizing or degrading way as passive objects.  

Oh wait, you probably can't find any.  At least not in mainstream media.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Disclaimer: I watched the first GoT and quit there, so I have no idea who these people are.
> 
> I see two kinds of depictions here.  The male imagery shows power.  Muscles, fitness, strength, fighting, armor and weapons are the descriptors that come immediately to mind.  Their expressions are bold and challenging and serious.  Clearly they are strong fighters, powerful people.  They can act, they can lead, they can do.  I would not say that they were being sexualized in a dehumanizing way at all.  The message here is, "Look, this man is big and strong enough to get all the girls".  He's not being shown as an object, he's being shown as a strong, fit, powerful and capable character.
> 
> ...




You can find images from Spartacus... The issue is that I don't believe I can post pictures of sexual assault from either side of the sexual gap.  Oh, did I mention that the men here are slaves forced to perform the bidding of a deviant master who requires them to kill each other and have sex with patrons/matrons of the House?

Oh wait, you didn't look up your sources.  Plenty of images, just more erotically framed assaults than what I can find for GoT, and neither can be posted here.

The scene I chose to depict shows three individuals, a casual shot here.  I could show you plenty of 'action' shots of Daenarys, but of course because she is the Mother of Dragons her most powerful scene shows her nude.



Spoiler



You know, from the walking through fire after killing the witch her murdered her unborn child and love, and rising from the flames bearing the dragons of legend.



It is willful ignorance of the two source materials, which I provided information on.  Again, I guess it is completely acceptable for depictions that are considered harmful to women if there is a Y chromosome on the victim's side.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> Oh wait, you didn't look up your sources.




I didn't look up YOUR sources, you mean.  GoT is not my fandom, and I'm not super interested in seeing any more of it.  Tried it, wasn't my personal cup of tea, moved on.   I'm just not much of a media fan myself, with respect for the folks who are.  

I don't need to look very far to say that every time I open an RPG or comic book or video game, I can realistically expect the majority of the female images will be sexualized in a way that takes away their power rather than adds to it.  This will simply not be true of the majority of male imagery.  That's the plain fact of my experience, and I don't think you'll find many people disagreeing with it.  Statistically it also bears out. Make of that what you like.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule.  Heck, there's even a Rule 34 - no matter what it is, there will be porn of it somewhere on the Internet.  It doesn't change the day to day reality of my experience as a female gamer looking at typical female depictions in RPG source material and comics and video games.




> It is willful ignorance of the two source materials, which I provided information on.  Again, I guess it is completely acceptable for depictions that are considered harmful to women if there is a Y chromosome on the victim's side.



You picked the source materials and the images.  I just described what I saw there, in those images alone.  My description was of those specific depictions and nothing else.  

If they are powerful characters, perhaps they should be depicted in a way that actually does show that in visual shorthand?  Or would that be....I don't know.....just not as good for the ratings to show more female characters in a serious rather than sexy light?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> Whereas, if you attack gaming art as your keystone of women's denigration...




Hold on there just one second.

Who said it was their "keystone"?  Did anyone here claim it was a keystone?  I missed it if they did.  If nobody did, then this part of the argument is in "logical fallacy" land, I'm sorry to say.

It is just *a* stone.  The wall is pretty large.  And not all (in fact, darned few) big solid walls are taken down by removal of a single key stone.  You instead have to pick a way at a lot of not-particularly-key stones in order to have an effect.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> I didn't look up YOUR sources, you mean.  GoT is not my fandom, and I'm not super interested in seeing any more of it.  Tried it, wasn't my personal cup of tea, moved on.   I'm just not much of a media fan myself, with respect for the folks who are.
> 
> I don't need to look very far to say that every time I open an RPG or comic book or video game, I can realistically expect the majority of the female images will be sexualized in a way that takes away their power rather than adds to it.  This will simply not be true of the majority of male imagery.  That's the plain fact of my experience, and I don't think you'll find many people disagreeing with it.  Statistically it also bears out. Make of that what you like.
> 
> ...




I picked the source material to show your bias, and then proceeded to demonstrate it.  In your mind the showing of skin in a female depiction is weakness.  Now, of course, we can look at the sketches of the cultures I drew my pictures from:

Linked Image due to Thread Imbalance






For our top picture...











Of course, the sexualization is totally focused on the depictions of women.  Damn my cursed eyes!  Also, citing rule 34 is definitely out of line, as I'm just showing stock images/sketches from the source itself, depicting the imagery within the series.  Gladiators?  Pretty much without clothing for the entire series... One, a crippled named Ashur, is allowed to wear clothing, but he is 'outside' of the gladiatorial group, soft, and depicted as evil.

In fact, most 'evil' individuals in the series are flabby, underdeveloped, and seen as weak in their masculinity or horribly deformed... Whether this comes from their inability to please their partner, father children on their own, or their partners seeking out these pieces of meat in leather armor as they are weak.

Of course I do hate being seen as some piece of meat...

Sex sells, on both sides of the chromosome.  Of course you could have a fandom of any number of sources... I wonder, what do you look towards for your sources of fantasy?  

My real point is that, if you present me with your sources I would be more than happy to discuss them.  I've read a good amount of fantasy from across the spectrum, and would love to discuss your fandom and see exactly where your ideas on fantasy come from and deconstruct.  I presented multiple articles discussing the PoV you have taken, and argued against it.


And again: Show me a positive depiction of an unfit male-identified character who isn't evil or comic relief.  Oh, he also has to be the hero, and not in the sense of 'magically fit' or 'gets exercise, becomes superman'.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> I picked the source material to show your bias, and then proceeded to demonstrate it.  In your mind the showing of skin in a female depiction is weakness.




Never said any such thing.  I said that a great many fantasy female character depictions show her as powerless or inappropriately sexualized or both.  She is fairly likely to be wearing impractical sexy clothes or no clothes in situations where this is a *ridiculously stupid thing to do*.  +5 chainmail bikini of orc arrow attraction FTW, and all that.  Because gut wounds in combat are totally sexy.  

I'm not sure how that equates to "Oh no, women can't show skin or it's bad/degrading/shameful".   I don't have an issue with skin-showing under circumstances that make _any damn sense_, or in porn for consenting adults.  I have a problem when it is the result of automatic, knee-jerk sexualizing of a female image just because it is female, in situations where it would make a hell of a lot more sense for her to be wearing normal clothes or actual armor.  Not Fredrick's of Waterdeep lingerie armor, which is freaking insane.  Because, clearly looking hot and defending your boobies must be more important than, I don't know, little things like not sustaining fatal gut wounds or getting your legs chopped off.




> My real point is that, if you present me with your sources I would be more than happy to discuss them.




If you seriously want to do so, pick any RPG sourcebook that includes depictions of both males and females of assorted PC and monster races.  Categorize the images based on how many could be considered sexualized, how many depict a sexualized character as a passive or powerless object, and how many are inappropriately sexualized (eg, someone who is fighting or wilderness scouting in skimpy clothing).  




> And again: Show me a positive depiction of an unfit male-identified character who isn't evil or comic relief.  Oh, he also has to be the hero, and not in the sense of 'magically fit' or 'gets exercise, becomes superman'.




Elric of Melnibone, though technically he does become magically fit after he becomes the wielder of the Black Sword, albeit at the agonizing price of consuming his loved ones' blood and souls.  Thomas Covenant, the leper.  Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, who are three feet tall and have hairy toes.  Need more examples?


----------



## Loonook (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Never said any such thing.  I said that a great many fantasy female character depictions show her as powerless or inappropriately sexualized or both.  She is fairly likely to be wearing impractical sexy clothes or no clothes in situations where this is a *ridiculously stupid thing to do*.  +5 chainmail bikini of orc arrow attraction FTW, and all that.  Because gut wounds in combat are totally sexy.
> 
> I'm not sure how that equates to "Oh no, women can't show skin or it's bad/degrading/shameful".   I don't have an issue with skin-showing under circumstances that make _any damn sense_, or in porn for consenting adults.  I have a problem when it is the result of automatic, knee-jerk sexualizing of a female image just because it is female, in situations where it would make a hell of a lot more sense for her to be wearing normal clothes or actual armor.  Not Fredrick's of Waterdeep lingerie armor, which is freaking insane.  Because, clearly looking hot and defending your boobies must be more important than, I don't know, little things like not sustaining fatal gut wounds or getting your legs chopped off.
> 
> ...




So your examples are a leper who 'dreams' a fictional life where he 



Spoiler



rapes the first woman to come along


 to escape his own travesty to become a hero in his own delusions, a patricide/fratricide who is a mage/warrior antihero who gains his warrior nature through the death of his loved ones... And halflings who are completely normal in their own race and pretty much walk somewhere with purpose with a creepy corrupted halfling?

Your first two are antiheroes at best, and the others are protected for the battle parts of their journey by big strong men with armor and swords.

Very inspiring.

Also, people who scout and fight never walk about in skimpy, impractical clothing

















Yeah, I agree with the concept of the chainmail bikini being faulty... But I asked for your canon.  What do you read fantasy-wise?

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> So your examples are a leper who 'dreams' a fictional life where he
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Didn't say he was my hero, just that he was a hero of a decently long running series of fantasy novels.  And about as unfit as they come, both physically and emotionally/mentally.  Personally I can't say I much like the guy.




> a patricide/fratricide who is a mage/warrior antihero who gains his warrior nature through the death of his loved ones...




Elric did not kill his father and he had no siblings. His distinctly evil and corrupt cousin Yrkoon set him on the fateful path to wielding Stormbringer by seeking power over the Black Swords, and by kidnapping his fiancee.  He accepted the burden of Stormbringer to save her, and killed her kidnapper, but the destiny that came along with that was horrific and not of his choosing.  

Scion of an ancient and decadent race, Elric was arguably the best and most moral person he could be under the circumstances.  He holds back the black sword's hunger as much as he can, but in the end it betrays him every time.  He hangs up the sword and forswears it more than once, and only picks it up again to save the lives of his loved ones, accepting the terrible price it exacts for giving him vitality so that he can save his friends and loved ones.

Yes, I do find Elric to be an inspiring hero.  He makes complex moral decisions in a complex world, most of which are surprisingly unselfish and self-sacrificing.  He's fundamentally a good guy thrust unwillingly into a mostly bad guy's role that he can't get free of, no matter how hard he tries.  And he does try, over and over again.  The tragedy is that he never quite succeeds, and he has to pick up the evil sword one more time in order to prevent a greater evil for people he cares about, or for the world.





> And halflings who are completely normal in their own race and pretty much walk somewhere with purpose with a creepy corrupted halfling?
> 
> Your first two are antiheroes at best, and the others are protected for the battle parts of their journey by big strong men with armor and swords.




It was only Frodo and Sam at the end, and that's where the real heroism of the trilogy is best shown, IMO.  Gollum is a complex character who is both detestable and pitiable, and it is through that pity and also through the hobbits' steadfast, heroic persistence that Middle-Earth is saved.

Yes, very inspiring indeed, and none of the hobbits can exactly be referred to as models of strength, fitness or physical perfection.  They're little people with hairy toes, but they are also very much heroes.




> Also, people who scout and fight never walk about in skimpy, impractical clothing




I wouldn't call that a sexualized image, nor is the scout being depicted in a sexually appealing/inviting pose.  

Skimpy clothing where it makes sense makes sense.  The issue I have is when it doesn't make sense but it's there anyway to sex up the picture.  The vast majority of images that fit into the 'makes no sense, the nudity/sexy clothing here is totally gratuitous or ridiculous/dangerous/illogical' are female.  




> Yeah, I agree with the concept of the chainmail bikini being faulty... But I asked for your canon.  What do you read fantasy-wise?




It varies.  Naomi Novik, Misty Lackey, R. Salvatore, China Mieville, Andre Norton, Anne and Todd McCaffrey, Tolkien and Moorcock come immediately to mind, but there's a heck of a lot more on my shelves.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 15, 2012)

My issue with some of the fantasy art in RPGs is that unrealistic for the situation. 

It is one thing in a tropical setting or a primitive setting to have warriors of both sexes with little or no coverings. It another when you portray a wizard in an adventuring party dressed in skimpy silks while she is wading trough a swamp or in frozen tundra or in a dungeon with lots of rough rocks. 

Then there are the poses showing the female adventurer's butt and boobs at the same time. Who really stands that way in battle. And why are all female adventurers stacked? The same with superheros in comics. Does having big boobs make you a better adventurer. 

Saying that it is the same for men is reaching. Male adventurers are shown as buff and in shape well if they are warriors or wizards who go adventuring they had better be if they want to stay alive. 

As for what the OP wrote I don't there is a simple answer of why more woman are not in gaming. Part of it is that some woman feel that gamer culture is aimed at men. Others are worried about being labeled a geek. It may be the age of the geek but that is for males. The fact because of their earning power they can now get hot chicks. It is not quite the same for female geeks.

I do know woman who were turned off by the complexity of the rules. I noticed that a lot of woman who didn't like DnD loved White Wolf. I think maybe because it focuses more on role playing then slaying. 

I have seen woman made very uncomfortable by the male culture surrounding gaming especially in the past when all the art was more cheesecake and you had rules making woman second class fighters with the hit to stats. You don't tend to see that as much today which is great.

For some woman the only games they are exposed to is a game run that is more historical accurate and that can be a huge turn off for woman because for the most part it kind of sucked to be a female. 

The best way to get woman to play is to make a game that is fun for everyone and is not to complicated to play. And to show woman playing the game in ads and have good artwork. And if you have daughters teach them to play.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Didn't say he was my hero, just that he was a hero of a decently long running series of fantasy novels.  And about as unfit as they come, both physically and emotionally/mentally.  Personally I can't say I much like the guy.




Definitely a laudable warrior, with all of that 'Delusional leper-dreaming' stuff, and being free to make his choices due to the fact that ehh... It may just be a dream.




> Scion of an ancient and decadent race, Elric was arguably the best and most moral person he could be under the circumstances.  He holds back the black sword's hunger as much as he can, but in the end it betrays him every time.  He hangs up the sword and forswears it more than once, and only picks it up again to save the lives of his loved ones, accepting the terrible price it exacts for giving him vitality so that he can save his friends and loved ones.




And yet he consorts with demons and elder powers.  Good intentions feel very comfortable on my feet... Where IS this road heading?



> It was only Frodo and Sam at the end, and that's where the real heroism of the trilogy is best shown, IMO.  Gollum is a complex character who is both detestable and pitiable, and it is through that pity and also through the hobbits' steadfast, heroic persistence that Middle-Earth is saved.




And they walk to a volcano, get into a bar brawl, and fling a ring into a volcano.  Again, they are not truly the heroes I'm speaking of... But you did go against the whole 'magic assistance' part with Elric so ehh.

Yes, very inspiring indeed, and none of the hobbits can exactly be referred to as models of strength, fitness or physical perfection.  They're little people with hairy toes, but they are also very much heroes.





> I wouldn't call that a sexualized image, nor is the scout being depicted in a sexually appealing/inviting pose.




And yet their depiction is just as naked as the ones above.  You are placing a sexualized view on the targets you want to place it upon.



> Skimpy clothing where it makes sense makes sense.  The issue I have is when it doesn't make sense but it's there anyway to sex up the picture.  The vast majority of images that fit into the 'makes no sense, the nudity/sexy clothing here is totally gratuitous or ridiculous/dangerous/illogical' are female.




And as I am pointing out, the ridiculous/dangerous/illogical wear is common among the same people that I showed above.  It is a cultural depiction over sexuality.



> It varies.  Naomi Novik, Misty Lackey, R. Salvatore, China Mieville, Andre Norton, Anne and Todd McCaffrey, Tolkien and Moorcock come immediately to mind, but there's a heck of a lot more on my shelves.




So Norton, a heavily noted exemplar of misandry in early feminist scifi (to the point she's a punchline), Lackey who has 'strong female characters'... Mieville, who is pretty much modern fantasy, and McCaffrey... Which personally I never got around to.  Novik retreads McCaffery in the Napoleonic era (she's the writer of His Majesty's Dragon right?)... So no fantasy reading beyond Lackey and Salvatore?

And Salvatore never, ever has images of impractical/sexualized garb in portrayal of women:










Now, again, female warriors in my canon just are not depicted in any way other than a completely sexualized form... Especially in that sexist Game of Thrones...














I mean, we can definitely discuss the issues that your readings are a treatise on first and second-wave feminist SciFi/Fantasy that has no real example of a unique mythic fantasy, or that your examples of Fantasy are either sex-negative/sexless (Lackey/Tolkien), or D&D writ in novel form (Salvatore).  Your historical settings are also pretty well white-washed, but hey... as a historian I don't know how things worked.  Or with my focus in gender history and required gender study.

Want to know an actual depiction of strong female characters, sex positive, who run two kingdoms and actually battle each other for supremacy throughout the series?






Of course it is a portrayal of war.  There are horrible things done on both sides.  Murder, suicide, assault, corruption... You know, real life.

Again, the leaders are women.  They do horrible, terrible, necessary things, and their underlings are depicted in the realism of a raiding party turned mercenary company.  

But that may not be to your liking.  How about a science fiction series that discusses racism, sexism, misogyny and misandry, and does it with humor, tact, and interest?






Though I must warn.  A guy wrote this without supervision... There is even a whole spinoff run in a brothel!  A sex-positive brothel that also discusses the concepts of cultural bias, human sexuality and gender identity, BDSM, and other hot topics with humor and insight.

Or you can think we all just read chainmail bikini novels because of preconceived notions of fantasy and scifi.  Or that all worlds should be perfect, while lauding a morally ambigious villain with a heart of gold as an epic hero.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> So Norton, a heavily noted exemplar of misandry in early feminist scifi (to the point she's a punchline), Lackey who has 'strong female characters'... Mieville, who is pretty much modern fantasy, and McCaffrey... Which personally I never got around to.  Novik retreads McCaffery in the Napoleonic era (she's the writer of His Majesty's Dragon right?)... So no fantasy reading beyond Lackey and Salvatore?




Dude, in almost every post on this thread, you have taken Tanith's posts out-of-context and read things from in-between the lines that simply aren't there.  The above quote is a good example, she listed some favorite authors off the top of her head, and mentions she has a ton more of different authors on her bookshelf.  All of her posts have shown she is quite well read in the fantasy genre, from all around the genre.  So now her "reading list" shows her overtly "feminist" agenda or something?  Read her posts more carefully before responding again, and try not to put your own baggage in your interpretations of what others say.

I'm with Tanith on this one.  I'm a guy, and I see what she sees in fantasy gaming art.  Of course, I'm not always as aware of it, as I often find these images, well, sexy.  But when it's called out, I gotta agree that the art in rpg books, even today in 2012, still has a lot of negative female stereotypes.  Not all of the art, or even necessarily most of it anymore, but there is still plenty left.

Luckily, the current D&D art director seems to see this as well, and is making a very conscious effort to dialogue with WotC's fans, both men and women, on the issue and take D&D even farther away from negative stereotypes in art.  He won't be 100% successful, as this is ingrained in the industry and hobby, but I expect some good progress.


----------



## Jon_Dahl (Jun 15, 2012)

I think that RPGs are perhaps the best way to reflect one's prejudices. I've often noticed that I associate certain roles with certain genders, ages etc. Even certain NPCs with certain body-types always get specific roles.
If I have to create a town sheriff, I've noticed that it's almost always a strong man.

The best thing about RPGs is that there is really no reason to exclude men or women from any role. Since this is about imagination, you can do anything you want. Add pregnant men and female gnome weightlifting champs if you wish. It's when you always associate certain stereotypes with certain roles, you should perhaps ask yourself questions. I always have a fat man as the barkeeper. What is your excuse?


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 15, 2012)

nedjer said:


> This is some of the abuse she had hurled at her. Not for the young or easily offended. Again, suggesting that simply going it's no big deal/ doesn't really affect people is out of touch.




Wow.  You just reminded me why I try not to read comments on any YouTube page, news page, or really any page at all.  So much misogyny and antisemitism . . . I feel like I need to go bathe and scrape all that crap off my skin.


----------



## enrious (Jun 15, 2012)

What's old is new.  http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...arily-closed/7906-q-rogue-fighter-nudity.html


Also, when did doing nothing but making strawman attacks constitute a valid side to a debate?  I think personally think there's one person in this thread who's yelled themselves off my screen.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> And yet he consorts with demons and elder powers.  Good intentions feel very comfortable on my feet... Where IS this road heading?




He grew up with those elder powers; his culture considered them friends and allies.  The novels show how he progresses from essentially innocent and naive, but tainted by the essential inhumanity of Melnibonean culture, into someone who sympathizes more with the values and mores of human society and much less with those of his ancestors.  

His road heads to doom and tragedy, but at almost every turn, his choices are made to save others, often at his own expense.  Essentially he becomes more and more human by choice, despite his initially inhuman origin.




> And yet their depiction is just as naked as the ones above.  You are placing a sexualized view on the targets you want to place it upon.




Nudity and sexualization are very different things.   I don't think that anyone could arguably point to any of those images as strongly emphasizing or even really showing either the primary or secondary sexual characteristics of these men.





> And as I am pointing out, the ridiculous/dangerous/illogical wear is common among the same people that I showed above.  It is a cultural depiction over sexuality.




They are accurate cultural depictions that have *nothing to do* with sexuality.  The clothing in question is practical for their job and their environment, and customary for their time.  It makes contextual sense.  It is not gratuitous or sexualized.  





> _Various attacks and criticisms of random fantasy authors I've read redacted out of boredom._




Dude, you asked what I read for fun, not who I'd elect for president.  Good gods.  

If your actual question was, "What fantasy author do you feel best represents a fair and balanced view of men and women" I would say Elizabeth Moon in the Paksennarion series.  But that isn't what you asked.




> And Salvatore never, ever has images of impractical/sexualized garb in portrayal of women:




Authors don't have any say over cover images.  They are chosen by the marketing department.  Funny how marketing departments work.




> Especially in that sexist Game of Thrones...




You're making a whole lot of stuff up that I didn't say and don't believe.  

I made it clear that I *had not seen the series* and knew nothing about the characters, so my comments on the images were necessarily limited to how they were being depicted in that place at that time, nothing more.  Perhaps that disclaimer was not clearly phrased enough for you to understand?




> I mean, we can definitely discuss the issues that your readings are a treatise on first and second-wave feminist SciFi/Fantasy that has no real example of a unique mythic fantasy, or that your examples of Fantasy are either sex-negative/sexless (Lackey/Tolkien), or D&D writ in novel form (Salvatore).  Your historical settings are also pretty well white-washed, but hey... as a historian I don't know how things worked.  Or with my focus in gender history and required gender study.




If I actually gave enough of a damn to find and list all the fantasy authors from the 1,000+ books I own, I'm sure I could come up with some people you personally approve of.  Since I don't, you can take your approval and find something else to do with it which may or may not require a water-soluble product.  




> Though I must warn.  A guy wrote this without supervision... There is even a whole spinoff run in a brothel!  A sex-positive brothel that also discusses the concepts of cultural bias, human sexuality and gender identity, BDSM, and other hot topics with humor and insight.




I wouldn't characterize Spider as a fantasy author, but I know his works very well, and I know the author casually as we used to hit some of the same filk events.  He is a damn good guy, and he said he was touched and honored to find out (because I told him) that there was such a thing at least one real life brothel that literally used Lady Sally's as their operating manual and required employee reading.  The owner of said establishment is an avid sci fi reader, but not really plugged into the con circuit, so I relayed for her.  

Yep, pretty frickin' cool.  At least I thought so.  He did, too.  He politely turned down her offer of a comp, though, because Jeanne was still alive at the time and their agreement didn't happen to include poly.  

This snarky crap about "I must warn, a guy wrote this without supervision" that is directed at me?  Not cool.  Cut it out, along with the rest of the crap you're making up about what I said just so you can attack it.  These are not things I have actually said, nor things I personally believe.  You're dueling shadows by yourself, and it isn't productive.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Nudity and sexualization are very different things.   I don't think that anyone could arguably point to any of those images as strongly emphasizing or even really showing either the primary or secondary sexual characteristics of these men.




Which is odd, as the dress in the various forms does accentuate the secondary sexual characteristics of the male body.  It just so happens that that accentuation is not perceived by you as lauding a characteristic that is offensive.  



> They are accurate cultural depictions that have *nothing to do* with sexuality.  The clothing in question is practical for their job and their environment, and customary for their time.  It makes contextual sense.  It is not gratuitous or sexualized.




Customary for their time, yes.  Environment?  Questionable.  And of course context is necessary... I would wonder what your idea of going sky-clad or depicting werewolves in the nude would be?



> Dude, you asked what I read for fun, not who I'd elect for president.  Good gods.




You presented the writings that form your ideas of fantasy.  I made critiques on those writings that have held up to criticisms... Hell, Norton is infamous for her misandry, but alright.



> If your actual question was, "What fantasy author do you feel best represents a fair and balanced view of men and women" I would say Elizabeth Moon in the Paksennarion series.  But that isn't what you asked.




An excellent series, in which the world is presented through the eyes of a Paladin who, for all intents and purpose, is a sexless warrior of the faith.  So if we reverse the genders of those interacting... The book pretty much reads the same.  Again, if the concepts of sexuality, gender, and ambiguity do not exist it is very easy to gloss over their portrayals... 

While if the realities of a world where men and women live on a constantly evolving and mutable scale of gender, ambiguity, sexuality, and its interpretations the waters get muddy rather quickly, and knees jerk.  Sadly this isn't exactly a new concept, but again it is a great series... Just not at all focused on anything discussed in our discussion.



> Authors don't have any say over cover images.  They are chosen by the marketing department.  Funny how marketing departments work.




As Salvatore is one of the bigger wigs in the FR pantheon and personally looks through his materials, art direction, etc. and has established pretty wide-ranging projects on his Drizzt novels including art direction for the comics, you may want to look into who is choosing what.



> You're making a whole lot of stuff up that I didn't say and don't believe.




I will state the same.



> I made it clear that I *had not seen the series* and knew nothing about the characters, so my comments on the images were necessarily limited to how they were being depicted in that place at that time, nothing more.  Perhaps that disclaimer was not clearly phrased enough for you to understand?




Oh no, I did understand.  But I also figured that, as someone who actually reads up on topics I am not aware, you would extend the same courtesy.  Especially when I presented articles for and against my points.





> If I actually gave enough of a damn to find and list all the fantasy authors from the 1,000+ books I own, I'm sure I could come up with some people you personally approve of.  Since I don't, you can take your approval and find something else to do with it which may or may not require a water-soluble product.




Shrugging off the argument and then making a sexual comment on my post doesn't negate the fact of it.  I am glad you own thousands of books... And I asked for your canon.  What you consider a good representation of your personal preferred writers, and then spoke on what you have presented.



> This snarky crap about "I must warn, a guy wrote this without supervision" that is directed at me?  Not cool.  Cut it out, along with the rest of the crap you're making up about what I said just so you can attack it.  These are not things I have actually said, nor things I personally believe.  You're dueling shadows by yourself, and it isn't productive.




The snark was in reply to what I received from your replies, and for any offense I do apologize.  Also... I would be more than happy to discuss the topic and see what you personally have to say about it.  You have presented your arguments without knowledge of the source, and (while I do apologize, it has been years since I read the Elric saga) I could have been more well-versed on my presentation on one of the myriad of books you placed forward. 

As someone who reads voraciously and studied the topics we are covering as an academic pursuit I find it sort of off-putting to see your comments go so blue.  As I said, I would be happy to discuss this with you in another thread as we have sadly derailed this one. 

But, as someone who was brought into the game by a rabid pack of wonderfully geeky women and men, who was handed Burroughs and Atwood, Norton and Card, Davis and Campbell in my formative years, I find you are trying to argue for a romanticized view of something that has never existed.  

Cultures have always had their warrior women, and kind and cruel witches, clever thieves and queens of noble and questionable virtue.  Painting everything we do in the broad stroke of a blow to the ideals of female portrayal ignores thousands of years where we have known that, to be a woman is a struggle.  However, to proclaim that in fantasy there is no prejudice, no sexism, no racism, nor want is to ignore the principles of societies, cultures, and life as we have been able to perceive it for all of our recorded history.  

And ignoring parts of what makes us human is silly.  As I stated the concept of the chain-mail bikini is foolish... But so is living your life in a walking can.  More realistic armor is something that a lot of people are going for, and I don't mind it.  But then stating that the sexualizing of ALL clothing, even when it is based on the dress of a syncretic culture versus a show that has run three seasons of fan service of blood, gore, and sex.

And when I have a personal sexualized attack posed at me as part of the counterargument?  Even better!  

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> Which is odd, as the dress in the various forms does accentuate the secondary sexual characteristics of the male body.  It just so happens that that accentuation is not perceived by you as lauding a characteristic that is offensive.




The scout is a squat middle aged dude crouched in a tree.  The kilt wearing guy is fully clothed and armed, showing nothing.  The grass skirt dude is probably the closet thing to "sexy" depicted here, since you can see his torso. His pose is not helpless, submissive or even sexually inviting, however.  There is nothing overtly sexual about a shirtless guy who is presenting no sexual cues.  

If you think there is, heaven help you on the beach, cuz you're just not going to be able to control yourself.  





> I would wonder what your idea of going sky-clad or depicting werewolves in the nude would be?




I actually grew up in the Pagan community, so in my lexicon skyclad mostly means "it's summer".  Nude werewolves make perfect sense, but nude and sexualized are utterly different things.  Which I guess is something you learn if you actually do a lot of the skyclad thing.  





> You presented the writings that form your ideas of fantasy.




I did?  The question I answered was 'what fantasy have you _read_', and that's not even one I could come close to answering in a single day.  Not 'what writings form your ideas of fantasy'.  

It is No Fair to make up questions you never asked so that you can later claim that you are rebutting my answers to them.




> An excellent series, in which the world is presented through the eyes of a Paladin who, for all intents and purpose, is a sexless warrior of the faith.




So by your way of thinking, people who are called to spiritual service or who have other reasons to be asexual aren't really women, or men?  

Um, if you really can't see what's wrong with that, your problems are worse than pretending you've asked questions you never actually got round to and then arguing about the answers as if you'd really asked them.




> So if we reverse the genders of those interacting... The book pretty much reads the same.




Ding ding ding.  We have a winnah.  

Did you know that the character of Ripley in the Alien series was originally written as male?  Nothing was actually changed other than the name when they decided to make her female, and IMO _that was one of the great strengths of the movie._  It was a human story in the end, not one that belonged exclusively to any gender.  

Paksennarion's tale is much the same - her story is that of a soldier, a paladin called to Gird's service, albeit slowly and skeptically, who also happens to be a woman.  The fact that her story is not "a woman's story" in a way that includes sex and romance and very many female-specific issues is what makes it stand out, for me.  It's a human story, and that's what's important.  

The take-home message here is that women are human - we are not so different from men than we can't do the same things or have the same feelings and experiences.  And that's a message I value and appreciate.




> As Salvatore is one of the bigger wigs in the FR pantheon and personally looks through his materials, art direction, etc. and has established pretty wide-ranging projects on his Drizzt novels including art direction for the comics, you may want to look into who is choosing what.




I don't know Salvatore but I have heard him speak at conventions.  He did say explicitly at one point that he didn't think the character art on one book was congruent with his character.  I don't recall which character it was, however, and I wasn't the one asking.  

But if you care, just try asking him if you want to know if this is still the case.  Or his publisher, for that matter.  Most fantasy authors are pretty accessible.  




> But, as someone who was brought into the game by a rabid pack of wonderfully geeky women and men, who was handed Burroughs and Atwood, Norton and Card, Davis and Campbell in my formative years, I find you are trying to argue for a romanticized view of something that has never existed.




Stop here.  Just, stop.  The 'argument' that I suspect you believe I am trying to make _does not exist_.  At least, I really don't think I'm making it.




> Cultures have always had their warrior women, and kind and cruel witches, clever thieves and queens of noble and questionable virtue.  Painting everything we do in the broad stroke of a blow to the ideals of female portrayal ignores thousands of years where we have known that, to be a woman is a struggle.  However, to proclaim that in fantasy there is no prejudice, no sexism, no racism, nor want is to ignore the principles of societies, cultures, and life as we have been able to perceive it for all of our recorded history.




This is relevant to my not wanting my RPG characters to always be depicted as foolishly, impractically dressed, gratuitously sexualized for no good reason, or powerless/submissive, how?




> And when I have a personal sexualized attack posed at me as part of the counterargument?  Even better!




Oh please.  Don't flatter yourself.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> The scout is a squat middle aged dude crouched in a tree.  The kilt wearing guy is fully clothed and armed, showing nothing.  The grass skirt dude is probably the closet thing to "sexy" depicted here, since you can see his torso. His pose is not helpless, submissive or even sexually inviting, however.  There is nothing overtly sexual about a shirtless guy who is presenting no sexual cues.
> 
> If you think there is, heaven help you on the beach, cuz you're just not going to be able to control yourself.




Thanks for another attack about my ability to control myself.  I must just be going about doing horrible things...






> I actually grew up in the Pagan community, so in my lexicon skyclad mostly means "it's summer".  Nude werewolves make perfect sense, but nude and sexualized are utterly different things.  Which I guess is something you learn if you actually do a lot of the skyclad thing.




Of course, but if I depicted a woman sky-clad in any works it is going to be construed as sexualized?  Well, where would I get this idea...





> So by your way of thinking, people who are called to spiritual service or who have other reasons to be asexual aren't really women, or men?
> 
> Um, if you really can't see what's wrong with that, your problems are worse than pretending you've asked questions you never actually got round to and then arguing about the answers as if you'd really asked them.




Yeah... and when we have a holy warrior who is quite obviously ignoring a section of the human condition when it doesn't seem to be part of their faith to do so, and there is no discussion... That seems quite strange.  Of course, Aquinas and a few other authors of the early Church could cover this, or we could discuss the Brahmacharis . . . but sadly, the whole no religion thing and the thread is being viewed.
[/quote]
In short, your example is one of a holy warrior who is never tempted, nor drawn upon.  Even Galahad was tempted, but creating an entire work where a beautiful woman who is in her maturity does not have any leanings or crises of faith?  Again, the lady knight seems quite different and above her male counterparts in literature.




> Ding ding ding.  We have a winnah.
> 
> Did you know that the character of Ripley in the Alien series was originally written as male?  Nothing was actually changed other than the name when they decided to make her female, and IMO _that was one of the great strengths of the movie._  It was a human story in the end, not one that belonged exclusively to any gender.
> 
> ...




And Ripley spent all of what, a week on the Nostromo?  She has a daughter, by the by, and quite an interesting back story beyond the books... But as a 2 hour long film does not make the same oomph as years upon years of a Hero's Journey in which they do not seem to face any crisis of faith.

Sex and romance are female-specific virtues?  Yeah... Don't tell that to 
Harry Dresden or Michael Carpenter.
John Taylor.
Tyrion Lannister, Renly Baratheon, or Rhaegar Targaryean. 
Lancelot du Lac or Arthur Penndragon.
Croaker
Odysseus
 Ezekiel Rawlins or Mouse.

I parsed down my list over the last fifteen minutes, but it fits.

These individuals, who had lovers as varied across the spectrum of womanhood are eminently enhanced by their romance, that ranged from a flight of fancy to an all-out every-book thing.  Some had happy endings, some had terrible endings, some involved sex, some were longing from afar.  Each has his own unique view of how things turned out, and how it affected them.  The romance of each was integral to their story and how it played out.

They seem to have a Y chromosome.  Stating that a virtue like romance or sexuality is unique to the woman's point of view is strange to me.  They range the gamut from the white knight to the antihero, a couple of them could be construed as paladins (of which two of them are most definitely within a faith of chastity and celibacy and take their own routes about it).  

Women are humans.  As are men.  And Ripley's story is as sexless as Pak's... Just that these individuals, who have stories that span about as long or longer, are more fitting.

I want a story where a woman can be a woman in a full suit of plate, a scanty robe, or a suit of clothes.  And the ones I cite, for the most part, have the historical forms of each of these.  But in a world where Pak exists there may be a Danny Flint, and vice versa.  And if I see 100 images of sorceresses and one of them is salacious, who am I to judge the art department?  Because I can bet that out of a hundred images of bravos across the same cultures I'll find one handsome, strapping young man who flaunts what the gods gave them.

And THAT IS OKAY.  Making any game confine itself to a single worldview chokes the game.  All Paladins must be chaste is silly when chastity itself is defined before our confusion with complete abstinence as a tempering of one's own carnal nature with faith.  



> Stop here.  Just, stop.  The 'argument' that I suspect you believe I am trying to make _does not exist_.  At least, I really don't think I'm making it.




Addressed above.  The world is never perfect, and shouldn't be.  In most of the worlds we live in as readers or players there seems to be a complete lack of diversity in the human genome beyond a palette swap.  Black and White morality is not the way of the world, and the same can be said for depictions of any form of prejudice in gaming.... And if we play in a Medieval society there will be certain things that are different, as we would see in a far Future society, or a Stone Age society.  

I have yet to claim that I support impractical armor.  But I do not support implausible cultural identities.



> This is relevant to my not wanting my RPG characters to always be depicted as foolishly, impractically dressed, gratuitously sexualized for no good reason, or powerless/submissive, how?




Because your RPG characters don't need to be?  Define your world as you wish.  Personally I'll prefer the world in which I play, and you can prefer the one you play in.  I can find a dozen fully-armored women in a google search...

It took me over an hour to find a woman who had a skin color darker than Tanned.  I scoured the Net for the character, my books, everything else.

Nada.

There are plenty of interpretations.  I look at the PHB 3.x and the first full-scale set of images of men and women to compare?  Just in the class descriptions... All depicted with pretty practical armor.  Ember wears a halter top, you can see her breasts...

But it seems they are actually being held in place.  As an individual who has done work needing to secure parts of yourself while doing martial arts I feel her pain.  She wears the medieval equivalent of a sports bra... Is she sexualized?

Or the Paladin in scale, wearing skin-toned leathers (unless she has spikes growing out of her arm) and stands countrapposto.

Meanwhile Hennit looks like a leather-loving sorcerer with a bare chest covered in tattoos. 

And it is still changing.  In the years since there have been plenty of 'retro-clones' mimicking the old style, but even then the art is much more tame.  This chestnut seems to come up quite a bit, and really doesn't hold up as an 'all the time' or even 'most of the time' proposition.  

When fan service stops on all sides give me a call.  I'll stop my responses per recommendation.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 15, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> My issue with some of the fantasy art in RPGs is that unrealistic for the situation.




This isn't wrong, but it's made more complicated by the fact that there are different ways of looking at the situation, and so it's hard to determine what's "realistic" for it.

Seoni - Pathfinder's iconic sorcerer - is built like a supermodel, and dresses in a skimpy outfit. But as a sorcerer, her Charisma, which governs appearance among other things, is her highest stat, so she's going to be attractive.

Likewise, her clothing may not reflect that she has an _endure elements_ spell cast, or that she's wearing _boots of the winterlands_ (and as for why she shows so much skin in the first place, back in 3.5 she was designed to have magic tattoos, to which she requires quick access).

Now, you could certainly say that these aren't reasons so much as they are rationalizations, but they underscore the broader point that some people have an easy time assigning meaning to a picture where others find none; is the Mona Lisa smiling for reasons that are present in the background? Or for reasons based on the context of when she sat for the portrait? Or for no particular reason at all? 

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it's usually difficult for people to agree on just what those words are.


----------



## Libramarian (Jun 15, 2012)

Major facepalm over Loonook's posts in this thread.

On the plus side I feel that I have experienced an intense empathic insight about the concept of mansplaining.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2012)

Folks,

We recognize that sexism is a touchy subject, with many nooks and crannies where folks will feel irritated, threatened or put-upon.  It is therefore imperative that the people discussing it take extreme care not to add to the potential problems.

To wit: *DO NOT MAKE THIS DISCUSSION PERSONAL.* 

Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster.  Do not go _ad hominem_, or you can expect to be removed from the conversation, no matter what side of the issue you are on.  

In general, in this thread, we expect you to pay scrupulous attention to the rules:  Keep it civil, keep it clean, and keep it on topic.  If you have any questions about what would be considered appropriate, please e-mail or PM the moderator of your choice.  

Thank you.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> So your examples are a leper who 'dreams' a fictional life where he
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As my username might suggest I am a fan of his writing.

As an aside - 

To everyone who has the problems with this protagonist (and I understand why) - try Mordants need - the main character growth is from a woman with so little self image that  so doesn't believe she might actually exist into a strong heroine. 

End aside


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Jun 15, 2012)

Mmh, art. Modern pathfinder art in some books contain very many sexy females. But they are also cool pics. Sadly less sexy males. Also I notice that female pictures poses/clothes/looks/what kinda smiles etc. makes them much more sexy than male pictures. Most artist are males, and many artist like to draw somewhat erotic ladies in their free time and some even get to do it as job. IME very common even when I looked some published artist's non-published personal art. 

I happen to like erotic art. In rpg-books though, I miss pics that contain some interesting events some moving action. They are sadly rare. It's mostly modeling poses and some not so well drawn city/area pics, which fail compared to those seen in second edition AD&D times. 

Art nowdays in most rpg books looks pretty much comic-bookish. It's ok, when well done, but I do miss some of old style.

What last time felt really tasteless and lame was when latest Transformer movie showed that lady in those slow motion modeling poses while things went boom around.

I also hate to see real life imitating model poses in rpg art. I mean in certain sense, there are poses that don't look lame too.

I think problem with art has more to do when it looks cheap/childish/soft-porn. Or when it is simply bad to that person sensibles. I have heard much more comments about ugly pics than about ladies dressed in chain mail bikini. 

Also do you happen to know in Scarred Lands there is in-came reason (or excuse) why all sorcerers (even arctic ones) dress really skimpy. 

Third edition had obsession with belts. It kinda drew attention off from most other things.

Art matters but cover-picture is most important what comes to evoking intrest. For inside pictures is better they are color ones or at least well-drawn b-w. Teasy art kinda gets to dislikers usually when they are already in hobby. And I've noticed said art mostly bothers my male friends. So maybe it's really guys who have need to pretend they don't like it for "feminist" reasons. I know there are people who just don't l want their art that way. But most of those people don't like fantasy stuff anyhow. 

I think beyond cover pic and on-your-face silliness art is not issue why females don't play rpg:s. Cover picture is important because someone is going to see what you buy. No picture but some cool graphics has worked best. If you remember most white wolf:s basic books (the one you buy when you start gaming) covers were pretty thematic but also neutral. 

You can find all kinda fantasy art appealing to many preferanced. I think reason why most pics look very caucasian (sp?) is because most fantasy world are based into fantasy europe. So you mostly see european skin-tones of up to certain past period.  I would kinda want to see less earth myth based fantasy world. More veriation to looks etc, and I wish it would get popular. But alas most people seem to think most people prefer "vanilla" fantasy.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm with Tanith on this one.  I'm a guy, and I see what she sees in fantasy gaming art.  Of course, I'm not always as aware of it, as I often find these images, well, sexy.  But when it's called out, I gotta agree that the art in rpg books, even today in 2012, still has a lot of negative female stereotypes.  Not all of the art, or even necessarily most of it anymore, but there is still plenty left.




Well, we can't argue if TanithT thinks a picture depicts a woman as submissive, weak, and sexualized.

It was my assumption that Joss Whedon had done a pretty good job of giving us hot chicks who kick butt.  Thus, they are sexualized because this is FANTASY, but they are not weak and not submissive.

While I'm sure there's pics on the internet of weak submissive sexualized women, most of the book covers I see today have strong leading female protagonists who just happen to look good in skimpy outfits.

What triggered my reaction is TanithT's nearly consistent chaining of the words sexualized and submissive and weak.  As if every picture she sees gives her that impression.  I caution that if we all viewed the same pictures, would we all come away with that same impression consistently.


----------



## Salamandyr (Jun 15, 2012)

Owing to being married to one, I wind up spending a lot of time around artists.  One fairly consistent observation; across a broad spectrum of illustrators, male or female, is they prefer to draw women.*  Women have more interesting shapes, ie lots of curves.  I contend that might be because male beauty is only truly evident in motion, so something is lost when trying to transfer it to a static medium.  That might also explain why women are often depicted in recumbent poses which accentuate their beauty, while men are depicted in action poses, which accentuate theirs.

*I'm sure this is not universal, but the preference has cropped up in a large enough sample size I feel comfortable making the generalization.

EDIT: one other aside.  These artists (the ones I've met) also seem to have a broader tolerance for what is "acceptable" in terms of sexuality and sexualizing in illustration than we might find, say, here.  That may be a factor of the kind of artists they are (anime, fantasy, and comic books) or something else.  Perhaps it's just a self selected factor.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> I actually grew up in the Pagan community, so in my lexicon skyclad mostly means "it's summer".  Nude werewolves make perfect sense, but nude and sexualized are utterly different things.  Which I guess is something you learn if you actually do a lot of the skyclad thing.




To you, they may be different things.  

Human sexuality sits largely in the human mind.  The human mind is influenced by social mores and culture.  It then follows that what counts as "sexualized" depends upon the sexual mores of the community and culture of the viewer, as well as their personal history and proclivities.  

It then follows that just because you see a difference between Nude and Sexualized, does not mean others would see the difference the same as you would.  Some of your nude may be someone else's sexual, and some of your sexual may well not be titillating for a third person.

I think, in general, that's a major part of the problem here - one person can look at an image, and say, "That's horribly sexualized!" and another can look at the same image and go, "Huh?  What?  It's just a woman with a sword.  What's the big deal?"


----------



## Lwaxy (Jun 15, 2012)

The magic tattoos actually make sense. Just that most scantly clad fantasy women don't have those 

Half naked fighters, no matter if male or female, only make sense in some settings. Like a climate like the Mwangi expanse. Or gladiators, maybe, as they are to put up a show. But I find it as unrealistic to see battle scenes in movies where the males don't wear anything but pants and their weapon. 

Sexism in regards to male images is slightly different than what's directed at women, but not any less annoying. The need to show men as always strong and muscular is actually less pronounced in RPGs, I think partly because classes have different HPs and you can't put up a muscular, strong wizard so often


----------



## Loonook (Jun 15, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> The magic tattoos actually make sense. Just that most scantly clad fantasy women don't have those




That we can see... Amirite?  ::chucks under ribs:: Ehh???

But seriously, magic tattoos, bracelets, amulets, hair-pins, rings, cloaks, boots... The variety of magics that affect AC and other tactical advantages are limitless.  And that's just how it works.



> Half naked fighters, no matter if male or female, only make sense in some settings. Like a climate like the Mwangi expanse. Or gladiators, maybe, as they are to put up a show. But I find it as unrealistic to see battle scenes in movies where the males don't wear anything but pants and their weapon.
> 
> Sexism in regards to male images is slightly different than what's directed at women, but not any less annoying. The need to show men as always strong and muscular is actually less pronounced in RPGs, I think partly because classes have different HPs and you can't put up a muscular, strong wizard so often




There are half-naked fighters in plenty of places... And the idea that strong, muscular spellslinger don't exist?  I'll point back at Ripper Leatherman Hennet on that one .  Sadly I can recall Volo and a lone Exarch of the Great Game who had a ridiculous name as the out-of-shape fat men of D&D.  And I've been playing for coming up to a third decade .

As stated previously, with a high Dex and an item of protection from elements the need for armor is reduced.  There are also glam armors, those cool little retractable torc armors from a Dragon supplement back in the day, and AC boosters about to make you safe.

Also, what monk do you know who is walking about dressed to the nines?  A gentleman Monk with a top hat and a domino mask?

On second thought... Make it so moderator .

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jun 15, 2012)

My Google image search for "Female Warrior" returned about 57,300,000 results in about 0.35 seconds.

Of the first 23 images (page 1):

16 display cleavage
5 have "breast-shaped" breastpieces
1 is almost butt-naked from behind - so you can't see her cleavage
1 is wearing a tabard

Most have exposed midriffs and/or thighs.



On the other hand, if I were a girl, I'd strap down my wobbly parts, put on a suit of full plate and be good to go.

Just sayin'...


----------



## Mallus (Jun 15, 2012)

Jon_Dahl said:


> I think that RPGs are perhaps the best way to reflect one's prejudices. I've often noticed that I associate certain roles with certain genders, ages etc. Even certain NPCs with certain body-types always get specific roles.
> If I have to create a town sheriff, I've noticed that it's almost always a strong man.



Creative outlets have a wonderful way of pointing out the things you think are frequently at odds with what you _claim_ you think.

A friend of mine pointed out there was a significant difference in the portrayal of gender roles in my last two long-running D&D campaigns: in the second, there were few important female NPCs, particularly in positions of power. Things were different in first.

However, the first was conceived as a _parody_ of fantasy conventions (well, among other things). There was predominantly female religion that worshiped a deified geisha in temple-brothels, whose mysteries included the Trampsubstantiation --I'll leave it up you to figure what got converted into what-- and sported artifacts like The Bodice of St. Tarte. Priestesses had names like Tawny Portal -- it was her stage name when she was an exotic dancer. Their spells could make a blind man see and make a dead man... better.

Then there was the immortal socialite who achieved apotheosis at the hands of an elder, evil god. She was a like a bundle of cliched screwball comedy women re-imagined as a Cenobite. A transgendered woman who was one of the world's most powerful magicians --she and socialite-Cenobite once had a catty fight over one of the PCs (even though the trans magician already had a musclebound barbarian boyfriend). 

Yet for all this deliberate mockery/stereotyping, that campaign was less sexist. 

Because in the other one, women just weren't an important part of the story. Hearing his appraisal was an eye-opener. When I wasn't intentionally parodying various kind of sexism in fantasy, I wound up _practicing_ it, by virtue of subconscious exclusion. 



Dire Bare said:


> Wow.  You just reminded me why I try not to read comments on any YouTube page, news page, or really any page at all.



You should --or shouldn't-- read the comments of my local paper, the Inquirer. It's a little like Birth of a Nation, if you removed all the cinematic innovation and replaced it with terrible usage of the English language. 



Lord Mhoram said:


> To everyone who has the problems with this protagonist (and I understand why)...



I never had a problem with Covenant himself. It's not like you're supposed to _like_ him. 



Janx said:


> Well, we can't argue if TanithT thinks a picture depicts a woman as submissive, weak, and sexualized.



Right. When someone gives you their impression of a thing, it's probably best to listen to them without marshaling your arguments as to why their wrong.

Note to self: take this advice! 

Personally, I don't find fantasy art as dominated by images of submissive women. But I accept other people do, and I can certainly see where that impression comes from. It's all a matter of which images you give weight to. 



> It was my assumption that Joss Whedon had done a pretty good job of giving us hot chicks who kick butt.  Thus, they are sexualized because this is FANTASY, but they are not weak and not submissive.



The creative team behind Xena did a good job too, even though it didn't shy away from skin, or skinny, scantily-armored women (hello Callisto!). 

And the recent Spartacus is a whole other can of oiled, writhing worms. It's full of highly sexualized, even exploitative, scenes. But they're not aimed _exclusively_ at heterosexual men (you can tell by the full-frontal male nudity and gay male sex). Such an odd show; inclusive softcore, splatterpunk fight scenes, more than a bit of the old I, Claudius, I Claudius. Frankly, I much prefer this to de-sexualized genre entertainment. 

As for fantasy illustrations specifically, I find myself in the odd position of both agreeing w/a lot of what   [MENTION=87695]TanithT[/MENTION] posted and enjoying Frazetta -- even the most problematic of it, Dejah Thoris clinging poutily to John Carter's leg against a gloriously van-art depiction of Barsoom.

I feel the same way about video-game women, too. I find most of it embarrassing juvenile and offensive, and yet I own Bayonetta and at least one of the Dead or Alive series (not the beach volleyball one!).

In the end I guess I don't have a problem with sexualized imagery. Just witless imagery, especially the kind that portrays such a narrow --and lily-white-- band of human desire.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jun 15, 2012)

For my Kaidan, dark Japanese fantasy setting and supplements, while a general sexism point of view in a primarily male dominated society is maintained on the surface - this rule doesn't apply to player characters. There is one known female samurai in Japanese history, which says to me, that any player wanting to play a female samurai is OK to do so. At the same time the concept of female samurai, especially among NPCs would still be almost non-existent. The same applies to yakuza rogues, monks, temple clerics. While the goal is for authenticity in details, enough exceptions occur in history to allow female players or players playing female characters have full freedom to do so.

While no specific stats, there is an illustration of the famous female samurai, Tomoe Gozen in our *Way of the Samurai* supplement.

All the art for Kaidan products look to realistic garb worn by feudal Japanese from whatever sources - there is no cheesecake art in any way in any of the Kaidan products. Art follows authentic designs found in feudal Japanese society, so no chain-mail bikinis in any shape or form.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> Of course, but if I depicted a woman sky-clad in any works it is going to be construed as sexualized?




Depends on what she's doing and the context.  Naked while fighting a remorhaz under Arctic conditions?  Yeah.  Sexualized on purpose, because the nudity exists for no other reason than, BEWBIES.  It's out of place, and it's kind of dumb and insulting to the viewer as well as the character being depicted.  Doing a Pagan rite with a bunch of other people of mixed gender who are also skyclad?  Probably not, if there are no other sexual cues in the image.





> Yeah... and when we have a holy warrior who is quite obviously ignoring a section of the human condition when it doesn't seem to be part of their faith to do so, and there is no discussion...




You misssed stuff.  When Paks is mourning one of her first friends to fall in battle, she spends some time talking and musing about whether she should have bedded Saben even though she cared for him only as a friend.  She doesn't ignore it, but she does feel that she has a special calling that is keeping her from mortal attachments of that nature.  She does also express regret at never experiencing mortal love and having children, but as a soldier who knows her duty, she accepts the price of Gird's calling.  





> In short, your example is one of a holy warrior who is never tempted, nor drawn upon.  Even Galahad was tempted, but creating an entire work where a beautiful woman who is in her maturity does not have any leanings or crises of faith?  Again, the lady knight seems quite different and above her male counterparts in literature.




Did we read the same book?  The _entire second book_ is about Paksenarrion's crisis of faith.





> Stating that a virtue like romance or sexuality is unique to the woman's point of view is strange to me.




That's not what I said at all.  However, it is difficult to tell a story that revolves around sex and romance and not have it be focused in gendered viewpoints.  Which there isn't anything wrong with, but it's not what I'm personally looking for in an RPG. What I value is human stories, where the essential humanity of a character is what really shines through.




> I want a story where a woman can be a woman in a full suit of plate, a scanty robe, or a suit of clothes.




Thing is, who gets to define what a woman is?  You seem to be saying that a woman isn't actually a woman at all if she isn't sexual.




> I can find a dozen fully-armored women in a google search...




So can I, though I guarantee that lots of chainmail bikinis, cleavage and boob windows will come up as well.  It doesn't change my experience as a female gamer of opening any random book of RPG source material and finding way more silly clothes and poses on the females than the males, by an overwhelming percentage.




> It took me over an hour to find a woman who had a skin color darker than Tanned.




An excellent and telling point.  



> She wears the medieval equivalent of a sports bra... Is she sexualized?




Dunno.  What's she doing?  




> This chestnut seems to come up quite a bit, and really doesn't hold up as an 'all the time' or even 'most of the time' proposition.




Purely by statistics, I think it does.  Not all of the time, but a substantial enough percentage of the time to seriously impact the day to day experience of female gamers.  And heck, of some gay male gamers I know who make hilarous faces and comments about too much gratuitous bewbage in silly places.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I think, in general, that's a major part of the problem here - one person can look at an image, and say, "That's horribly sexualized!" and another can look at the same image and go, "Huh?  What?  It's just a woman with a sword.  What's the big deal?"




And this is a good point.  Where TanithT brings up going skyclad and Paganism setting her viewpoint, even that's not a common viewpoint.  Scott Cunningham, a big name in pagan circles had noted that often those that insisted on going skyclad had more interest in seeing others naked.

Not saying TanithT's experiences were good or bad.  But some of those people likely got a little more from their gathering than others.

In the same way, some of us may be desensitised, insensitive, or just not coming to the same conclusion when we see an attractive woman holding a sword with some cleavage armor.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> Well, we can't argue if TanithT thinks a picture depicts a woman as submissive, weak, and sexualized.




Without actually seeing the pictures I would specifically put in that category?  Yeah, that does make it pretty hard to argue.  Let me make it a little easier for you with two words: Frank Frazetta.  Not all fantasy art looks like that any more, but he was one of the major first contributors to the genre and his iconic influence can still be seen.  

I'll also repeat something else I said in another post.  Chances are pretty good that you and I had different formative experiences in life, because society tends to do that by things like race, class and gender.  Your different experiences and perspective does not make you wrong or bad, but they probably are pretty substantially different.  

Schroedinger's Rapist is not likely to be an important part of your fundamental reality of day to day life, and quite likely your "creep alarm" has never needed to be quite as fine-tuned due to this different set of circumstances.  You may not understand why women are so sensitive and why they 'overreact' to stuff you don't even notice or consider a big deal, because, it's just not for you.  It's not your reality.  You don't see it, so it doesn't exist and doesn't matter.

Having a different perspective and different feelings does not make you wrong or a bad person.  But telling other people that their different perspectives and gut reactions are wrong, bad, invalid, etc, or casually dismissing them?  Yeah, I think that qualifies.




> It was my assumption that Joss Whedon had done a pretty good job of giving us hot chicks who kick butt.  Thus, they are sexualized because this is FANTASY, but they are not weak and not submissive.




Whedon's female characters are generally pretty cool.  No arguments there.




> While I'm sure there's pics on the internet of weak submissive sexualized women, most of the book covers I see today have strong leading female protagonists who just happen to look good in skimpy outfits.




Okay, but have you asked yourself *why* she's in a skimpy outfit?  Is there any reason for this other than BEWBIES?  Cuz when there is, I really have no beef.  




> What triggered my reaction is TanithT's nearly consistent chaining of the words sexualized and submissive and weak.  As if every picture she sees gives her that impression.  I caution that if we all viewed the same pictures, would we all come away with that same impression consistently.




Uh, Frazetta.  And his multiple stylistic imitators.  Yeah, if you took a poll, you'd get pretty overwhelming agreement that the female dress and behavior and body language cues are submissive and powerless while the males are almost uniformly depicted as powerful.  

Short of Frazetta?  That really depends on the individual artist.  I certainly don't get that impression from every picture I see, or even every gratuitously sexualized picture I see.  But saying that it doesn't exist in the source material or the fandom is kind of silly.


----------



## Halivar (Jun 15, 2012)

Why is it taken for granted that using the female form for purely aesthetic purposes is a sexual fetish? It seems (to me) to be a very puritanical, very prudish way of thinking about it. Either that, or we just have really, really dirty minds.

EDIT: To countenance that RPG art (designed for aesthetic purposes) is sexist because it relies on positive reactions to the female form is sexist and wrong requires that I reject, on the same premise, every odalisque ever painted, most classical-style garden statues, much of modern art photography, etc. etc. etc. I can't go along with that.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It then follows that just because you see a difference between Nude and Sexualized, does not mean others would see the difference the same as you would.  Some of your nude may be someone else's sexual, and some of your sexual may well not be titillating for a third person.
> 
> I think, in general, that's a major part of the problem here - one person can look at an image, and say, "That's horribly sexualized!" and another can look at the same image and go, "Huh?  What?  It's just a woman with a sword.  What's the big deal?"




I can not speak for everyone of course, but my personal criteria for believing that an image is gratuitously sexualized pretty much goes like this.

Is it _stupid_ for her to be (un)dressed that way?  Is that boobaliciously crappy excuse for armor guaranteed to be a fast ticket to negative hit points if she actually fights in it?  Is she naked or scantily dressed on the Arctic tundra or under other conditions where normal clothes would make a heck of a lot more sense?  Is she wearing high heels in the dungeon, and they aren't +5 and vorpal?  Heck, even if they are.  

Yeah.  Gratuitous.  And insulting, both to the character being depicted and the intelligence of the viewer.  

More subtly, and much more subjectively, do I think the artist is focusing on a more sexy appearance not because it makes sense, but because it's the automatic default for depicting a female character?  Mostly I'm gonna go with the "is it stupid" criteria, because if it is, that's when I start to suspect that it's also being done by default.  

Please note that I do not think that porn is, or can be, gratuitously sexualized.  It IS sexual, and it does make perfect sense to draw people naked or in whatever sexual costumes float your boat if they are, yaknow, HAVING SEX.  Having sex with your plate mail on would be silly.  And uncomfortable.  So, yeah, nekkid is good in porn.  Nothing wrong with it, either.  

Porn is cool.  It's the pornification by default of female RPG character imagery that has bad social consequences, because that assumption of a default sexy setting in inappropriate places is what tends to spill over onto the gaming table, and onto real people who are not at that table to be sexualized.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Halivar said:


> Why is it taken for granted that using the female form for purely aesthetic purposes is a sexual fetish? It seems (to me) to be a very puritanical, very prudish way of thinking about it. Either that, or we just have really, really dirty minds.




It's not a sexual fetish, although it certainly can be.  And there's nothing wrong with that; I'm very much pro-porn for porn's sake.  Consenting adults should get to enjoy any form of sexual activity or depiction that they like with other consenting adults.  

The key word here is consenting.  There are some fairly unpleasant social consequences for an assumed default setting of "female = always sexual", and that's where the actual problem is.  The problem is not with porn, but with _not being able to tell the difference_ between sexual imagery and female imagery.  

Want to draw a female having sex, being sexy, or just posing nude just because you think her shape is beautiful?  Cool beans.  Enjoy.  Have fun.  It's cool.  I mean that.

Take that same drawing and present it as the default female model in RPG source material?  Not cool.  If what I am looking for is a character image that tells an inspiring story or shows more interesting stuff about a character than OMGBEWBIES, I'm gonna be pissed.  Because while porn and artsy nudes are cool and all, it makes _*epically crappy*_ female character source material.  Because it focuses on the OMGBEWBIES to the exclusion and detriment of the human stories these characters have to tell, it doesn't work for me.    





> To countenance that RPG art (designed for aesthetic purposes) is sexist because it relies on positive reactions to the female form is sexist and wrong requires that I reject, on the same premise, every odalisque ever painted, most classical-style garden statues, much of modern art photography, etc. etc. etc. I can't go along with that.




Nope.  That's absolutely not what I'm saying at all.

TL;DR, porn is cool but it's really not a good automatic default setting for female RPG source material.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Okay, but have you asked yourself *why* she's in a skimpy outfit?  Is there any reason for this other than BEWBIES?  Cuz when there is, I really have no beef.



because it is porn. eye cancy or pre-porn.  She's wearing sexy armor because sex sells and she looks good in it.

Or she's wearing skimpy outfits because she chose it off the rack.  Go to the mall, or just about anywhere.  Many of the outfits worn by the females aren't chosen for their practicality or durability.  So it is quite possible that a female adventurer MIGHT choose cleavage armor over a proper piece of plate.  

And actually, a woman MIGHT tactically choose full plater cups (assuming a proper fit) over a man's plate for comfort, appearance, and psychological impact (a male enemy might spend a little more time oggling your armor, than hitting you).  I would agree that faux armor that's really lingerie is stupid.  But I have no doubt that a woman would prefer sexy AND functional armor over ugly functional armor or sexy armor.



TanithT said:


> Uh, Frazetta.  And his multiple stylistic imitators.  Yeah, if you took a poll, you'd get pretty overwhelming agreement that the female dress and behavior and body language cues are submissive and powerless while the males are almost uniformly depicted as powerful.




When was the last time Frazetta's art was used in a modern RPG? Rhetorical question, I'm sure somebody will have a link to his latest work from last week...

Frazetta and his work is from the era of the weak female in need of rescue.  Complaining about him is like complaining about not having the right to vote.  We all agreed and passed that ammendment already.  There's still men who smack their wives around, but we don't much like them either.

What has WotC done wrong lately?  Have they used any Frazetta or Elmore paintings (who mostly paints his wife with various hairstyles)?

I have no doubt there's plenty of sexualized content, women who look really good in revealing outfits.  But they're no longer sitting at the feet of strong males with abs of steel and beltlines just above their junk.

I can't say if all the sexualization in media is good or bad.  But sexualization today does not always equal weak, submissive women.


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Schroedinger's Rapist is not likely to be an important part of your fundamental reality of day to day life, and quite likely your "creep alarm" has never needed to be quite as fine-tuned due to this different set of circumstances.  You may not understand why women are so sensitive and why they 'overreact' to stuff you don't even notice or consider a big deal, because, it's just not for you.  It's not your reality.  You don't see it, so it doesn't exist and doesn't matter.




That article is good, and informative, but that does not prevent me from thinking that the title (and description of the phenomenon) is an offencive misnomer. Schroedinger's Cat is a feline that cannot be identified as alive or dead. If " Shroedinger's Rapist " were truly following the same linguistic structure, it would basically be saying that every man is a rapist and the question is whether he is going to attack you or not. I know there are some fringe militant radical feminists who think that, but as I can tell that is notthe authors intent, I think the phenomenon would be more properly called " Schroedinger's Stranger " .


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2012)

Halivar said:


> Why is it taken for granted that using the female form for purely aesthetic purposes is a sexual fetish?




Note that "fetish" has several possible meanings and connotations in this context, some of which you probably don't want to invoke.  Would "object" or "focus" serve your purposes better?



> EDIT: To countenance that RPG art (designed for aesthetic purposes) is sexist because it relies on positive reactions to the female form is sexist and wrong requires that I reject, on the same premise, every odalisque ever painted, most classical-style garden statues, much of modern art photography, etc. etc. etc. I can't go along with that.




Well, here's the thing...

Humans are sexual creatures.  So, we will create art with sexual content.  To suggest that we should never create art on a topic so important to human experience I would say is patently absurd.  So, while I think you have to go a long way to argue that odalisques *don't* have a sexual component, I don't think that makes them evil.

But, on the other hand, there's a time and place for everything.  Is a mass-market RPG product the right place and time for sexual art?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> But I have no doubt that a woman would prefer sexy AND functional armor over ugly functional armor or sexy armor.




Sexy armor is a myth.

Armor requires padding underneath.  Once you've got that padding on, the body's natural curves are pretty much eliminated.  Also, according to my lady friends who make a habit of wearing armor during physical activity, a woman does not want parts bouncing around - that's *painful* - so they would typically be bound down, rather than accentuated.  End result, women and men in armor are both "human shaped".

And armor with curves enough to look sexy also has curves enough to help guide weapons in towards the body, rather than deflecting them away.  And that'd just be dumb...


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> But, on the other hand, there's a time and place for everything.  Is a mass-market RPG product the right place and time for sexual art?




Great question, which ties back to my original point that RPGs ain't the only one, and aren't even likely the instigator.

Just about all current fiction for young adults and up has sexualized content.  
It probably even seeps into younger material.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> I'll also repeat something else I said in another post.  Chances are pretty good that you and I had different formative experiences in life, because society tends to do that by things like race, class and gender.  Your different experiences and perspective does not make you wrong or bad, but they probably are pretty substantially different.
> 
> Schroedinger's Rapist is not likely to be an important part of your fundamental reality of day to day life, and quite likely your "creep alarm" has never needed to be quite as fine-tuned due to this different set of circumstances.  You may not understand why women are so sensitive and why they 'overreact' to stuff you don't even notice or consider a big deal, because, it's just not for you.  It's not your reality.  You don't see it, so it doesn't exist and doesn't matter.




And here's where you lose me.  None of us could possibly understand the experience of violence and assaults on our sexuality, or the concept of fearing for our lives around a portion of the populace?

I lived in bad neighborhoods.  I grew up in bad circumstances.  And I was a victim of sexual assault.

As a survivor, I take a pretty big dose of offense to that.  Of course I could not possibly understand the constant anxiety of victimization, check my locks every night, sleep with a weapon in proximity, learn to protect myself, have night terrors, or generally have issues associated with mental, physical, and socio-psychosexual abuse.  

It took a very, very long time, up until the last few years, to come to terms with what I went through in a society that would consider it a non-issue.  But my stigma is not my 'victimhood'... I reclaimed my ability to act.  I spoke out, worked through my issues, help others who have dealt with the same through survivor networks.  Even then the stigmatization is rampant.  Do you know how difficult it is to work as a male crisis counselor?  I did it for three years... And was the constant butt of jokes in a community that allegedly embraces those who have been victimized and believes in growth.   

So, again, and for the last time: Anyone has the right to depict art.  Art is not some horribly disruptive energy, and societies depicted in fantasy hold up a mirror to our own.  And I must say... Having to justify my ability to speak out on an issue due to the fact that I have been through the flame and come out scorched but alive?  Not exactly conducive to discussion.  

And I know there are those on this board, just statistically, that share my story.  It isn't an uncommon thing; rape is a crime of power and corrupts ones feelings on their bodies, their sexuality, and their place in the world.  But bringing up this sort of topic is offensive to me, and other survivors whose suffering is somehow diminished by our gender.

Of course, I couldn't understand it.  I'm just a dude, right?

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Sexy armor is a myth.
> 
> Armor requires padding underneath.  Once you've got that padding on, the body's natural curves are pretty much eliminated.  Also, according to my lady friends who make a habit of wearing armor during physical activity, a woman does not want parts bouncing around - that's *painful* - so they would typically be bound down, rather than accentuated.  End result, women and men in armor are both "human shaped".
> 
> And armor with curves enough to look sexy also has curves enough to help guide weapons in towards the body, rather than deflecting them away.  And that'd just be dumb...




You're probably right.  But given that artists jumped right to lingerie armor and skipped Sexy But Covering Armor, I don't think artists or real people even gave the matter that much practical thought.

Let's imagine a world with modular art technology.  We can take any picture and flip the woman's armor from lingerie, to shapely but coveringly effective, to Plain and Practical.

barring the frazetta art where the woman doesn't need armor because she has a muscle bound man standing over her who is also likely to be unarmored.

Which modes of these fantasy art pieces are going to be most interesting, and appealing to viewers, both male and female.

I suspect that if every fantasy art had women in their proper Plain and Practicals, even women would find it androgenizingly dull and uninspiring.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Let me make it a little easier for you with two words: Frank Frazetta.  Not all fantasy art looks like that any more, but he was one of the major first contributors to the genre and his iconic influence can still be seen.



Two things: not all of Frazetta's depictions of women are the same. He painted (nearly?? )as many warrior women bravely, albeit mostly-nakedly, squaring off against threatening monsters, as he did slave girls and subs. 

The other thing is he's a good artist, even when his subjects are the most problematic (see: clingy Dejah Thoris). I think you nail it when you mentioned Frazetta's many imitators. The problem isn't a single artist and their skin-heavy vision, it's when that becomes prevalent/dominant, and crowds out other, potentially less- or differently-sexualized art. 



> Okay, but have you asked yourself *why* she's in a skimpy outfit?



Sometimes, the answer is just "boobies". 



TanithT said:


> Is it _stupid_ for her to be (un)dressed that way?



Issues of over-sexualized fantasy art aside, some people don't find the realism-based argument persuasive. They _like_ absurd images. I dressed a D&D character in a loincloth, leather jacket, and tricorne hat, which was entirely approapriate for a barbarian pirate. I did this because imagining it brought me pleasure. 



> Is she wearing high heels in the dungeon, and they aren't +5 and vorpal?  Heck, even if they are.



Combat heels do annoy me a wee bit. Until Bayonetta, that is, which made them wonderful by equipping them with machine guns. 



> Yeah.  Gratuitous.  And insulting, both to the character being depicted and the intelligence of the viewer.



But some people aren't insulted by ridiculous images, even overtly sexual ones. I understand your dislike for them, but it's not fair to characterize people who aren't bothered by them as unintelligent. 



> More subtly, and much more subjectively, do I think the artist is focusing on a more sexy appearance not because it makes sense, but because it's the automatic default for depicting a female character?



Makes sense to _who_? And what kind of sense?

I agree there trouble with certain depictions becoming the 'default mapping'. And by 'trouble' I mean cliche. If there's going to be sexualized images in commercial art -- and there will be-- I'd like to see, well, more kinds of sexuality depicted.

Say like in Spartacus on Starz. Note: I am not an employee of Starz. 



> Porn is cool.  It's the pornification by default of female RPG character imagery that has bad social consequences, because that assumption of a default sexy setting in inappropriate places is what tends to spill over onto the gaming table, and onto real people who are not at that table to be sexualized.



This is interesting. It suggests a lot of compartmentalization is going on: sex depicted in outright pornography is okay; viewers will keep that segregated in a relatively airtight mental container labeled 'porn'. But sexual imagery in game books will 'spill over' onto the gaming table/into real life interactions.

Why are certain commercial sexual images (most interestingly, the ones found outside of the sex industry) more damaging than others? I'm not criticizing, I'm just curious.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> because it is porn. eye cancy or pre-porn.  She's wearing sexy armor because sex sells and she looks good in it.




Well, pretty much my response is what Umbran said.



> there's a time and place for everything.  Is a mass-market RPG product the right place and time for sexual art?




Yep.  This.  Porn is cool.  Porn in my RPG source material is not so much, because it doesn't well serve the purpose it's supposed to be designed for.  Eg, to actually be RPG source material.  Because OMGBEWBIES may be sexy and stuff, but it doesn't help to tell a good nonsexual story.    





> And actually, a woman MIGHT tactically choose full plater cups (assuming a proper fit) over a man's plate for comfort, appearance, and psychological impact (a male enemy might spend a little more time oggling your armor, than hitting you).  I would agree that faux armor that's really lingerie is stupid.  But I have no doubt that a woman would prefer sexy AND functional armor over ugly functional armor or sexy armor.




Okay.  Speaking as a former female SCA fighter, really big boobie cups are bloody dangerous in a fight because of the physics of how a weapon is likely to intersect with them.  Face helm bounceback is going to be the least of your problems.  The best design for a well endowed female fighter is generally a "uniboob" slant that is both comfortable and less likely to be a blade trap where you really don't want a blade trap.  It's not super sexy, but it's a whole lot less likely to get you hurt.

In the SCA group I grew up in (Caid), the safety marshals would not pass most of the "female armor" with visible cleavage, for damn good reasons.  Like, safety and liability.   The crap you see in most of the pictures?  Will get you hurt.  Ornamental is nice, armor that works is nicer.  





> What has WotC done wrong lately?




If you seriously care, pick a random modern RPG sourcebook with PC, NPC and monster races of both sexes, and take a really hard look at all the pictures, writing down how many of each could be categorized as putting more of an emphasis on looking sexy than on making sense for the situation, or telling a good character story.  





> I can't say if all the sexualization in media is good or bad.  But sexualization today does not always equal weak, submissive women.




Softporn as the automatic default setting for female imagery has social consequences, and that's a totally separate issue from the sexual imagery itself.  It's not that sex is bad, it's that there are other human stories to be told, and sometimes those stories have female characters.  

We do see a lot less Frazetta these days, and not as much overtly submissive female imagery.  But if you compare and contrast a woman standing in a bikini with a soft smile on her face to a muscular man in armor holding a weapon and looking serious, which image is that of a powerful character?  What words and personality traits would you associate with the people each of these images?

The bikini clad woman may not be on her knees, or in bondage, but I think it's pretty clear who has the power in that depiction.  It's not her.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Jun 15, 2012)

I agree with TanithT about porn.

And problem with that is, that most of porn isn't really good/cool/truly sexy/and has ugly people IMO. And thus makes really not such good ground for art for rpg:s. Erotic art in the other hand works as better inspiration. Some artists can handle porn-art but they get better money elsewhere whan drawning pictures for rpg. 

I give you example of fail. Book of Erotic fantasy. It fails in many ways, have couple of nice spells, stupid items (since they imitate real life and forget about magic).  But worst part when you flip the book is art. It's based on real photos manipulated little bit. I hoped that troupe would be gone. I hated it since Immortal rpg.  Damn they were ugly. IMO of course but I've seen better erotic pics in rpg books that didn't try so hard. Funny thing.

And google certainly finds fantasy ladies, that sport much flesh. And that is probably since many people not generally interested in fantasy are interested in that fantasy.

However I think it's bit hypocritical to say fantasy art is so demeaning and sexualized. Have you seen covers of romance novels for woman. You know ones with hot man and women intimately close. Woman wearing some skimpy dress/nightgown and man chest naked. And stories are about "I have to have my man". My sister reads lot of those books, and she is most annoyed about flowery telling of sex-scenes "and they soared like eagles..." crap like that.

Oh well, can't please us all. Between that, and hell and lego friends.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> Of course, I couldn't understand it.  I'm just a dude, right?
> 
> Slainte,
> 
> -Loonook.




I'd XP'd you but I liked something else you said earlier.  There's also no Respect button, or I'd click that on your post instead.

I have no experience with what Loonook posted about.  But I'm informed enough to know Rape is a pretty serious topic and quite traumatic.  I think this forum has a "please don't talk about Rape or use it as an example" clause.  I think we hit that point.

[note, I'm using the generic you, not as a specific person in this next wall of text]

I think some people have experienced terrible things that do make them more sensitive to things.  While everybody tries to have an "all viewpoints are good" attitude, I think some are more valid than others.  

If you been through something rough, I think it's totally valid to be sensitive to certain things.  After all, you've seen that which most people haven't.

Conversely, if you haven't been through any thing rough, and you think every piece of fantasy art is offensive, maybe you're a little too sensitive. (I am exagerating, I don't think anyone in this thread actually holds an extreme opinion on art).

There's no way to change someone's sensitivity dials, but I do think that when you run up against surprise from others at your reaction to something, that a self-reflection is needed on are you reading more into things than were intended by the speaker/writer/artist.

Consider it this way.  Artists make art.  Usually in their studio.  Then they sell it to people who want to publish it, in the gaming books for instance.  The art director isn't likely calling up Frazetta saying "I need 3 different paintings with a warrior, rogue, and a wizard.  Oh, be sure to include a helpless female in each, our target market loves that stuff!"

The art director is instead perusing samples and picking ones he thinks look good and fit the theme of the book.  He may not be thinking too much about how the female is portrayed negatively, and in fact, may not even consider it negative or positive.  There's a hero, who happens to be male, rescuing somebody.  The rescuee is attractive, which makes us think of what might happen next between the pair.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> I suspect that if every fantasy art had women in their proper Plain and Practicals, even women would find it androgenizingly dull and uninspiring.




Yes, well, I already said that completely eliminating sexual content entirely is absurd.  Flat and complete prohibition is a non-starter.  That removes the "every" argument.

The questions are instead more about how much is too much, and when and where is it appropriate?  



			
				TanithT said:
			
		

> But if you compare and contrast a woman standing in a bikini with a soft smile on her face to a muscular man in armor holding a weapon and looking serious, which image is that of a powerful character?




Well, here's a question, then...

Are you familiar with the Esther Friesner, "Chicks in Chainmail" books?  If so, what do you think of the cover art, given the content of the books?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> And here's where you lose me.  None of us could possibly understand the experience of violence and assaults on our sexuality, or the concept of fearing for our lives around a portion of the populace?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Of course, I couldn't understand it.  I'm just a dude, right?




The chip you have put on your shoulder throughout this thread is preventing you from reading what she's saying. She qualifies the statement you quote by saying:



> Schroedinger's Rapist is *not likely* to be an important part of your fundamental reality of day to day life, and *quite likely* your "creep alarm" has never needed to be quite as fine-tuned due to this different set of circumstances. You *may not* understand why women are so sensitive and why they 'overreact' to stuff you don't even notice or consider a big deal, because, it's just not for you. It's not your reality. You don't see it, so it doesn't exist and doesn't matter.[emphasis mine]




And she's correct.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> And here's where you lose me.  None of us could possibly understand the experience of violence and assaults on our sexuality, or the concept of fearing for our lives around a portion of the populace?




No.  Once again, you're not responding to what I actually said.

The fact that our formative experiences and thus our reactions and feelings are likely to be different does not make either of us wrong, or bad.  Bad is when we choose to invalidate or dismiss someone else's experiences because we don't happen to share them.

Most American men do not grow up having to carefully weigh the consequences of talking to any male stranger and worry about each and every one.  But that can be as much a function of geography and race and class as it is of gender.  Or a function of accident; bad things can happen to anyone, and there are no absolutes that will protect you.  Most never means all.

I'm not invalidating or dismissing your experiences.  I'm saying that mine may possibly be different from yours, and here's what it actually feels like to be me.  You certainly have the right to do the same thing, but not to invalidate mine because yours are different.  That's all I'm saying.  Please don't read any more between the lines, because it's just not there.  




> Anyone has the right to depict art.




And anyone has the right to say that they don't particularly want porn as the default setting for their RPG source material, not when it's a detriment to how the source material is actually supposed to function and the mostly nonsexual storylines you want to support.  

I mean, there's always the Book of Erotic Fantasy if you WANT to run an adult campaign.  Which sounds pretty cool to me.  But if you don't happen to be playing a sexually oriented campaign because you're focusing on a really neat political intrigue storyline, sexing up the female characters by default is not a net asset in your source material.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> If you seriously care, pick a random modern RPG sourcebook with PC, NPC and monster races of both sexes, and take a really hard look at all the pictures, writing down how many of each could be categorized as putting more of an emphasis on looking sexy than on making sense for the situation, or telling a good character story.





Isn't this a variant of the StormWind Fallacy.  That a sexy PC can't also have a good story and personality?

I think better phrasing of your intent might be:
emphasis on looking sexy versus being functional and practical

I'm easily sold on the actuality that good armor for women is probably ugly, plain, and androgenous.

That doesn't make for fun art to make or look at.


----------



## Halivar (Jun 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Note that "fetish" has several possible meanings and connotations in this context, some of which you probably don't want to invoke.  Would "object" or "focus" serve your purposes better?



I totally did not even think about that when I wrote my post. 



Umbran said:


> Humans are sexual creatures.  So, we will create art with sexual content.  To suggest that we should never create art on a topic so important to human experience I would say is patently absurd.  So, while I think you have to go a long way to argue that odalisques *don't* have a sexual component, I don't think that makes them evil.



Ok, I'll concede on that point.



Umbran said:


> But, on the other hand, there's a time and place for everything.  Is a mass-market RPG product the right place and time for sexual art?



That's a good question. I guess the answer must be subjective. I detest the presence of blatantly pornographic images (BoEF is one item I particularly loath), but I cannot tell you where the line is between that and "sexual" art that is acceptable for mainstream enjoyment.

It's just my gut opinion that WotC, at least, has not put out anything I would object to having around my children (if I had any).


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Okay.  Speaking as a former female SCA fighter, really big boobie cups are bloody dangerous in a fight because of the physics of how a weapon is likely to intersect with them.  Face helm bounceback is going to be the least of your problems.  The best design for a well endowed female fighter is generally a "uniboob" slant that is both comfortable and less likely to be a blade trap where you really don't want a blade trap.  It's not super sexy, but it's a whole lot less likely to get you hurt.
> 
> In the SCA group I grew up in (Caid), the safety marshals would not pass most of the "female armor" with visible cleavage, for damn good reasons.  Like, safety and liability.   The crap you see in most of the pictures?  Will get you hurt.  Ornamental is nice, armor that works is nicer.




I'm curious, where does magic armor fit in regards to this particular dynamic?

Presuming that the artwork in D&D books is meant to portray an accurate representation of the game rules, rather than how things work in real life, then (even leaving aside the issue of armor's stats not be compromised by its stylistic shape), could it not be said that adding "plusses" to the armor - with the attendant increase in the armor hardness and hit points (in 3.X terms) - fixes those problems, making it as protective or even more protective than "realistic" armor would be?

In other words, is there no room for understanding/assuming/guessing that there's magic involved, and that that changes things?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2012)

Alzrius said:


> In other words, is there no room for understanding/assuming/guessing that there's magic involved, and that that changes things?




I think there's very little room for that.  

If the art makes clear that the magic is present - like with the magical tattoos - I think we are good.  But, invoking _invisible_ magic that may or may not be present to justify skin will sound like weak rationalization, and rightfully so.

It would be like saying, "Yeah, that scantily clad woman is wrapped around Conan's leg there, but that's just to lull the dragon into a false sense of security.  Actually, she has a massive sword of her own off frame, and in two seconds she's gonna go get it and cleave it's head off!"

No, that isn't gonna work at all...


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> I'm easily sold on the actuality that good armor for women is probably ugly, plain, and androgenous.
> 
> That doesn't make for fun art to make or look at.




Are the images of men in armor not fun to make or look at?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I think there's very little room for that.
> 
> If the art makes clear that the magic is present - like with the magical tattoos - I think we are good.  But, invoking invisible magic that may or may not be present to justify skin will sound like weak rationalization, and rightfully so.
> 
> ...




Then how does one portray magic (items) with passive, rather than active, magical effects?

How do you visually illustrate "plusses" on magic armor, or things like the _fortification_ magic quality? How do you show that someone's wearing _bracers of armor_, a _ring of protection_ and an _amulet of natural armor_ instead of just mundane bracers, a ring, and an amulet? Particularly in illustrations specific to games like D&D, where a great deal of magic items (e.g. the Christmas Tree effect) is not only assumed, but implied by the game itself?

Seoni's tattoos are glowing and clearly magical in one picture; but there are plenty of others where they're just there, with nothing magical-looking about them. I agree it certainly seems weak to project things that aren't visually represented into a still image, but isn't there a flipside to that argument?


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Mallus said:


> But some people aren't insulted by ridiculous images, even overtly sexual ones. I understand your dislike for them, but it's not fair to characterize people who aren't bothered by them as unintelligent.




Okay, point taken.  If you are amused by silly stuff in your fantasy world, impractical clothes, cartoon physics or the cartoon physics of bewbies (yeah, they mostly don't work that way in the real world), you have every right to be.

The issue is where Gamer A's rights end and Gamer B's rights begin.  Should you be able to use porn or silly stuff in your RPG source material if you want to?  Absolutely.  Should other people have the same right not to use it, and to have realistic source material for female characters that are not made of porn?  Also yes.

Thing is, I'm aware that what goes into RPG sourcebooks, comics and video games will always be market driven rather than 'fairness' driven, so I really expect no changes any time soon.  In my lifetime I do not expect to ever be able to open an RPG sourcebook without facepalming multiple times over a lot of female imagery that is a) nonsensically sexualized and b) does not serve my needs in depicting female characters who actually spend most of their time doing normal adventurer stuff.  




> Makes sense to _who_? And what kind of sense?




I think I've covered this repeatedly, but basically if it is stupid, dangerous, suicidal, harmful or just completely illogical/out of context for her to be nude or wearing skimpy clothes, then the sexualization is gratuitous and it detracts rather than adds to building the character.  




> I agree there trouble with certain depictions becoming the 'default mapping'. And by 'trouble' I mean cliche. If there's going to be sexualized images in commercial art -- and there will be-- I'd like to see, well, more kinds of sexuality depicted.




Yay.  




> This is interesting. It suggests a lot of compartmentalization is going on: sex depicted in outright pornography is okay; viewers will keep that segregated in a relatively airtight mental container labeled 'porn'. But sexual imagery in game books will 'spill over' onto the gaming table/into real life interactions.




I am generally sex positive and porn positive.  Nudity and sexuality *makes sense* in the context of porn.  It belongs there.  If you don't want any, don't look at porn.

However, porn generally makes pretty poor RPG source material, because OMGBEWBIES does nothing for character building.   Actually it can be a pretty big detractor from character building, because you've resorted to stereotyped shorthand rather than supporting a well drawn character who happens to be female.  

I don't keep porn in an airtight mental container, I just don't think it has a whole lot of utility in a nonsexual RPG campaign.  

There is also the social issue of what happens when gamers are subtly or not so subtly socialized to ignore everything *but* sexiness in a female while treating male characters (and other male gamers) as normal people.  It doesn't happen everywhere or to everyone, but I've run into it enough times to have a permanent metaphorical dent in my skull from all the facepalming.  




> Why are certain commercial sexual images (most interestingly, the ones found outside of the sex industry) more damaging than others? I'm not criticizing, I'm just curious.




I don't know; I'd have to consider the specific images and the contexts they are presented in.  I don't think that porn is damaging, but I do think that pornification is.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> And anyone has the right to say that they don't particularly want porn as the default setting for their RPG source material, not when it's a detriment to how the source material is actually supposed to function and the mostly nonsexual storylines you want to support.
> 
> I mean, there's always the Book of Erotic Fantasy if you WANT to run an adult campaign.  Which sounds pretty cool to me.  But if you don't happen to be playing a sexually oriented campaign because you're focusing on a really neat political intrigue storyline, sexing up the female characters by default is not a net asset in your source material.




There is a great David Cross bit that, if we were free to link, would make my argument here... It discusses the covering of Lady Justice. But I'll try to go with it.  Also, I am just going to ignore the condescension of how my personal experience means nothing.

None of the images we personally have discussed are porn.  Not a one.  Now, again, you're bringing up a dead artist who hasn't had anything produced since 2006 (per Wikipedia, the dates seem to take into account major/commissioned works) and whose last work I can recall showing up in relation to D&D back in AD&D.

'Porn' is not my setting.  I don't do erotica... Mature consenting adults have relationships with members of the opposite sex, same sex, different creature types.  People kiss and special cuddle ! Some people even have babies!  

Yes... I have storks heavily featured in my games.  Half-outsiders and draconics get to the house by their own wingpower. 

The Book of Erotic Fantasy, if we ignore the schlock, has an excellent section discussing procreation, dimorphism, and some interesting twists and turns.  While I have never have characters come out and rebuild the Rod of Seven Parts onscreen I consider that, in times of conflict, there is a pretty high proclivity for the level of busy-getting to rise.

I'm depicting life.  A small facet thereof in a world of my creation, but it is there.  There are people who will walk around in clothing that may offend, or nothing at all.  Fire-callers, shapeshifters, those who have protection from their native elements, monsters?  

Well, I am sorry to say that they may not have clothes.  But hey, Donald Duck didn't wear pants... I'm not sitting around and comparing him to Mr. Holmes.  To paraphrase War, I have short ones, tall ones, thin ones, green ones, fat ones, big ones, scaly ones... And they all happen to need to reproduce.  In fact, they live with a biological imperative to do so.

So yes, sexuality/sensuality is part of my game, and each culture has a different view.  A Zajan would probably agree with your ideas on skimpy clothing, but an Isledoro would look, laugh, and continue to walk about in whatever they are pleased enough to wear. 

Again, I agree with the concept of play what you like, but if I have an issue with a rule or a monster, a feat or a spell?  I turn it off.  If I don't want katana or meteor hammers or multi-tool polearms?  Gone.  

I'm just not seeing how my personal enjoyment or lack thereof should affect the overall gaming populace.  And by extension... Who is making you follow any of the ideas set out in this art-that-is-associated-with-pornography?  You have the privilege, right, and duty to change it as you see fit.  But again... You can find a lot of women in sensible armor and robes. . . 

Follow your own example, but let us make this interesting.  Try going through all of the Core Rule Books, and splats.  Label all of the offensive art.

Now, count up how many minorities you see.  How about positive depictions of non-heteronormative characters?  I don't mean sexless or off-screen, but an honest-to-Mystra count of those characters in comparison to the 'porn' in the source.

Magic can explain the armor.  What explains the racism and homophobia?

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 15, 2012)

This lady (video) gamer received the same kind of hate as the earlier one. Her reply is here.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Are the images of men in armor not fun to make or look at?




Beats me.  I know what I'd rather look at, and I suspect that'd influence what I'd prefer to draw if I was an artist.


I also concur with your point about scanty armor being explained as sexy armor.

If Scanty Armor has a magic bonus +2, let's say that's equivalent to Padded armor (+2 AC) with the magic (+2AC), getting  us a +4 total to AC.

Most players would game the stats and go get better armor with the same magic on it.  So instead, they'd run around with Plate armor and the magic bonus to get an even better AC.

I'm pretty sure a practical GM would rule that Bikiini Plate is really just partial armor like Dark Sun used to have, and that would dial it back down to a lower AC bonus.

The short of it is, in D&D, no PC is actually running around in Bikini Plate because the rules would make that suck versus Full Plate.

Bikini Plate is a fashion statement or a salvaged armor that happens look good statement.  It's not on the rack at ArmMart.


----------



## Halivar (Jun 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Are the images of men in armor not fun to make or look at?



I'd say yes. Historical plate armor is bulky and downright goofy-looking. No one draws it realistically, that I have seen.

Men in armor in fantasy art are depicted in slim, body-hugging armor no less designed to accentuate gender body types than female armor depictions.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> I also concur with your point about scanty armor being explained as sexy armor.
> 
> If Scanty Armor has a magic bonus +2, let's say that's equivalent to Padded armor (+2 AC) with the magic (+2AC), getting  us a +4 total to AC.
> 
> ...




It's more complicated than this, though. There are issues of availability, of cost, of armor proficiency, of max Dex bonuses and armor check penalties, of % casting failure, of donning and removal times, of different armors not having the same bonuses, and more.

I've seen players choose a lighter armor over a heavier armor for all sorts of reasons.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> The issue is where Gamer A's rights end and Gamer B's rights begin.  Should you be able to use porn or silly stuff in your RPG source material if you want to?  Absolutely.  Should other people have the same right not to use it, and to have realistic source material for female characters that are not made of porn?  Also yes.




I don't know about Rights.  For one thing, neither Gamer A or Gamer B is in direct control of what WotC puts in the Player's Handbook.

Most GMs aren't putting together custom players materials with art for any player to get offended at.

So if we're a D&D 4e group, and you really want to play, any offensiveness of the gaming materials is on WotC's part, not the GM's.

And if we're talking a mainstreamier game like 4e, rather than some obscurer game that the GM chose possibly for its risque art, then it's not likely an intentional act by the GM to set any sexism tone.  The GM is just trying to run a D&D game.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Alzrius said:


> It's more complicated than this, though. There are issues of availability, of cost, of armor proficiency, of max Dex bonuses and armor check penalties, of % casting failure, of donning and removal times, of different armors not having the same bonuses, and more.
> 
> I've seen players choose a lighter armor over a heavier armor for all sorts of reasons.




If you were making a female PC (and maybe a woman), would you choose:
Magic Bikini Armor = Padded Armor +2 (+4AC)
Elven Chain armor + (=5AC give or take, too lazy to look it up)
Bikini Plate Armor = partial plate (+2AC)
Studded Leather = (+3 AC)

With no magical bonuses, you're almost always likely to choose a full suit over a partial suit (sexy armor).  If magic bonuses are involved, you'll still probably take the full suit in the wieght class you want with the magic bonus.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Yes, well, I already said that completely eliminating sexual content entirely is absurd.  Flat and complete prohibition is a non-starter.  That removes the "every" argument.
> 
> The questions are instead more about how much is too much, and when and where is it appropriate?




If you like it, then it is appropriate for you and in your RPG source material.  If I don't like it, then it is not appropriate for me and in my RPG source material.  If you are underage, it is probably not appropriate for you and in your RPG source material.

Which would make it an utter non issue if there was such a thing as a wide choice of RPG source material that did not sexualize a lot of its female imagery.  In my experience, it just ain't out there, because the market supports OMGBEWBIES strongly enough to make anything else a non starter.  

It is what it is.  Do I object if other gamers, even ones at my table, want to use those books?  Not really.  I'd be happier if I had ones I personally liked better, because boobies do nothing for me, but that doesn't mean I begrudge other people having what they like.

I do object if they are socially clueless enough to apply what they may see in those books and images - the idea that if it's female, it gets sexualized rather than humanized - to my characters, or worse, to me.  That's a social skills issue rather than a "porn is bad" issue, but it is definitely influenced by the meme that pornification is the normal default setting for females.




> Are you familiar with the Esther Friesner, "Chicks in Chainmail" books?  If so, what do you think of the cover art, given the content of the books?




Yes.  I feel about these books about the same way as I feel about African-Americans using the "n" word.  I think it's an attempt to reclaim and empower a label that was previously derogatory or hurtful.  A woman who proudly chooses to be a gamer chick or a chick in chainmail has the right to do that, just as an African-American can say the "n" word without being hurtful.

If you point those words at someone when they don't belong to you, they have a whole other meaning and they carry the weight of a different history.  Be careful of them.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> If you were making a female PC (and maybe a woman), would you choose:
> Magic Bikini Armor = Padded Armor +2 (+4AC)
> Elven Chain armor + (=5AC give or take, too lazy to look it up)
> Bikini Plate Armor = partial plate (+2AC)
> ...




The issue I have here is that I don't agree with the premise you've set up. Even presuming that we go with the default assumption that those are the only items available to raise AC (which seems unlikely), you aren't taking into account all of the issues I raised in my previous post.

If one lowers her Dex so that her total Dex bonus plus AC bonus is less than what she'd get with a lighter armor that doesn't cap her Dexterity as much, she'd do with the latter armor. If she's a spellcaster, and one cuts down on her ability to cast spells (% failure chance) more than another (especially if she can cast defensive spells), she'll choose the lighter armor, etc. 

The scenario you've crafted is right only within the context of itself, and doesn't match a lot of what I see at the game table.

EDIT: This is also drifting away with the original point I was raising about magic armor. Quite simply, if you tweak the premise so that the four choices are...

Magic Bikini Armor = Padded Armor +4 (+6AC)
Elven Chain armor + (=5AC give or take, too lazy to look it up)
Bikini Plate Armor = partial plate (+2AC)
Studded Leather = (+3 AC)

...then it proves your original point (about always going for the highest bonus) and mine (that such armor is the smarter choice, but this isn't conveyed in a still image) both.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Loonook said:


> The Book of Erotic Fantasy, if we ignore the schlock, has an excellent section discussing procreation, dimorphism, and some interesting twists and turns.  While I have never have characters come out and rebuild the Rod of Seven Parts onscreen I consider that, in times of conflict, there is a pretty high proclivity for the level of busy-getting to rise.
> 
> I'm depicting life.  A small facet thereof in a world of my creation, but it is there.  There are people who will walk around in clothing that may offend, or nothing at all.




Good.  Great.  Like I said, adult campaigns are really cool, and the BOEF is pretty good source material if you're running that.

Which is awesome, but if you happen to be running a campaign that focuses on political intrigue, war, strategic alliances and betrayal, the sex stuff is useless.  Actually, worse than useless.  It gets in the way.  It doesn't support your story or help flesh out your characters.  




> I'm just not seeing how my personal enjoyment or lack thereof should affect the overall gaming populace.




It doesn't.  





> Now, count up how many minorities you see.  How about positive depictions of non-heteronormative characters?  I don't mean sexless or off-screen, but an honest-to-Mystra count of those characters in comparison to the 'porn' in the source.
> 
> Magic can explain the armor.  What explains the racism and homophobia?




Pretty much the same cultural impetus and collective impact of marketing dollars that drive the sexism.   Lame, ain't it?


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Alzrius said:


> The issue I have here is that I don't agree with the premise you've set up. Even presuming that we go with the default assumption that those are the only items available to raise AC (which seems unlikely), you aren't taking into account all of the issues I raised in my previous post.
> 
> If one lowers her Dex so that her total Dex bonus plus AC bonus is less than what she'd get with a lighter armor that doesn't cap her Dexterity as much, she'd do with the latter armor. If she's a spellcaster, and one cuts down on her ability to cast spells (% failure chance) more than another (especially if she can cast defensive spells), she'll choose the lighter armor, etc.
> 
> ...




A player is going to choose the armor that best fits his/jher AC goal and DEX limitiations.  I ignored MaxDex in my example because I forgot about it and I seldom play PCs with a low DEX.

My point is, there's no rules for Sexy Armor in D&D.  Near as I can guess it'd be a form of partial or "new" armor.  To make a PC wearing bikini armor to match a painting, you'd have to use such a rule.  

To then claim there's also magic involved to help protect the uncovered bits in the art is to translate that as a magic AC bonus to whatever armor she's wearing.

Since magic AC bonuses are a pretty standard mechanic in D&D, assuming it's in the player's power/choice, they'll take the best AC they can get.  Why settle for Bikini Leather Armor +2 when you can wear Leather Armor +2 which has a higher AC and fits your game objective.

I feel you're quibbling over a point on whether somebody would wear light or heavy armor in general.  A PC will wear an armor type that makes sense for their stats and class.  Within that, they will tend to maximize the AC bonus they can get.

I suspect a player won't choose bikini armor over "real" armor in the same effect zone.  They may, however, declare that the armor looks sexy (which has not practical purpose and in real life may actually be a hazard).


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> Bikini Plate is a fashion statement or a salvaged armor that happens look good statement.  It's not on the rack at ArmMart.




Also known as an invitation to a sucking chest wound, a fatal gut wound, multiple limb amputation, a fast ticket to negative hit points, etc.

If you say it's magic, reality can fly cheerfully out the window and you can have +5 Magnetic Boobie Cups Of Infallible Orc Arrow Attraction.  Because, boobies.  And cartoon physics with boobies.  Hey, it's your game.  Don't expect me to play in it, but I'll laugh my @$$ off from over here.

Funniest Ren Faire costume I ever saw was a woman in hammered steel and brass bikini cups with a bunch of arrows glued to each cup.  The sign she wore, carefully hand lettered, read, "I'M SURE GLAD I WAS WEARING MY ARMOR!"

Priceless.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Also known as an invitation to a sucking chest wound, a fatal gut wound, multiple limb amputation, a fast ticket to negative hit points, etc.
> 
> If you say it's magic, reality can fly cheerfully out the window and you can have +5 Magnetic Boobie Cups Of Infallible Orc Arrow Attraction.  Because, boobies.  And cartoon physics with boobies.  Hey, it's your game.  Don't expect me to play in it, but I'll laugh my @$$ off from over here.
> 
> ...





I get the feeling you didn't really read my last posts on the game stats of such armor.

Such items don't exist in D&D.  They don't exist in my game

I further posit that if they existed, the simple math on them would encourage a player to choose a different armor with the same magic bonus.

Why choose +5 Magnetic Boobie Cups Of Infallible Orc Arrow Attraction which gives a total AC bonus of +7 when you could choose:
+5 Studded Leather Of Infallible Orc Arrow Attraction which gives +8 to your AC instead with all the other armor attributes being the same.

Ignoring the real-life issues with bikini armor, the game stats pretty much just give a basic +1 or +2 to AC, reinforced by whatever magic bonus is on top.  The more magic covers the AC shortfall to rationalize why the sexy woman in the picture isn't in any danger, the more a player would rather have that same bonus on better physical armor to get the best of both worlds.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> I get the feeling you didn't really read my last posts on the game stats of such armor.




I did, and you have a point.  Mine was mostly "game mechanics good, silly Ren Faire costume funnier."


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jun 15, 2012)

Mallus said:


> I never had a problem with Covenant himself. It's not like you're supposed to _like_ him.




When I was in High School and read the series... I identified with Covenant more than I had identified with any other protagonist of any other book I have ever read.

Shows what a messed up kid I was. 

I personally have no issues with the character, or the books. My username says that. But I do understand why people might not.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Alzrius said:


> How do you visually illustrate "plusses" on magic armor, or things like the _fortification_ magic quality? How do you show that someone's wearing _bracers of armor_, a _ring of protection_ and an _amulet of natural armor_ instead of just mundane bracers, a ring, and an amulet? Particularly in illustrations specific to games like D&D, where a great deal of magic items (e.g. the Christmas Tree effect) is not only assumed, but implied by the game itself?




To rewind the discussion a little bit, I don't have any good ideas on how.  Maybe paint in a glowing radiance or show it in an action painting of the blade being repelled by some force as it hits the skin.  

Otherwise, its invisible.

Because of that, the point I've been trying to make is that IF you had this magic effect on your skimpy armor (or whatever gear), you'd be better served to use that same magic on better armor of the same desired weight classsifaction.

Why wear a Chainmail Bikini and magic to protect the unprotected bits (granting more AC bonuses I assume), when you could wear full chain mail or lighter armor, with the same magic effects, and get a better AC bonus.

I'm not poking holes at the real world impracticality of the Bikini Armor.  

I'm saying that in game terms, the rationalization hoops of game stats, magic, items, etc it takes to make a sexy PC that matches what is seen in a stereotypical painting is such that you could deploy those same magics and items on a PC with armor from the RAW and come out ahead.

I assume that it is inherently obvious that if a full suit of Chainmail armor is worth +5 AC, then a bikini made of Chainmail Armor, which covers less area grants a lower AC bonus.  Let's agree that it is +1 AC for discusssions sake.

Therefore, to get the effects you describe of not being vulnerable by applying magic that might not be depicted in the picture, you would be applying spells, enchantments and other magic items possibly not visible in the painting.

These effects would then follow the D&D rules.  Pretty much all D&D effects are applicable to all things in the same category.  So you can have a Vorpal Dagger, Vorpal Longsword, or Vorpal Greataxe.  

The same would apply to the chainmail bikini.  That which you would apply to make it a viable combat-ready PC in a chainmail bikini may be further optimized by using those same goodies on armor from the standard equipment list.

Basically, I can come to the conlusion that chainmail bikinis are a bad idea in D&D, not because of real life, but because of simple logic within the D&D rules.

It's possible, because of this, I dissassociate art with what happens in D&D.  Art is not a realistic representation of what is happening in the D&D game, which is itself fantastical.

So, I can accept that a painting of a chainmail swordwoman may remind me of D&D and I might associate it with your female barbarian character, though I do not literally imagine that your PC looks like that, let alone actually dresses like that.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> In my perception, and I take full responsibility for the fact that it is my perception, it truly has not.  I can't open a single RPG book or comic, or play almost any video game, without seeing a large number of sexualized female figures while the male characters are primarily presented as normal characters - eg, as the real people who are not sexualized.
> 
> It's not so much that I get personally mad or feel insecure when my boyfriend exclaims over the large amount of gratuitous bewbage there is for his delectation in just about every RPG sourcebook and video game.  Heck, I'll even save that stuff when I see it so he can enjoy it. Or we look at it together, though he is always guaranteed to get more than I do from it because we are both heterosexual and the vast majority of the sexualized images will be female.  There's a little for me here and there, but the percentages really stink.
> 
> ...




You feel this way about the 3e, 3.5, 4e Player's Handbooks or the 4e PH replacement Heroes of the X books? These are the core books for the last 12 years that the majority of RPG players will be referencing as the RPG baseline and would be the common denominator and baseline for the industry and playing community.

I'm not sure what you are seeing as the large number of sexualized female portrayals in the art from these.

Am I misremembering and there a large number of sexualized female portrayals that I just don't remember? Are you seeing gratuitous sexualization while I am not? Can you provide some examples from one of these PH books so that we know we are talking about the same thing?


----------



## Voadam (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> I assume that it is inherently obvious that if a full suit of Chainmail armor is worth +5 AC, then a bikini made of Chainmail Armor, which covers less area grants a lower AC bonus.  Let's agree that it is +1 AC for discusssions sake.




I think that is a mistaken assumption. Most DM's will say they are wearing leather or chain or plate and leave it at that. If a player picks an image for their fantasy character with skimpy tight leather they think is cool or boob window armor they think is cool, or impractical fantasy jumbo plate with lots of parts sticking out they think is cool, I believe most DMs will say "fine, whatever" and not "How functionally impractical, take an AC penalty."


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Jun 15, 2012)

Lots of strong views in this thread... I have nothing really to add to the conversation at this moment so you all keep rocking and I'm going to hide behind this bar while you all keep throwing your tomatoes at each other...   just don't make to much a mess.

Oh... porn is great, as a woman I love it. Magic armor in games is also great. Art is highly subjective. And tomatoes make splotching sounds upon impact... 

Game of Thrones, epic and amazing, love the books and the show. IMO it's a series where I feel all the main women characters, might appear weak at first, have incredible inner strength, and often tower over the men. Just saying.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

Voadam said:


> I think that is a mistaken assumption. Most DM's will say they are wearing leather or chain or plate and leave it at that. If a player picks an image for their fantasy character with skimpy tight leather they think is cool or boob window armor they think is cool, or impractical fantasy jumbo plate with lots of parts sticking out they think is cool, I believe most DMs will say "fine, whatever" and not "How functionally impractical, take an AC penalty."




As a GM, I see a fork in interpretations that I can go either way on.

If you buy Chain Mail armor, then your PC gets the AC bonus of Chain Mail armor.  You can describe it as sexy and shapely or plain and practical.  I don't care.  You bought the in-game resource, and how you describe it is mostly up to you.  There's some limits on how far I'd accept "making stuff up" however.

If you say your PC bought or made a Bikini made of chainmail and that your PC was wearing it and insisted that it was NOT a suit of ChainMail armor, then you've made a new type of armor that is not on the equipment list by the RAW. 

I would then guesstimate it's body coverage round to a minimum of +1 or use the old DarkSun partial armor rules as guidance.

I don't have a problem saying your armor is artsier than the default.  I'm not going to get overly realistic and try to determine the mechanical impact of boob windows and shoulder spikes.

But saying you are wearing a small fraction of a full suit of armorm I can't justify giving you the full bonus.  If you choose to wear half of a mail shirt, why should you get the full bonus?

What if that mail shirt had been in your backpack and the wizard messed up moving his Sphere of Annhilation during his watch, so you wake up to get dressed to find you only have half of your armor left?

To me, the act of declaring on the PC or GM side that the armor is significantly less than the normal unit of armor is defining that it protects less than the normal unit of armor.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> And this is a good point.  Where TanithT brings up going skyclad and Paganism setting her viewpoint, even that's not a common viewpoint.  Scott Cunningham, a big name in pagan circles had noted that often those that insisted on going skyclad had more interest in seeing others naked.
> 
> Not saying TanithT's experiences were good or bad.  But some of those people likely got a little more from their gathering than others.




Point.  Though you'd be surprised how fast nudity becomes boring or completely invisible when you associate it with church services, not sex.  Also, most of the officiants?  I guess if you get a thrill looking at mostly older, matronly or grandfatherly types, you'd be having tons of fun.   




> In the same way, some of us may be desensitised, insensitive, or just  not coming to the same conclusion when we see an attractive woman  holding a sword with some cleavage armor.




What I think you're saying is that due to my somewhat unusual "nudity is no big deal/not automatically sexual" and generally sex positive upbringing, I am likely to be less sensitive, not more sensitive, to seeing gratuitous sexualization where there is not any.  Would that be correct?

The thing about cleavage armor, that's pretty much gratuitous by default, because _it doesn't work_.  It won't get you to 0HP quite as fast as a chainmail bikini, but it will get you there.  I expect that most artists don't actually know this, because the myth that female armor has to have separately protruding boobs keeps getting perpetuated in the fandom.  Because, boobs.  But I do know, so I can't help facepalming at it.


----------



## Janx (Jun 15, 2012)

TanithT said:


> I did, and you have a point.  Mine was mostly "game mechanics good, silly Ren Faire costume funnier."




If nothing else, you and I may reach the same in-game conclusion that bikini armor ain't happening in our games.

I felt that your had a rather strong reaction to typical fantasy art of women and its relation to RPGs and its practicality.

I simply look at its practicality as a simple interpretation of the rules, not as art or commentary on women or as applying reality to the game.

I couldn't see granting bikini armor any benefits not already applicable to normal armor and thus it wouldn't be a viable option for players to choose.  It's partial armor and there is precedent for handling that.

I don't have a problem with shapely armor, despite  [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s points about even that being a bad idea in real combat.  That level of realisim doesn't appeal to me and isn't simple to model in D&D.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 16, 2012)

Voadam said:


> I'm not sure what you are seeing as the large number of sexualized female portrayals in the art from these.




The most recent books I've looked through (and facepalmed at) have all been Pathfinder.




> Am I misremembering and there a large number of sexualized female portrayals that I just don't remember? Are you seeing gratuitous sexualization while I am not?




I don't *think* so.  My specific criteria for gratuitous sexualization is that there is no good reason to be dressed in skimpy, sexy or revealing clothes/armor, and some good reason to be dressed in normal clothes or armor.  I think those are reasonably fair criteria.  

My "gratuitous" alarms may also start going off when there are a whole lot of female images that are borderline on the "stupid" criteria, but the CHA range in all the possible female characters is ridiculously narrow, statistically speaking.  Maybe they aren't naked and barefoot on the Arctic tundra, or trading arrow shots while wearing one rabbit fur and a couple of chainmail rings.  There's lots of reasons that a mage who lives in a city might dress attractively or revealingly on occasion.  Indoor fighter or rogue practice can very reasonably be conducted in form fitting clothes.  Some characters drawn in some of these situations is a non problem - it's a slice of life.

But when a really out-of-proportion number of females are drawn in a way that strongly emphasizes their cleavage (which is always way above average size) and de-emphasizes or ignores their weapons or their skill sets, or really anything else about them as a character, I start thinking, "gratuitous".  On average, sure, you're going to see some charismatic NPC's.  But really, is the _entire range_ of possible female NPC's limited to CHA 16 and up in form fitting clothing?  When the numbers start looking like that, I facepalm.  Especially when the male characters don't look like that at all, and you have a substantially wider representation of varied appearance and clothing in the male images.




> Can you provide some examples from one of these PH books so that we know we are talking about the same thing?




I could, but my energy for doing paperwork is not very high at the moment.  How many examples were you thinking of?


----------



## TanithT (Jun 16, 2012)

Janx said:


> I felt that your had a rather strong reaction to typical fantasy art of women and its relation to RPGs and its practicality.




Yes, I do.  It makes me feel marginalized as a gamer when I see representations of female characters in our hobby sexualized by default, to the detriment of showing them as well rounded characters.  

I'm not saying that sexy art is bad or wrong, just that I don't want it to be the default setting for a female character in RPG source material, comics and video games.  The fact that it does tend to be the default setting does have consequences for female gamers.




> I simply look at its practicality as a simple interpretation of the rules, not as art or commentary on women or as applying reality to the game.




Well, I'm glad that from where you sit, you have the luxury of not feeling excluded or marginalized in your hobby.  Not everyone has that luxury.  The folks who don't are probably going to feel a little more strongly about the things that make them feel excluded.




> I don't have a problem with shapely armor, despite   @Umbran 's points about even that being a bad idea in real combat.  That level of realisim doesn't appeal to me and isn't simple to model in D&D.




Your game, your rules.

Umbran's points are all correct, albeit secondhand.  Firsthand experience as an SCA heavy fighter, 'shapely' armor in the sense of it having separate protruding boobage will a) not be approved by SCA safety marshals, because b) it will get you hurt or killed for reals.  And I'm talking about with rattan just for fun.  Live steel would be more problematic.

Am not sure what isn't simple to model about plate mail being plate mail.  The female breastplate design even for relatively well endowed women is not substantially different. You want a little curvature for comfort and to let weapons slide, but protruberances that will catch or bounce and result in a face full of rattan (or steel) are very not good. 

I do agree with your excellent points about partial armor being partial armor and most accurately handled under those rules, whether it's ooh-la-la or not.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 16, 2012)

Janx said:
			
		

> A player is going to choose the armor that best fits his/jher AC goal and DEX limitiations. I ignored MaxDex in my example because I forgot about it and I seldom play PCs with a low DEX.
> 
> My point is, there's no rules for Sexy Armor in D&D. Near as I can guess it'd be a form of partial or "new" armor. To make a PC wearing bikini armor to match a painting, you'd have to use such a rule.
> 
> ...




A quick caveat; I'm defaulting to Pathfinder when it comes to specifics, purely from habit (this makes a difference where AC values of various armors are concerned).

You're talking about several different issues here, and in doing so conflating them. First you say that players will always choose the best armor available, then you go on to say that sexy armor doesn't exist, then you say that if it does exist with magic bonuses it's still worse than normal magic armor with bonuses. 

All of this is also built on the idea that the characters in pictures are PCs, and have been run as PCs with the same level of optimization, which is also a flawed way of looking at it.

First, while a PC will always try to have the highest Armor Class that they can, that doesn't always mean the heaviest armor, as you admittedly noted. However, for some reason you don't seem to think that this perfectly reasonable postulation extends to "sexy" armor, which is an odd claim to make. If we're going to say that PCs will seek all different kinds of combinations depending on their build, you can't then turn around and say that a certain item will never be useful no matter what the build is.

As for bikini armors not existing, you likewise undercut your own argument by saying "unless they declare it looks like that" which is a perfectly viable declaration. There's no rule saying that your leather armor can't have a cleavage cut, or end above the midriff, for example. Likewise, if you want stats specific for bikini armors, there are supplements and third-party supplements that have such material anyway.

Third, that doesn't necessarily mean that sexy armors will necessarily have a worse AC than armors of the same "weight" class; see below.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> I'm saying that in game terms, the rationalization hoops of game stats, magic, items, etc it takes to make a sexy PC that matches what is seen in a stereotypical painting is such that you could deploy those same magics and items on a PC with armor from the RAW and come out ahead.




I'm just quoting this part of your post, because I feel it best encapsulates your point.

I should mention first that this still assumes that the character in question is in a position where they get to choose between all things equally - that's good for a theoretical discussion, but often not the way things actually happen in the game world. If you get to choose from everything in the Core Rules and then some, you can optimize - if the only things in the store are enchanted bikini mail and leather armor, it's something else again.

Having said that, let's grant one of the two central premises of your argument: that bikini armor only grants a +1 AC bonus onto itself. I'll modify that to state that such armor has no max Dex restriction, no armor check penalties, and no arcane spell failure chance (which I think is reasonable).

Now, the other central premise you raise - why would a character wear that versus another light armor, which grants a better bonus? Believe it or not, there are other reasons.

A character with a +9 Dex bonus, for example, will find the bikini armor better (leather's max Dex bonus is +8). Admittedly that sounds absurdly high, but high-level characters can get up there without too much trouble. Hence, a character in "normal" armor would not come out ahead under this build.

Let's examine another possibility. If we make the assumption that bikini armor is not made out of metal, it becomes one of the better armors for a multiclass druid/wizard (or druid/sorcerer) - druids are restricted to medium armor or lighter of non-metallic materials; that's padded, leather, or hide armor. But also being an arcane spellcaster, hide armor (+4) is out (20% chance of spell failure). Leather armor (+2) carries a 10% chance of failure, which is not-inconsiderable. Hence, why not ignore padded (+1) and just use the bikini armor (+1) which again has no chance of spell failure. 

Heck, let's simplify that for a third build: an arcane spellcaster with no armor proficiency whatsoever. Wearing armor you're not proficient with means you take its armor check penalty to all attack rolls, and Strength- and Dexterity-based skill and ability checks. But bikini armor has no armor check penalty! Why not wear leather or padded armor, you ask (especially since the latter grants a + AC bonus)? Because, as noted before, only bikini armor has no spell failure chance either. Why gain only an additional +1 in exchange for a 10% failure chance?

These are just three of many possible builds where the lightest armor possible is still one of the best options, even assuming that you have access to everything and can customize and optimize whatever you want. (This isn't even getting into Voadam's entirely reasonable point of just saying that your armor looks a bit different, without altering its game mechanics.)


----------



## Loonook (Jun 16, 2012)

TanithT said:


> The most recent books I've looked through (and facepalmed at) have all been Pathfinder.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Alright... Let us look through Pathfinder.  I'll take the Core rulebook, From the cover through Chapter 1, to the opening of Chapter 2: Races.  I count 6 full-color plates.  Let us check this out.

Cover: A nude red dragon (gender indeterminate as I wasn't able to see a cloaca much less sex the beast) battling a warrior (male) and a spellcaster (female).  The spellcaster is dress in a red form-fitting gown with a slit cut up to the top of her thigh.  The gown also has an open back.

Salacious?  No, just Seoni. 

So she's the Illustrated Woman.  And a Sorcerer (High Charisma, tattoos covering her body that she shows as a symbol of power and pride).  

Reasoning behind her dress?  Pretty solid.  Even better if you actually take Charisma as attractiveness... While I personally see it as force of personality but ehh, that's interpretation.  

Pg 4: 7 goblins, indiscriminate gender raiding the streets.  A depiction of a faerie (indisciminate gender) in the background appears to be nude, though really it could just be the lack of coloring on the shoddy sign. Foreground has a picture of a fat man with a giant haunch of meat. No definite depictions of women in a 'negative' light.  Apparently fat men exist in Pathfinder for amusing tavern signs.

Pg 6: Four characters, three females (from left to right): A rogue dressed in black leathers with two daggers, Seoni, gear as Cover but including tribal fetishes around her armband slot and a heavy fur cloak.  A cleric (Kyra) in what appears to be soft scale armor, and several layers of vestments.  The male figure, Valeros from Cover, is bleeding out while being protected by the three female party members.  A large White Dragon stands before them.

Seoni stands in a position of classical 'I'm charging mah lazerz' Spellcaster POWER.  Staff raised and at the ready.  She seems to have magic items (the fetishes) and combined with the bearskin cloak I'm assuming a weather protection/cold protection effect.  Definitely makes sense considering their prey.  As mentioned in supplied text the Sorceress is preparing a defensive fire spell, which makes sense considering the pose and the positioning in the 'defensive' left hand of the staff.

Kyra has a slight  breast swell in her scale armor, though her positioning suggests the natural shifting of supported breasts in the crouching pose.  A defensive posture is taken.  

The Rogue (Merisiel) varies from her Iconic depiction, showing no real skin save for where she seems to keep daggers.  I cannot see her breasts, and her body's positioning suggests she is attempting to get into position.... As we all know, the Rogues love them some flanking, and the Dragon could be setup for this with the submissive, weak male human fighter as the bait.

Total Female Appearances: 4
Total Males: 2
Total Enemy Female: Unknown
Total Enemy Male: Unknown
Helpless Characters: Male 1, Female: 0

Pg 9: Seoni, Merisiel, and Kyra stand to the left, Merisiel looking ready to scout, Seoni in the short foreground in a 3/4 bust view.  The Ranger (if I recall correctly... Off the top no idea what the heck his name is) is standing to the right.  Merisiel wears her Iconic armor, showing the back is open but covered in sheathes for her dirks.  Kyra is in the same clothing, Seoni is in a yellow cloak of indeterminate shape (we see her from the bust view).

Total Female Appearances: 7
Total Males: 3
Total Enemy Female: Unknown
Total Enemy Male: Unknown
Helpless Characters: M 1 F 0

Pg 14: Skeleton Army (former gender unknown) minimum 9 humans and 1 skeletal horse facing down 4 member adventure party (3 males, 1 female).  The males are dressed in typical Mage, Bard, and Fighter/Barbarian gear respectively, while the female (far left, in a challenging pose) is dressed in full plate Paladin garb.

Meet Seelah. Female. Black. Paladin.  Her armor has minimal breast accentuation, but they seem to be guards (look to have association with her cloak in her Iconic pic) and I have not seen her in a 'helpless, submissive' pose from my memory.  

Total Female Appearances: 8
Total Male Appearances: 7
Total Enemy Female: Unknown
Total Enemy Male: Unknown
Helpless: M 1 F 0.

P 18: Human Male Monk(Sajan), Female Gnome Druid (Lini), Half-Elf Male Magus(Seltyiel), being attacked by Drow Males (Class Unknown).

All are on the run, the one showing all of the skin is Seltyiel, who is bare-chested. Lini's armor is pretty much a patchwork of swirls on leather, pretty typical armor for a druid. Oh, and another non-white human?  Sajan is from the sort of vaguely South Asian/Indian analogue of the setting.

Total Female Appearances: 9
Total Male Appearances: 9
Total Enemy Female: 0
Total Enemy Male: 4.
Helpless: M 1, F 0.

So in the depictions in the first chapter we have a 50/50 parity, no unexplained fan service (a body positive tattooed sorceress who is slinging flames in every shot?)... And the only helpless, submissive individual is a gutshot male who is being protected by an entire party of female adventurers.

We can keep going.  The Races section has women in bra and panties... And males in briefs.  And trust me... I knew in theory that Dwarves were hairy, but I never knew a treasure trail could become a treasure highway.  The entire section other than the classic Race Lineup is filled with rippling men and curved women covering the naughty bits... So I'd call it a wash.  Except for Hairy Barry, who is just glorious no matter your specific orientation.

I imagine he smells of Sex Panther and ale.  His hands know the secrets to turn the hardest stone to gravel.  Truly grace and brutal strength combined into one.

In Classes:


The female Barbarian who is dressed in a cross-chest breast-support, vague scraps of leather... And has a sword the size of Mr. Hairy Barry Dwarf above.  So she is dressed in a primitive breast-wrap and carrying a giant stone sword.

But I'll leave the next 2 chapters up to you.  

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Janx (Jun 16, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Am not sure what isn't simple to model about plate mail being plate mail.  The female breastplate design even for relatively well endowed women is not substantially different. You want a little curvature for comfort and to let weapons slide, but protruberances that will catch or bounce and result in a face full of rattan (or steel) are very not good.




By difficult to model, I mean what is the engineering impact of a breast view port to AC on the various armors.  By what factors does it cause an impact of -1 to AC?  How big or small must it be to cause an impact?

What differences are there in material.  Plate armor gives +10.  Leather gives +2.  Does a view port in either type cause -1 AC?  I think not.  The comparitive crappyness of Leather Armor to Plate, a CleavagePort does little to weaken already weak armor.  Your vulnerability factor for having a boobview is marginal compared to the fact that you are wearing another animal's skin which was penetrated in a mortal blow.  Contrast that to full plate, where you're sitting pretty safe, except for the excellent stabby hole between your nippes.

The same mechanical considerations would have to be applied to spikey armor.  How much extra stress on the metal to put spikes on it.  How much does the spikes add to the weight and balance?  What chance do they have to snag on things?

I vote that the D&D system is too abstract to get into such technical considerations about the exact optimal versus suboptimal shapes that armor should come in.

Additionally, it spoils fun folks may have in visuallizing their armor.  So it just ain't worth it.


----------



## Janx (Jun 16, 2012)

Alzrius said:


> A quick caveat; I'm defaulting to Pathfinder when it comes to specifics, purely from habit (this makes a difference where AC values of various armors are concerned).




Sure.  I use D&D3.5.  Ps.  I really hate multi-quoting by hand.  this site should just quote all your paragraphs for me so I can interject more easily.



Alzrius said:


> You're talking about several different issues here, and in doing so conflating them. First you say that players will always choose the best armor available, then you go on to say that sexy armor doesn't exist, then you say that if it does exist with magic bonuses it's still worse than normal magic armor with bonuses.




Players will generally choose the best option for their PC.  That usually means maxing their AC to the limits their class allows.  Nobody chooses to have a 12AC if they can get a 15AC, ceteris paribus.

I didn't quite say sexy armor doesn't exist.  At least not in the way you meant I meant it.
Bikini armor does not exist in the RAW.  It's not on the equipment list.  Somebody had to make it up.
Whereas, full plate armor that just happens to be full plate armor with some cleavage is not contradicted in the rules.  It's no different than saying your armor has shoulder spikes.

I then expounded on the hypothesis that bikini chick was really protected by magic, and not just the physical materials of her chainmail bikini.  If she was protected by magic, she could just as soon apply that magic to real armor and get a better AC bonus for just the armor.





Alzrius said:


> All of this is also built on the idea that the characters in pictures are PCs, and have been run as PCs with the same level of optimization, which is also a flawed way of looking at it.




Since the debate was about art in RPGs which is what inspires or dismays players by its depiction of women, my thesis was that we are in effect justifying whether such armor feasible.   [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] used real world logic.  I used game world logic.



Alzrius said:


> First, while a PC will always try to have the highest Armor Class that they can, that doesn't always mean the heaviest armor, as you admittedly noted. However, for some reason you don't seem to think that this perfectly reasonable postulation extends to "sexy" armor, which is an odd claim to make. If we're going to say that PCs will seek all different kinds of combinations depending on their build, you can't then turn around and say that a certain item will never be useful no matter what the build is.




Sexy looking armor that is in effect normal armor is a non-issue.  It's armor and I wouldn't bother modelling any detrimental impact.

Bikini armor is less than full armor.  You have a good example that does make it feasible below.  barring that, I stand by my ruling.



Alzrius said:


> As for bikini armors not existing, you likewise undercut your own argument by saying "unless they declare it looks like that" which is a perfectly viable declaration. There's no rule saying that your leather armor can't have a cleavage cut, or end above the midriff, for example. Likewise, if you want stats specific for bikini armors, there are supplements and third-party supplements that have such material anyway.




Once again, actual Bikini armor is partial armor, and falls under partial armor abjudication rules, and not descriptive armor rules which is "if it pretty much performs like the rules say, and looks sexy or spiky its fine"

I don't care to get into metrics on exactly where the line is between descriptive armor and skin slots so big she might as well be in a chainmail bikini.  For one, it doesn't actually come up in my games.  For two, I'm giving my general approach to how I'd handle a situation that does not come up.



Alzrius said:


> Third, that doesn't necessarily mean that sexy armors will necessarily have a worse AC than armors of the same "weight" class; see below.




Let's leave off descriptively sexy armor.  That is fully functional armor that happens to have some flair or cleaviness to it.  It's normal armor as far as I care to model.

Therefore, what remains is partial armor, stereotyped as Bikini Chain Mail.



Alzrius said:


> I should mention first that this still assumes that the character in question is in a position where they get to choose between all things equally - that's good for a theoretical discussion, but often not the way things actually happen in the game world. If you get to choose from everything in the Core Rules and then some, you can optimize - if the only things in the store are enchanted bikini mail and leather armor, it's something else again.




That's true.  However, I've never rolled up Bikini Chainmail on the treasure tables, so the players aren't likely to find a pair.  I assume they might make them, if they should spring into existance.



Alzrius said:


> Having said that, let's grant one of the two central premises of your argument: that bikini armor only grants a +1 AC bonus onto itself. I'll modify that to state that such armor has no max Dex restriction, no armor check penalties, and no arcane spell failure chance (which I think is reasonable).




Sure.   This builds into your good example that I hadn't considered.



Alzrius said:


> Now, the other central premise you raise - why would a character wear that versus another light armor, which grants a better bonus? Believe it or not, there are other reasons.
> 
> A character with a +9 Dex bonus, for example, will find the bikini armor better (leather's max Dex bonus is +8). Admittedly that sounds absurdly high, but high-level characters can get up there without too much trouble. Hence, a character in "normal" armor would not come out ahead under this build.




It's a valid point that I hadn't considered the game at the extreme end of stats.  I would suspect that this is a high level game.   I suppose 20th level people can prance about in chainmail bikinis if it is tactically sound.



Alzrius said:


> ...snips of pretty much the same thing in a different color...




These are just three of many possible builds where the lightest armor possible is still one of the best options, even assuming that you have access to everything and can customize and optimize whatever you want. (This isn't even getting into Voadam's entirely reasonable point of just saying that your armor looks a bit different, without altering its game mechanics.)[/QUOTE]

I already addressed descriptive armor as a non-issue.  Effectively, that's a non-point because I already agree with it.

You've certainly found a case where Magic Bikini armor could be better than other choices.

I imagine though, if I brought in such items, if I would then have backlash from female players for sexualizing the game because I brought in items meant to optimize them tactically while tarting them up.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 16, 2012)

Janx said:
			
		

> Sure. I use D&D3.5. Ps. I really hate multi-quoting by hand. this site should just quote all your paragraphs for me so I can interject more easily.




Wow that'd be useful, which is probably why we'll never see it.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Players will generally choose the best option for their PC. That usually means maxing their AC to the limits their class allows. Nobody chooses to have a 12AC if they can get a 15AC, ceteris paribus.
> 
> I didn't quite say sexy armor doesn't exist. At least not in the way you meant I meant it.
> Bikini armor does not exist in the RAW. It's not on the equipment list. Somebody had to make it up.
> ...




I think where we're differing is that I'm saying it's virtually never _ceteris paribus_, both because things don't work like that in-game, and because of the myriad options and differences in builds that make any sort of "equity of options," in a universal sense, extremely difficult at best.

Likewise, while bikini armor doesn't exist in the Core Rules for 3.X or Pathfinder, simply for the purposes of the discussion we're having we need to agree on some baseline game stats (which we did), simply because if we want to render a picture of a woman so clad into D&D terms, there needs to be some sort of game rules interpretation; if it's not in the RAW, then we just need to create a close approximation or find a supplement that does.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Since the debate was about art in RPGs which is what inspires or dismays players by its depiction of women, my thesis was that we are in effect justifying whether such armor feasible. @Umbran used real world logic. I used game world logic.




I don't disagree, I just don't think that game world logic means that you'll (from an in-game perspective) always have access to everything you'd want either. Sometimes it's not about "what's best?" but "what's available right now?"



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Sexy looking armor that is in effect normal armor is a non-issue. It's armor and I wouldn't bother modelling any detrimental impact.
> 
> Bikini armor is less than full armor. You have a good example that does make it feasible below. barring that, I stand by my ruling.




That's fine, I wasn't challenging your ruling in that regard; I was just saying that you'll be able to find a build dedicated to making anything useful, no matter how outlandish or useless it may seem.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Once again, actual Bikini armor is partial armor, and falls under partial armor abjudication rules, and not descriptive armor rules which is "if it pretty much performs like the rules say, and looks sexy or spiky its fine"
> 
> I don't care to get into metrics on exactly where the line is between descriptive armor and skin slots so big she might as well be in a chainmail bikini. For one, it doesn't actually come up in my games. For two, I'm giving my general approach to how I'd handle a situation that does not come up.




I'd classify it as piecemeal armor under the variant rules in _Ultimate Combat_ myself.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Let's leave off descriptively sexy armor. That is fully functional armor that happens to have some flair or cleaviness to it. It's normal armor as far as I care to model.
> 
> Therefore, what remains is partial armor, stereotyped as Bikini Chain Mail.




That's fine, particularly since you don't want to chart any sort of dividing line (though there is a continuum between "form" and "function"), though I wouldn't call it "chain mail" per se (as per the druid build above). For the sake of this discussion we can keep it limited to (non-metal) bikini armor.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> That's true. However, I've never rolled up Bikini Chainmail on the treasure tables, so the players aren't likely to find a pair. I assume they might make them, if they should spring into existance.




Fair enough, but this isn't about what you or I would do at the game table. This is about the game interpretation of an existing picture, so we're looking at it as its own thing.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> It's a valid point that I hadn't considered the game at the extreme end of stats. I would suspect that this is a high level game. I suppose 20th level people can prance about in chainmail bikinis if it is tactically sound.




Perhaps depressingly, I've seen characters get stats like this while still in the single digits (e.g. by point buying an 18 Dex score, +2 racial bonus, +1 4th-level ability point, +1 8th-level ability point, and a _belt of incredible dexterity +6_, this can be achieved by level 9).



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> I imagine though, if I brought in such items, if I would then have backlash from female players for sexualizing the game because I brought in items meant to optimize them tactically while tarting them up.




But again, that's not what you and I are talking about; we're going over the in-game rational for women in skimpy armor, and if magic and other tactics make that viable or not.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Jun 16, 2012)

Art is a highly subjective thing...where one person see's a scantily clad, submissive and sexist picture another person could just see it as just a pretty or sexy or erotic or beautiful or,  well, a near endless variety of possible perspectives. 

When somebody draws a character, we don't know what that person is thinking as they draw it... sure maybe they are drawing a subjugation of a woman... or maybe they are not, but they can't help how others will view it.

I totally respect TanithT's perspective and she feels very strongly, but I know that I would see the same art differently. But I like women, and I like boobs and I know it's all just art but it's possible that because I like women my view is skewed... 

Where I do agree with her is that I like art that makes sense. If I am looking at art in the sword and sorcery genre than I know to expect near naked girls wearing provacative clothing and men in loincloths with huge muscles wielding a giant broadsword or near naked women wielding dark magic summoning demons from the underworld and...  I could go on.

I know not all sword and sorcery stories include these images, but many do. Blame Conan. I do, but not to his face. 

I like art to make sense. I know it's ludicrous to see bikini chainmail and I never think of it in a roleplaying game and the only times it ever came up in a game was when a guy was trying to play a female character and had to be educated on the matter, but it's art. It's one person's inspiration, for whatever reason, and that's it. 

It's just art. 

Just one woman's opinion. In fact, the only book I found sexist for roleplaying was the Book of Erotic Art... IMO it's worthless and should have. Never seen the light of day. That book is tasteless. 

But I like to keep my roleplaying at PG13, maybe R in some games... not XXX.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 16, 2012)

Janx said:


> because it is porn. eye cancy or pre-porn.  She's wearing sexy armor because sex sells and she looks good in it.
> 
> Or she's wearing skimpy outfits because she chose it off the rack.  Go to the mall, or just about anywhere.  Many of the outfits worn by the females aren't chosen for their practicality or durability.  So it is quite possible that a female adventurer MIGHT choose cleavage armor over a proper piece of plate.
> 
> ...




Woman who dress in skimpy clothes at the mall are not expecting to go into battle. Tell me the last time you saw a female soldier in a combat zone dressed in high heels and mini skirt?

And if she wants to actually stay alive she will soon make sure she has proper armor before the rest of the party get annoyed with her stupidity using up all the healing magic. 

As for armor with the big boobs a metal bra is never comfortable. Back in my 20s I wore all kinds of armor and let me tell you full plate that fits is far more comfortable than any chain mail bra. 

That armor with the defined breast is going to guide the sword straight into your heart but hey you will look hot as you die. 

There has been plenty of roll your eyes in DnD art. Why are most female wizards shown in gowns that are split everywhere. It is one thing if she as to get to her tattoos. In that case I could see her totally naked and covered all over with them and I wouldn't bat an eye. 

I think the point Tanith is making is context matters. If every male in the picture is covered in furs in the frozen tundra but the female character is half naked then that is a sexualized portrayal of the woman. 

I remember looking through one of the Mongoose books and it has topless female as an example of a sorceresses I was like why. 

If I see a half naked succubus that makes sense because she is a demon who uses sex to trap and kill. 

But a cleric of Herioneus with the peek a boo armor makes me go why. Do the female clerics have to service the male clerics as part of their order? Which does not fit the the whole chivalry and honor theme. 

A woman or a man can look sexy because they are attractive with out being shown in a sexual way. 

Sex sells as a woman we are taught very early that looks matter. No one ever wrote that Winston Churchill was looking old and tired but they write those things about Hillary Clinton.  Roseanne Barr weight was often talked about not so much her co star John Goodman. If man is attractive it is a bonus but he can get away with not being as attractive if he is smart, powerful, rich a woman will always be judged on her looks as well as everything else. And woman do it to each other as often ans men do it to us. 

In most of my fantasy games I prefer a little more equality in my genders.  A powerful swordswoman can be as powerful as a male swordsmen. I just like the art for the powerful swordswoman to reflect that.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 16, 2012)

Voadam said:


> I think that is a mistaken assumption. Most DM's will say they are wearing leather or chain or plate and leave it at that. If a player picks an image for their fantasy character with skimpy tight leather they think is cool or boob window armor they think is cool, or impractical fantasy jumbo plate with lots of parts sticking out they think is cool, I believe most DMs will say "fine, whatever" and not "How functionally impractical, take an AC penalty."




This DM does not. If you bring me a picture of peek a boo full armor that bares any amount of skin I will not allow the full bonus.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Jun 16, 2012)

TanithT said:


> The most recent books I've looked through (and facepalmed at) have all been Pathfinder.




Lol. Oh yes. Some of my friends have jokingly nicknamed some ladies in in recent book in that good gods book "ladies to masturbate to". Not that they do, but bothering to joke about it, tells a lot. 

And some of this game from fully dressed pictures, because of facial expression and pose.

Then again I go, ooh, hot guy for some pics, but they are minority compared to ladies.

I like the art though, but some clothes choices feel cartoonish/manga fantasy.
Very colorful, somewhat weird, that sort of thing.

However what Pathfinder does I feel is rather cool and also gives sense of power and cool. My oh-my-god-please-lol-moments all relate recently to MMORPG art. Rifts has some special moments, but more of it belongs to certain logalized asian games. Don't recall the name, have played rifts but not that one.

However I mostly dislike bigger than life swords and shouders. Something MMO:s have a lot.

Putting some sexual innuendo into everything/or suppressing it all seems to be modern trend. And I don't think it's goiing to change until some larger, more relevant troubles hit our culture, when bread and circus isn't enough anymore.


----------



## Lwaxy (Jun 16, 2012)

Halivar said:


> Why is it taken for granted that using the female form for purely aesthetic purposes is a sexual fetish? It seems (to me) to be a very puritanical, very prudish way of thinking about it. Either that, or we just have really, really dirty minds.




For one, because this is very likely turning the female into an object. 

If you have a very strong female image of someone NOT constantly portrayed as a sex object, a well done image with much skin showing can do the opposite; it can show that this isn't only a fighter/wizard/whatever, but also a woman. 

Usually though, you get characters always portrayed in skimpy outfit. And this does not only put females as objects, it also says that if you are a female and you don't look like this, you aren't really a woman. This is of course an issue in all of western society. From all sorts of stupid advertising to the stars and starlets of today. 

I'd have a lot less issues with half naked women if they were not slim and large-breasted, but looked like the average population, maybe even on the fat side. Gamers tend to claim that you don't want your PC to be on the fat side even if you are fat IRL, but that's not quite true to my experience. You just need to make it possible for the players.


----------



## enrious (Jun 16, 2012)

It's been often mused, but I wonder if Marilyn Monroe would have made it into a modern publication.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 16, 2012)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> When somebody draws a character, we don't know what that person is thinking as they draw it... sure maybe they are drawing a subjugation of a woman... or maybe they are not, but they can't help how others will view it.




If you're drawing for your own enjoyment, well, then you do what you like.  But, if you are drawing for publication it is your job to communicate what you're thinking to the viewer.  That's the point of art!

Now, you're correct in that the artist doesn't have full control of what the audience thinks, but the artist should be able to take a lot of things into account, choosing their presentation to direct the audience and minimize miscommunication.  




Lwaxy said:


> I'd have a lot less issues with half naked women if they were not slim and large-breasted, but looked like the average population, maybe even on the fat side. Gamers tend to claim that you don't want your PC to be on the fat side even if you are fat IRL, but that's not quite true to my experience. You just need to make it possible for the players.




Well, here we hit another realism problem.  Unlike the chainmail bikini, though, realism argues for the current depictions, rather than against.

The Western World is well-known for being well-fed and poorly exercised.  If your game takes place in modern America, and the characters are supposed to be average people, then by all means they should look like average people.

But, D&D is typically a game of action-adventure heroes.  They make their way through the world running, jumping, lifting, and fighting.  Assuming you live through it, that kind of life should leave you pretty darned fit, and looking more like someone who could make it through special forces training without too much trouble, and less like a couch potato.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 16, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> For one, because this is very likely turning the female into an object.
> 
> If you have a very strong female image of someone NOT constantly portrayed as a sex object, a well done image with much skin showing can do the opposite; it can show that this isn't only a fighter/wizard/whatever, but also a woman.
> 
> ...




I agree with the big breasts woman come in all sizes and I would like to see this more in art. 

But I don't want to see adventurers as fat and flabby not in a fantasy world especially one where the adventures walk or ride horses everywhere. Riding horses gives you well developed thigh muscles. I think Umbran summed it up the fighters should look like they could at least be fit enough for the special forces and the wizards should at least look like they can walk through a dungeon without wheezing.


----------



## Janx (Jun 16, 2012)

so what can we take from all this?

I'm wary of a "It must change because it offends me" metric.  It's too easily a slippery slope argument that we can always find someone with even more restrictive preferences who will object to anything.

We as players and as GMs don't have direct control over the art direction in gaming products anyway.  It's just not logical to get mad at your GM for the art in the Pathfinder book that you find offensive, at least not unless he chose to use the Book of Offensive Art Images as his source material which is a bit blatant on his part.

However, this site sits as a crossroads where sometimes game company people do see what's being said.  It is not impossible for a top Paizo employee to see the concerns over some of the imagery.

What practical changes would you like to see made to the art in RPGs.  Is there a middle ground of what you would accept as an honest change, but not completely as far as you'd like to see things go?

Here's what I think would be fair:

differentiate between art for art books, calendars and posters which may be quite risque, from art used in and on game books.

Game book art should be showing things that are in genre, make sense, and fit with the materials in the book.  A sexy woman would not likely be slogging through a swamp with her party in her Prom dress or lingerie, while the rest of the male party is properly atired.

Thus, art in game books should show women wearing gear and clothes appropriate to the activity and scene like her male counterparts.

The evil female sorceress in the middle of her summoning spell should probably dress like she might be interrupted by a meddling adventure party, rather than after she slipped into something more comfortable, summoned a demon, and then was going back into the bedroom to seduce a man.

I don't think we'll get away from armor with cleavage or silly spikes.  Artists will want to make stuff spicy, but the art chosen for "picture of adventurers fighting goblins" can at least look like the woman is as prepared for the fight as the men.

Additionally, I think there may be some benefit to having armors depicting some feminine traits.  It means the women viewers can tell the women from the men, and be inspired to envision themselves in the scene and game.  If you get too practical/realistic with the art, then you shouldn't easily tell the difference, and at that point, it might as well be a guy underneath that helmet.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 16, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> I'd have a lot less issues with half naked women if they were not slim and large-breasted, but looked like the average population, maybe even on the fat side. Gamers tend to claim that you don't want your PC to be on the fat side even if you are fat IRL, but that's not quite true to my experience. You just need to make it possible for the players.




I don't think adventurers need to look like couch potatoes.

HOWEVER, a female fighter who looks like a supermodel or who is super skinny with huge breasts is completely hosed for stats, unless you postulate some kind of magical bonus that doesn't work the way normal physics and biology does.  

When I was powerlifting and fighting in the SCA, at the top of my form, my body fat percentage (calipered pretty regularly by my trainer) was usually about where normal female ranges should be.  I wasn't really thrilled to have it dip any lower. I did not want that for a whole lot of reasons; my aim was not to look like a model, but to be very, very strong and fit.  And to make sure the "rhino hiders" bloody well took notice when I hit them. 

My upper body strength still wasn't up to decent male levels, but I could (and did once) pick the back end of my car up out of a ditch.  Small car, but still.  Strength is useful stuff.  After a nasty back injury that literally paralyzed me for awhile, I stuck mostly to leg presses and machines for rehab and laid off squats and deads.  And that was years ago, but it's still not a problem for me to pile almost all the 45's I can fit on both sides of the leg press and go to town for reps.  450 is a very comfy warmup, 750 is a decent workload that doesn't strain my injured (and now much older) back.

The point of all this isn't really to brag - there's about a million seriously competitive women who lift who can outdo the best numbers I ever made without even trying - but to state that lifting + SCA fighting + a few other things I wa doing at the time isn't a bad analogue for what a female fighter/adventurer has to actually do to survive.

One of the reasons I never, ever aimed for "model looks" even while dieting rigorously and training to optimize for my goals is that *I needed the weight*.  As in, if I lost too much, I'd get my @$$ handed to me both in SCA combat and on the job.  I bother zoo animals for a living, mostly of the sort that can kill you if you screw up your safety protocols, or if you're not quick enough or strong enough to handle their responses.  

The first time an alligator stood up and walked away with me on its back while I was doing a cranial blood draw, when I didn't expect it and wasn't prepared for it, was at the bottom of a "cutting cycle" where I'd dropped too much weight.  Guess how quick I started slamming extra protein shakes.  It *looked* good - the boyfriend certainly said so - but it was going to get me killed.  Did not want.  Not worth it.  I couldn't max my muscles out any faster short of using illegal drugs, but I could raise my body fat percentage to the point that I a) looked pretty much normal/average/stocky in clothes and b) could hold my own and not get knocked down or walked away with quite so easily.  

You know what happens when someone who is skinny with big boobs goes head to head in a physical combat with someone who is more solidly built?  Or with a big critter who has an argument to make?  Absolutely nothing good.  Found that one out myself, the hard way.  Fortunately it was a pretty calm, keeper-habituated animal and nothing worse than surprise happened to me when I lost control of the situation.  I did have a second and much nastier outcome involving a different type of critter in a similar situation, where I lost my footing in a cage due to just not weighing enough.  And in the real world, no clerics, yo.  Scary stuff.  

Your game, your rules, but female fighters who look like that are going to get killed unless they eat a sammich.  Or a whole lot of sammiches.  I get the feeling that most of them would tend to make that choice.  The motivation to weigh more so you can _not die_ significantly outweighs vanity.  At least it did for me.


----------



## Lwaxy (Jun 17, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Well, here we hit another realism problem.  Unlike the chainmail bikini, though, realism argues for the current depictions, rather than against.
> 
> The Western World is well-known for being well-fed and poorly exercised.  If your game takes place in modern America, and the characters are supposed to be average people, then by all means they should look like average people.
> 
> But, D&D is typically a game of action-adventure heroes.  They make their way through the world running, jumping, lifting, and fighting.  Assuming you live through it, that kind of life should leave you pretty darned fit, and looking more like someone who could make it through special forces training without too much trouble, and less like a couch potato.




Depends on how you start them out. In my latest Eberron campaign, we do have a fat and some very undertained characters, simply because before they were kicked out of their comfort zones, they often did lead lazy lives. It makes for some hilarious situations. 

And a wizard who has been in his academy all his life may well be fat. Over time that may change, sure, but I've played a fat wizard before and that was fun. From getting stuck in a well to not fitting through the dimensional hole cast by himself, but he was far from being only comic relief. 

Now a fat rogue is a bit harder to imagine but I remember watching a game at a con where there was one and it was quite cool, too. The rogue got out of several arrests because the town guard never believed someone of his shape could be a cat burglar.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 17, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> Depends on how you start them out. In my latest Eberron campaign, we do have a fat and some very undertained characters, simply because before they were kicked out of their comfort zones, they often did lead lazy lives. It makes for some hilarious situations.
> 
> And a wizard who has been in his academy all his life may well be fat. Over time that may change, sure, but I've played a fat wizard before and that was fun. From getting stuck in a well to not fitting through the dimensional hole cast by himself, but he was far from being only comic relief.
> 
> Now a fat rogue is a bit harder to imagine but I remember watching a game at a con where there was one and it was quite cool, too. The rogue got out of several arrests because the town guard never believed someone of his shape could be a cat burglar.




A fat rogue isn't useful?






Politely disagrees .

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 17, 2012)

@Loonook  and others who were asking for examples:

On Free RPG Day, I went and got a swag bag of modules, maps and gaming supplements from my local gaming store.  I just took the bag provided; I did not add or subtract anything based on personal choice.  I think we can call this a good selection of modern (specifically published for yesterday's event) promotional material from RPG companies, representative of what is out there on the market today.

My summary of all the images in all of that material is here.

The results are a mixed bag, with two supps that were awesome and depicted females realistically (though barely there at all in the second one with only a single female image + one probably female character in the far background), one neutral (to me) with no character art and one skimpy-armor male drow image in a back cover ad, and three major offenders where the men were dressed normally or for adventuring (armor, weapons, etc) and the women were in bikinis, miniskirts, lingerie, harem girl outfits, peasant dresses, tiny bathing suit "armor", etc.  

This is fairly representative my experience as a female gamer looking at a random selection of RPG source material.  There's some decent stuff out there that rocks for good female adventuring character depictions (thank you, Pathfinder "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun" module).  There's also some really bad-message-sending stuff that has women fighting in harem-girl outfits with dangly cloth strips over their hoo-hah in the *majority* of the human images depicted.  As in, they're literally illustrating the entire book with cheesecake.  Also, gratuitous "rape is imminent" imagery in one supp that didn't have a plot-supported reason to be there.  

Still scratching my head over that one, because, why.  Other than wheeee, rape.  Just for fun, in the middle of your random illustrations of men and women.  None of the women were depicted as anything but NPC props in that one; only the men had armor or weapons, or were shown as adventurers or active characters of any class.  

Overall, do you think a woman looking at the entire contents of the Free RPG Day swag bag will feel like she is entirely welcome as an actively participating part of this subculture? 

It's certainly true that we have the ability to scan through all this material, keep the good stuff and the neutral stuff and toss the creepy stuff in the trash or just not buy it.  But the question is whether the good stuff is good enough to outweigh the discomfort factor of having to look through the not so good stuff.  For a lot of women, it isn't - they'll toss the creepy book down in disgust and never come back for more.  Or be willing to enter the gaming room at a convention - I heard that *a lot* when I talked about gaming or tried to recruit for games in other areas of the fandom at large conventions.  A lot of fannish women literally will not go anywhere near the gaming room or gamers, because they believe, rightfully or not, that the entire subculture is "creepy" and unwelcoming to women, or not for women.  

Is the good stuff in gaming good enough to outweigh the knowledge that there is a lot of material out there that depicts women this way, and subtly or not so subtly teaches gamers to think of and treat women this way?  For some it will be, for a lot of others it won't.  The fact is that a woman who wants to game is going to keep getting hit in the face with the creepy stuff any time we randomly browse RPG books, and we're going to keep having run-ins with the socially clueless guys who really do think of and treat women at the gaming table like they are treated in the artwork.  

The clueless guys who act that way and who can not tell a fantasy character depiction from how they should treat a fellow gamer in the real world who happens to be female are definitely not the majority of male gamers, but they do exist.  Unfortunate but true. 

I absolutely do not blame anyone who is NOT personally acting that way for the guys that do.  I recognize that there is not much the good guys can do, except to tell the bad guys to knock it off and that it is not okay if you see it at your gaming table.  And maybe to recognize that handing a woman a book that shows men as the real adventurers and women as the props or the fashion pinups who don't get the same armor, equipment or practical/useful clothes and gear that the men do is going to have an effect on whether or not they feel welcome or well represented in your game.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 17, 2012)

TanithT said:


> @Loonook  and others who were asking for examples:
> 
> On Free RPG Day, I went and got a swag bag of modules, maps and gaming supplements from my local gaming store.  I just took the bag provided; I did not add or subtract anything based on personal choice.  I think we can call this a good selection of modern (specifically published for yesterday's event) promotional material from RPG companies, representative of what is out there on the market today.
> 
> ...




So two games, made to be retroclones/throwback games (DCC/Cosmic)... And one that depicts a woman being victimized in a game renowned as one of the most intricate games around that uses a heavy amount of historical research to recreate an analogue of Medieval Europe (including its mythology)... Wherein, yeah, there is a chance the bad guys are going to have a high probability of victimizing women... As they did in the historical material it is based upon. 

Intent vs. Impact... Again.  Please, count your pages... And then open Vogue, Cosmo, etc randomly and scan that same amount... Intent. Vs. Impact.



> It's certainly true that we have the ability to scan through all this material, keep the good stuff and the neutral stuff and toss the creepy stuff in the trash or just not buy it.  But the question is whether the good stuff is good enough to outweigh the discomfort factor of having to look through the not so good stuff.  For a lot of women, it isn't - they'll toss the creepy book down in disgust and never come back for more.  Or be willing to enter the gaming room at a convention - I heard that *a lot* when I talked about gaming or tried to recruit for games in other areas of the fandom at large conventions.  A lot of fannish women literally will not go anywhere near the gaming room or gamers, because they believe, rightfully or not, that the entire subculture is "creepy" and unwelcoming to women, or not for women.




Yeah... Unwelcoming to women.  Which is weird because, from my own personal experience and viewing of others, the lack of welcome comes from both sides.  I have a pretty good amount of humor, charm, and alleged intellect from all of my fancy book-learnin' that seems to come across well enough... I rarely lack for companionship.  But if I mentioned I played D&D in 90% of the first conversations with those I date?

Allllright.  Kthxbye.




> The clueless guys who act that way and who can not tell a fantasy character depiction from how they should treat a fellow gamer in the real world who happens to be female are definitely not the majority of male gamers, but they do exist.  Unfortunate but true.




Really?  Yeah, because the culture should bow to the lowest denominator to prevent issue.  I have had a minimum of 1 female in every group I've run since 1997.  My highest concentration was 4:1.  I've dealt with crazy on both sides of the gender gap...

And it has nothing to do with the material presented.  The table is a place where people can chat, and enjoy themselves.  And we have discussions...

Out of... at least 60 continuing players over the years?  I've had one female player who made unwanted sexual advances to a male player, and a male player who white-knighted for a female CHARACTER to the point of pulling a weapon.

Yeah, the table can be curt, and cursing exists, along with plenty of other situations.  We cover the gamut of gender, orientation, race, body type, etc... But ehh, my biggest issues with players turn to be pretty much just crazy.  Of course I don't mind hurtful words being used at the table, or arguments... and my female players have, for the most, stayed more constant than my males.

I know, I am a horrible, knuckle-dragging monster... But I guess I just have that roguish neanderthalic charm.




> I absolutely do not blame anyone who is NOT personally acting that way for the guys that do.  I recognize that there is not much the good guys can do, except to tell the bad guys to knock it off and that it is not okay if you see it at your gaming table.




And the fact is that you seem to do so repeatedly by claiming that our hobby is full of porn and dehumanization towards your centaur in this race.  Or would that be an unhorsing?

The fact that it seems I am one of the 'bad guys' per the wonderful responses I have received on this threads aside, I know porn when I see it.  I happen to know myself well enough (and especially know myself when seeing porn) to not sensationalize imagery.  Cosmic Patrol covers the 40s/50s/60s sci-fi gamut...

And I wouldn't mind seeing exploitation elements in that text.  Ignoring or whitewashing a zeitgeist does not make it go away, and does a disservice.  The Middle Ages SUCKED for women.  And men.  And any creature with a pulse.  You know how all of that sexual oppression was going on?

As a male I could be castrated, lose an arm, hung, beheaded, quartered, or just plain ol' fashioned run through/chopped because I had the audacity to protect you from being raped.  Or while protecting my cattle.  Or preventing someone from lighting my barn on fire.  Or just for giggles.

Hell, in the later Middle Ages I may against my will be unsexed simply because I can sing well... And girls were icky.

Depictions of Rapunzels and Rolands are our specific grand view of a society which sucked for everyone, and as medievalists look back we see that the world is not the kind of place I would willingly go to via my DeLorean.    



> And maybe to recognize that handing a woman a book that shows men as the real adventurers and women as the props or the fashion pinups who don't get the same armor, equipment or practical/useful clothes and gear that the men do is going to have an effect on whether or not they feel welcome or well represented in your game.




Again, I'll point to Pathfinder, or the iconics in various editions.  Your arguments are seeking validity against the whole through an examination of a niche part.  If I contract gangrene in my little toe I don't shoot myself in the head.  Eliminate the piece from your gaming life and all is well.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> Intent vs. Impact... Again.  Please, count your pages... And then open Vogue, Cosmo, etc randomly and scan that same amount... Intent. Vs. Impact.




If I throw a rock straight up in the air with the intent of looking up to watch it fall, it's still going to impact my face.  I don't think the intent makes the impact hurt any less.

I don't read women's fashion magazines because I already know what's in them and I have no interest in being sent those messages.  Are you suggesting that I should just quit reading RPG sourcebooks for the same reason?  

Oh wait.  I mostly have.  And that really is pretty sad to me.  Gaming used to be a huge part of my life, and now, much less so.  

At what point it stops being worth it is individual to every person.  I will say that it took a very long time for it to get to that point for me.  But it got there, and honestly I'd rather go without gaming for months than risk sitting down at a gaming table with people I don't know.  I'd rather write all of my own material based on the old stuff I already have than browse for anything new.  




> Yeah... Unwelcoming to women.  Which is weird because, from my own personal experience and viewing of others, the lack of welcome comes from both sides.




Does that mean that you're mad because women feel unwelcome and respond accordingly with "no thank you, do not want"?  Or are you contending, "She started it!"  




> I rarely lack for companionship.  But if I mentioned I played D&D in 90% of the first conversations with those I date?
> 
> Allllright.  Kthxbye.




Well, more power to ya, but I would not personally feel comfortable dating someone who wasn't as nerdy as me.  





> Yeah, the table can be curt, and cursing exists, along with plenty of other situations.




Who the &%$#@ said anything about cursing?  I've never, not one single time, heard a complaint from a female gamer about cursing at the table.  




> And I wouldn't mind seeing exploitation elements in that text.  Ignoring or whitewashing a zeitgeist does not make it go away, and does a disservice.  The Middle Ages SUCKED for women.  And men.  And any creature with a pulse.  You know how all of that sexual oppression was going on?




Two issues here.  One, if there had actually been a text justification for the image, I'd have passed it as being sensible in the context of worldbuilding and background.  Sometimes you gotta show that bad people do bad things, and this is a legitimate slice of life.  But sticking it randomly into the middle of a bunch of other depictions that show that women don't wear armor or use weapons or go adventuring?  Sends a message.

Two, who the hell wants to play games where your character sucks?  I mean, realistically, most people in the Middle Ages were illiterate turnip farmers.  The high point of their day was when the family cow kicked over the milking stool.  If they were lucky enough to have a family cow.  Do you really want to play Cows & Turnips, the thrilling new ultra realistic Middle Ages RPG?  

Yeah.  I don't either.  Like most gamers - note that I don't make a gender distinction here - I actually want to play an adventuring character that, you know, has adventures.  And can do cool stuff and have cool weapons.  And is powerful, and not boring as ^$*@.  




> Your arguments are seeking validity against the whole through an examination of a niche part.  If I contract gangrene in my little toe I don't shoot myself in the head.  Eliminate the piece from your gaming life and all is well.




I've done that.  There are things I just don't do any more and places I don't bother looking any more, because the fun to facepalming ratio is too high for it to be worthwhile.  

What makes me sadder the more I think about it is just how much I've walked away from because of too many ugly experiences and too high a percentage of things that make me feel unwelcome or alienated in the hobby.  The price of avoiding the no-fun stuff is actually very, very high, because they genuinely are pretty pervasive in any random sample I am likely to encounter.  

Do I need 'validation' for this?  No.  I'm not looking to prove anything.  I'm just saying that this is my experience.  This is what it feels like to be me.  Your mileage is likely to vary, because you aren't me and I'm not you.  We've had different experiences.  But if you were even remotely interested in knowing what it feels like from the perspective of one person who games and is female, here you go.  That is all.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 18, 2012)

TanithT said:


> If I throw a rock straight up in the air with the intent of looking up to watch it fall, it's still going to impact my face.  I don't think the intent makes the impact hurt any less.




And no more literal and obtuse view of impact vs. intent exists.  The point is that the intent (depict an era of a specific genre or an actual historical epoch) is extremely skewed under your perception of its impact.  If I was attempting to create an replica of the Jungle Book and removed its tones of racism, sexism, and weird inappropriate hypno-touching snakes I would not be making a replica.  I would be putting my own personal spin on it.

The Warner 11, Song of the South, Speedy Gonzalez, Blazing Saddles, Birth of a Nation, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huckleberry Finn... All get attacked for their depictions through the lens of today.  They were the entertainment of the period, and ignoring the source material is silly.  There are those who take a source material and do a great job of humanizing and affecting out interpretation of a piece (using my own love of Shakespeare I'll point to Raul Julia's depiction of Othello, Olivier as Shylock in Merchant of Venice)... but we must be aware of the material's history and cognizant of it when working within the historical and social mores of the era.

And you have every right to reinterpret your specific views of 40s/50s/60s pulp and scifi, or the 12th century.  But removing or selectively interpreting those depictions are going to really make the piece ring hollow... Because the removal of those concepts, however distasteful, removes a lot of the depth.  And our own observation, interpretation, understanding, and inversion provides a wider basis on conventions of the genre. 



> I don't read women's fashion magazines because I already know what's in them and I have no interest in being sent those messages.  Are you suggesting that I should just quit reading RPG sourcebooks for the same reason?




And yet they hold up a lens to a far wider scope of cultural narrative than our niche hobby... And as I look through a few here I find much more sexuality expressed per page than I have ever seen in the average RPG rulebook, campaign setting, or novelization.  



> Oh wait.  I mostly have.  And that really is pretty sad to me.  Gaming used to be a huge part of my life, and now, much less so.




And eliminating yourself due to images by artists speaks more to your desire to game than the materials.  I hate the fact that every adventurer is ripped... But it doesn't prevent me from running my game in a way I see fit.



> At what point it stops being worth it is individual to every person.  I will say that it took a very long time for it to get to that point for me.  But it got there, and honestly I'd rather go without gaming for months than risk sitting down at a gaming table with people I don't know.  I'd rather write all of my own material based on the old stuff I already have than browse for anything new.




And the old stuff you have has a much, much higher level of the alleged sexism than the new materials, as I have pointed out repeatedly.



> Does that mean that you're mad because women feel unwelcome and respond accordingly with "no thank you, do not want"?  Or are you contending, "She started it!"




I am stating that the prejudice against the hobby perpetuated through sitcoms, movies, etc. are going to drive people away.  And we'll go into this further below...



> Well, more power to ya, but I would not personally feel comfortable dating someone who wasn't as nerdy as me.




And I don't eliminate someone from my personal dating pool because they don't like the same things I do.  After meeting up, learning about the hobbies I practice, etc. I have taught about 75% of the girls I have dated various RPGs/CCGs... And I have gotten to learn about massotherapy, photography, horseback riding, archery, cards, scrapbooking, tailoring, veterinary care, music, web design...

All from nice, attractive members of a society where my group is marginalized for being sexist and misogynistic... All because of perceptions.



> Who the &%$#@ said anything about cursing?  I've never, not one single time, heard a complaint from a female gamer about cursing at the table.




I have.  Again, I guess we're just dealing with a lot of different types of people.



> Two issues here.  One, if there had actually been a text justification for the image, I'd have passed it as being sensible in the context of worldbuilding and background.  Sometimes you gotta show that bad people do bad things, and this is a legitimate slice of life.  But sticking it randomly into the middle of a bunch of other depictions that show that women don't wear armor or use weapons or go adventuring?  Sends a message.




No, it doesn't.  If the same picture included a man you would have the exact same message... At least in my eyes.  This is again a viewing through biased lenses.  



> Two, who the hell wants to play games where your character sucks?  I mean, realistically, most people in the Middle Ages were illiterate turnip farmers.  The high point of their day was when the family cow kicked over the milking stool.  If they were lucky enough to have a family cow.  Do you really want to play Cows & Turnips, the thrilling new ultra realistic Middle Ages RPG?




A lot of people.  Harn is a pretty popular system in the places where it is accepted due to the realism and low-magic setting.  And your interpretation of a peasant in the Middle Ages shows the fact that maybe realism or history isn't your bag.  That's fine.



> Yeah.  I don't either.  Like most gamers - note that I don't make a gender distinction here - I actually want to play an adventuring character that, you know, has adventures.  And can do cool stuff and have cool weapons.  And is powerful, and not boring as ^$*@.




And there are a lot of people who play E6.  Or games where they have very limited HP, and a single stab takes them out.  It's the way of the world that your ideas (High Fantasy egalitarian) are not necessarily the majority across the entire hobby.



> I've done that.  There are things I just don't do any more and places I don't bother looking any more, because the fun to facepalming ratio is too high for it to be worthwhile.




Alright.



> What makes me sadder the more I think about it is just how much I've walked away from because of too many ugly experiences and too high a percentage of things that make me feel unwelcome or alienated in the hobby.  The price of avoiding the no-fun stuff is actually very, very high, because they genuinely are pretty pervasive in any random sample I am likely to encounter.




Have you ever felt that, maybe, just maybe, your sampling is a case of correlation!=causation?  I'm sorry, but as we've been going over this I've discussed with several female members of previous groups and its just... Not there in the way you're seeing it.  



> Do I need 'validation' for this?  No.  I'm not looking to prove anything.  I'm just saying that this is my experience.  This is what it feels like to be me.  Your mileage is likely to vary, because you aren't me and I'm not you.  We've had different experiences.  But if you were even remotely interested in knowing what it feels like from the perspective of one person who games and is female, here you go.  That is all.




I have the experiences of plenty of female gamers who don't have these feelings, and no one who corroborates them at all.  I would suggest taking a little more time sampling the things you deride, as it seems your sampling of information regarding fantasy RPGs seems to be pretty dated by your own admission.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Janx (Jun 18, 2012)

TanithT said:


> If I throw a rock straight up in the air with the intent of looking up to watch it fall, it's still going to impact my face.  I don't think the intent makes the impact hurt any less.




you feel entirely different if you threw the rock and it hit you, than if you thought I threw the rock at you.

Worse, how do you think I feel when you mistakenly blame me for throwing the rock when I didn't do it.

Intent has an unseen force greater than the physical damage from any impact.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> A lot of people.  Harn is a pretty popular system in the places where it is accepted due to the realism and low-magic setting.  And your interpretation of a peasant in the Middle Ages shows the fact that maybe realism or history isn't your bag.  That's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> And there are a lot of people who play E6.  Or games where they have very limited HP, and a single stab takes them out.  It's the way of the world that your ideas (High Fantasy egalitarian) are not necessarily the majority across the entire hobby.




My issue when ever some one brings up history which by the way I love reading about and gaming is this. In our middle ages there was no magic even low level magic would have changed how things worked. Women would not have been so easily subjugated if they could drop a fire ball or a magic missile on your head. The nobles ruled by power and outlawing peasants from taking up the sword. Sorcerers and other mages who don't need schooling could help even that playing field. A god calls a young peasant to become a paladin it is going to change how peasants are viewed. 

And BTW the woman who lived back then didn't dress in the bimbo clothes some gaming art puts them in. Look at drawings of Joan of Ark she wore the same armor as men no boob cups. In some eras they may have shown cleavage but they didn't have wide areas of body showing.

In the dark ages and the roman times some of the brit warriors fought nude but covered in woad but that was both men and woman. 


I enjoy realism to an extent but there are some topics that are just not kosher with modern players and one of those that seems to upset a great deal of people is the subject of rape. Yes we know it happened and still does happen but it is really necessary to have artwork that is hinting that rape is about to happen?

 I have played E6 and there is no way you can compare the PCs at sixth level to the peasant of or even the nobles of the middle ages. For one thing you have magical healing , fire balls , animating the dead, the removal of disease, speak with the dead, or having people flying through the air. 

Even in the SCA where we try and recreate the middle ages we don't actually live them we use ice and refrigerate our food. I use a sewing machine to make garb and o one would dare treat a female SCA member the way woman were treated in the middle ages. So I don't see why it is necessary to have it in fantasy role playing games.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> If I was attempting to create an replica of the Jungle Book and removed its tones of racism, sexism, and weird inappropriate hypno-touching snakes I would not be making a replica.  I would be putting my own personal spin on it.
> 
> The Warner 11, Song of the South, Speedy Gonzalez, Blazing Saddles, Birth of a Nation, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huckleberry Finn... All get attacked for their depictions through the lens of today.  They were the entertainment of the period, and ignoring the source material is silly.




If you choose, you can certainly make a Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer RPG, complete with authentically liberal use of the n-word.  What you can't do if you make that choice is complain that more African-Americans aren't buying or playing your system.  Because, duuuh.  It's not likely to be much fun for them.  





> And eliminating yourself due to images by artists speaks more to your desire to game than the materials.



What I desire at the moment is to use language unbefitting to the forum.  But I'll limit myself to pointing out that it took many years and a lot of horrific experiences to take me from being a fanatic gamer who clocked all-weekend long sessions and multiple 8-hour slots at every gaming con I could get to, wrote articles for the original Dragon magazine and pretty much lived for gaming, to where I am with the hobby today.  

Apparently I didn't convey this very well.  Because what you're saying is that you're quite sure that the experiences that discouraged me were merely trivial, and if I really liked gaming, I would ignore them.  Would that be an accurate summary?





> And the old stuff you have has a much, much higher level of the alleged sexism than the new materials, as I have pointed out repeatedly.



Some does, some doesn't.  





> If the same picture included a man you would have the exact same message... At least in my eyes.  This is again a viewing through biased lenses.



Funnily enough, while I have seen a number of sexual violence images where women are depicted as the victims and/or in need of rescue, I honestly can not remember a single image or storyline in a mass market RPG where a male was depicted this way.  Of course there may be some that I've just never seen.





> I have the experiences of plenty of female gamers who don't have these feelings, and no one who corroborates them at all.



Okay, where are they and why aren't any of them in this thread speaking for themselves?




> I would suggest taking a little more time sampling the things you deride, as it seems your sampling of information regarding fantasy RPGs seems to be pretty dated by your own admission.



Oh, I get to look at all the new stuff, because it's in the house - I'm not the only nerd in residence here.   And too often I facepalm and put it back down again.   There is stuff that is getting better, but some of it is actually getting worse as far as I can tell.  *cough cough Exalted Princess Cameltoe cough cough*


----------



## Loonook (Jun 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> My issue when ever some one brings up history which by the way I love reading about and gaming is this. In our middle ages there was no magic even low level magic would have changed how things worked. Women would not have been so easily subjugated if they could drop a fire ball or a magic missile on your head. The nobles ruled by power and outlawing peasants from taking up the sword. Sorcerers and other mages who don't need schooling could help even that playing field. A god calls a young peasant to become a paladin it is going to change how peasants are viewed.




And even in our society where magic didn't exist men and women were put to the stake for curdling milk, killing crops, and sickening the populace.  They were also put to death for heresy and all sorts of other wonderful offenses, and for challenging views on how to manage society and their views in the sciences.

The economy of spellcasting would put most, if not all, PC classes from rising from their peasant ranks without noble/Church patronage... or apprenticeships, similar to what we have had in the arts and sciences of the period.

Being able to drop a fireball means you have survived up to 5th level.  Per a standard 3.x DMG demographic mockup of a Thorp?  Not a single Fireballer and 3rd level Adepts/1st level Wizards tops.  In a metropolis?  You're looking at 9 Adepts/Clerics/Druids/Bards above 4th level,  3 Wizards and 3 Sorcerers (rounding down).  That means we have less than 1/1000 individuals able to cast 3rd level spells... And if we figure based on the framework of randomized Elite arrays you may find that there are individuals who have a very high level of Sorcerer... But not the Charisma to pull it off/have heroic casting levels.  

These demographics are rough sketches, but we could also run the numbers on a representative sample of 1000 individuals from birth to adulthood.  I would be happy to run a couple dozen checks once I figure out a good test to see the mortality rate in a representative sample of children.  I'll have to come up with a couple solid tests to account for the lowest level diseases (filth fever would probably be the most common) and then run the specs to see who would survive into adulthood with an Elite Array range that supports the Constitution results of children and then compare that to a standard for childhood mortality.




> And BTW the woman who lived back then didn't dress in the bimbo clothes some gaming art puts them in. Look at drawings of Joan of Ark she wore the same armor as men no boob cups. In some eras they may have shown cleavage but they didn't have wide areas of body showing.
> 
> In the dark ages and the roman times some of the brit warriors fought nude but covered in woad but that was both men and woman.




Plenty of warriors fought in the nude, and there are lots of cultures that have individuals who walked around in immodest clothing.  The level of clothing ranges throughout history, and while Joan of Arc may be used as an example of a strong warrior woman... How many true battles did she fight in that are confirmed?  And even with that, she dies at the stake for dressing in an unnatural fashion...



> I enjoy realism to an extent but there are some topics that are just not kosher with modern players and one of those that seems to upset a great deal of people is the subject of rape. Yes we know it happened and still does happen but it is really necessary to have artwork that is hinting that rape is about to happen?




Plenty of depictions within mythology, literature, and modern fantasy are around.  And as I said... The idea that it is rape is in the eye of the beholder.  And why must a woman be about to be raped if she is being assaulted?  Maybe just a waylay and a brutal murder.

I guess that is accepted in the culture?



> I have played E6 and there is no way you can compare the PCs at sixth level to the peasant of or even the nobles of the middle ages. For one thing you have magical healing , fire balls , animating the dead, the removal of disease, speak with the dead, or having people flying through the air.




All of which have been accredited to various mages and priests during the Middle Ages.  Well, except for the fireballs... Not recalling a specific discussion of that one.



> Even in the SCA where we try and recreate the middle ages we don't actually live them we use ice and refrigerate our food. I use a sewing machine to make garb and o one would dare treat a female SCA member the way woman were treated in the middle ages. So I don't see why it is necessary to have it in fantasy role playing games.




The Society for Creative ANACHRONISM doesn't perform a full recreation?
That is kind of the point of the A in SCA, no?

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> And even in our society where magic didn't exist men and women were put to the stake for curdling milk, killing crops, and sickening the populace.  They were also put to death for heresy and all sorts of other wonderful offenses, and for challenging views on how to manage society and their views in the sciences.
> 
> The economy of spellcasting would put most, if not all, PC classes from rising from their peasant ranks without noble/Church patronage... or apprenticeships, similar to what we have had in the arts and sciences of the period.
> 
> ...




You can only speculate how a society where magic really existed would act,  But to try and say it would look like our middle ages is reaching. The plague is was powerful reason for the Renaissance and for science developing as the church started to lose its stranglehold on the population. Gun powder changed how wars were fought and what kind of armor and castle were built. 

You are using game mechanics to try and answer just how many magic users there would be mechanics that don't take in consideration genetics. It is fun to speculate about it. But trying to justify sexism because sexism existed in our own middle ages is reaching.

Again what you seem to have trouble grasping what has been said here and on the other thread context matters.  If everyone fights nude then there is no overt sexuality involved. It happens when you put the men in more realistic armor and the woman in stripper armor. In Conan everyone dresses in skimpy clothes it is part of that genre. But DnD is more than just sword and sorcery. Again context matters.

I can't believe that you are questioning how many battles Joan of Arc fought in are deliberately missing the point that woman who did take up arms used the same armor as the men. And if she had been a DnD paladin her magic and her calling from the gods would not have been doubted in a world where people have proof that the gods are real.    

Show that picture to most woman and they will tell you that they expect rape to be involved. History is filled with incidents of rape. Some of our soldiers in Vietnam committed rape. Female protestors in Libya were raped a reporter covering Egypt was sexually assaulted. As a woman who was sexually assaulted as a teen and who has spent time helping other victims both male and female I know that woman are very aware of the danger of being raped. In most of the support groups I have been in or help run the men are always shocked that it happened to them because they never thought it could happen to them because they are men. Woman are not. 

So I would think a gaming company should show a little sensitivity and  not have a barmaid being taken captive by armed men. I would rather err on the side of caution in this. There is so much more ways you can show evil being done that does not allude to rape.   


The SCA does not use live steel. Woman can fight and take the crown as woman. We try our best to research persona and garb.  We try and make feasts as authentic as possible while still tasting good and coming in budget. People try and recreate the arts and crafts of the middle ages. But we don't allow racism or sexism.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> Plenty of warriors fought in the nude, and there are lots of cultures that have individuals who walked around in immodest clothing.




Once again, the standards for what I would consider gratuitous sexualization have nothing to do with modest versus immodest, or with people who are naked or being sexual because it makes actual sense in context for them to be doing this.  





> The idea that it is rape is in the eye of the beholder.  And why must a woman be about to be raped if she is being assaulted?  Maybe just a waylay and a brutal murder.



Is that the impression that the average person, male or female, will get when they see this image?  No.  Whatever you postulate the artist's intent to have been, or whatever might happen in your personal storyline if you were using this image, the majority of people viewing this picture are going to get a pretty clear impression about what is happening when two smiling armed men are holding down a terrified peasant woman with a hand over her mouth, and a third man is watching.  




> The Society for Creative ANACHRONISM doesn't perform a full recreation? That is kind of the point of the A in SCA, no?



No.  Because we live in the real world, and we have stuff like liability and insurance and the county Board of Health to deal with.

I used to do a lot of "soltetes" for various feasts and medieval cooking contests.  My specialty was processing a tasty critter, roasting it whole, home tanning the skin using period ingredients and methods, and putting it back on in an interesting way to be served.  The single visibly non period addition to my whole roast gryphon and unicorn edible taxidermy was a butt-ton of aluminum foil between meat and home preserved "green" hide.  Because, while food poisoning is authentically medieval, everyone figured we could live without the dysentery part of the recreation.  

Also, we wash with antibacterial soap and use toilets.    Because, Board of Health.  And dysentery.  And stuff.

Plus, there is no effing way we're going to say jack if somebody who is not of an ethnic type wants to portray a character who is of that type, because, um.  Whole big can of worms there, and I don't know anyone who wants it open.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jun 18, 2012)

> TanithT wrote:
> Honestly, I'm good with the porn. It harms no one. It's porn - it's sexual imagery, and there is no reason it should not exist.




Oh I have nothing against porn either.

I should have prefaced my post by explaining that I was considering RPG art and that I think sexualised art is inappropriate in that context. Truthfully I should have limited my search to art from published RPG books. (I dare say at least some of the images I looked at were created by fans for their own enjoyment, perhaps pornographic enjoyment, and I certainly don't have any problem with that either.) 

The long and the short is: there is lots of room for improving the representaions of women in published RPG art.

cheers.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> You can only speculate how a society where magic really existed would act,  But to try and say it would look like our middle ages is reaching. The plague is was powerful reason for the Renaissance and for science developing as the church started to lose its stranglehold on the population. Gun powder changed how wars were fought and what kind of armor and castle were built.
> 
> You are using game mechanics to try and answer just how many magic users there would be mechanics that don't take in consideration genetics. It is fun to speculate about it. But trying to justify sexism because sexism existed in our own middle ages is reaching.




The game actually has defined statistics... These statistics determine your strength, heartiness, and intelligence (along with your others  ).  I'll crunch the information for Filth Fever (a nice low-level disease threat) and run it through the number provided for children's stats to check out the mortality rate.  I've been working on a few interpretations... It does not look good for the kids even at a low threat range (infection 2% chance/year, which is... Pretty low considering we're using it as ALL diseases) over a few thousand iterations... But I feel that Filth Fever is probably the best 'killer' illness and can be represented through a single series of rolls (random generate Con at birth, test for each year with increases across the series... Want numbers for a million people? .

The system exists as a representation of a world, and extends into the macroverse of the Prime Material as well as the microverse of the PC's day-to-day activities.  And if everyone in the world follows specific rules?  Well, that means we actually have a great statistical model to check on the lifespan of individuals. 



> Again what you seem to have trouble grasping what has been said here and on the other thread context matters.  If everyone fights nude then there is no overt sexuality involved. It happens when you put the men in more realistic armor and the woman in stripper armor. In Conan everyone dresses in skimpy clothes it is part of that genre. But DnD is more than just sword and sorcery. Again context matters.




I grasp that in your view I do not grasp context... But you're also judging a culture which you are reacting to RPG supplements that I'm just not seeing.  Again, I'll point to the BoEF: You claimed to have read the material. I can only confirm that I have read the thing cover to cover; while the entirety is filled with a lot of silly bits... But has a great section discussing generations, procreation, and the origins of various species.  It seems a forest for the trees issue.. But I digress.



> I can't believe that you are questioning how many battles Joan of Arc fought in are deliberately missing the point that woman who did take up arms used the same armor as the men. And if she had been a DnD paladin her magic and her calling from the gods would not have been doubted in a world where people have proof that the gods are real.




Being allowed to ride around in armor does not a warrior make.  By that same token child soldiers should be allowed throughout D&D because of the example of Johny Clem.  JoA was just dressing up at the behest of a kingdom that needed a figurehead.  If you want a better example you could lean towards Brunhilde and Fredegund, who actually never actively battled on the field but used their strength as queens and consorts to actually launch forty years of war.  Much more bellicose, even if they never picked up a sword.



> Show that picture to most woman and they will tell you that they expect rape to be involved. History is filled with incidents of rape. Some of our soldiers in Vietnam committed rape. Female protestors in Libya were raped a reporter covering Egypt was sexually assaulted. As a woman who was sexually assaulted as a teen and who has spent time helping other victims both male and female I know that woman are very aware of the danger of being raped. In most of the support groups I have been in or help run the men are always shocked that it happened to them because they never thought it could happen to them because they are men. Woman are not.




Of course.  That is completely how I, as a victim of assault, feel... Again, baseless attacks based on gender.  




> So I would think a gaming company should show a little sensitivity and  not have a barmaid being taken captive by armed men. I would rather err on the side of caution in this. There is so much more ways you can show evil being done that does not allude to rape.




And again... take the man, put him in the picture, it is no longer rape in your eyes.  The intent vs. impact argument rears its ugly head.



> The SCA does not use live steel. Woman can fight and take the crown as woman. We try our best to research persona and garb.  We try and make feasts as authentic as possible while still tasting good and coming in budget. People try and recreate the arts and crafts of the middle ages. But we don't allow racism or sexism.




Again, anachronism.  I do not consider myself a living representative of the Republic because I have fired a musket and been in a camp.  I also don't consider myself a knight because I fight with a sword.  The SCA is well-known as an anachronistic organization (it is in the name) and not to be a true representation of medieval culture.  Because that representation cannot exist in our current world.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> The game actually has defined statistics... These statistics determine your strength, heartiness, and intelligence (along with your others  ).  I'll crunch the information for Filth Fever (a nice low-level disease threat) and run it through the number provided for children's stats to check out the mortality rate.  I've been working on a few interpretations... It does not look good for the kids even at a low threat range (infection 2% chance/year, which is... Pretty low considering we're using it as ALL diseases) over a few thousand iterations... But I feel that Filth Fever is probably the best 'killer' illness and can be represented through a single series of rolls (random generate Con at birth, test for each year with increases across the series... Want numbers for a million people? .
> 
> The system exists as a representation of a world, and extends into the macroverse of the Prime Material as well as the microverse of the PC's day-to-day activities.  And if everyone in the world follows specific rules?  Well, that means we actually have a great statistical model to check on the lifespan of individuals.
> 
> ...




There are so many things that make up a society and how it functions saying that we can postulate what magic would do is not really realistic. We can speculate like fantasy authors do but we can never know for sure. It is like novels of alternative history. I have seen several done on what of the south had won the war. In the one slavery still existed in 1990s in the other slavery died out and the civil rights movement didn't take until 1960s to happen. Both authors made good arguments on why there speculation was the right one.

Morrus made a good point just because you don't see it does not make me or Tanith or any woman seeing wrong. And it is very discouraging to talk about this over and over every few years and still have to defend the idea that hey we see it and we don't really like it. 

That was not attack on gender at all. There are a lot of people who believe men can't be raped I know better. There have been gender studies on this subject and the majority of men and women when shown a picture where  a man is being held tied and gagged with other men standing over them and asked what do you think is going to happen the majority said the man was going to be killed very few mentioned or thought of rape. With a woman in the same pose both men and woman were more likely to say raped then killed. 

Men who have not been raped don't tend to see rape of a man in that picture men who have been raped tend to see it. With the woman it does not seem to matter as much if they have raped or not if they rape as an end possibility. As a society we are more conditioned to the idea of rape being a crime against woman then a crime against men.

About the art work being discussed if the woman being held was dressed as a warrior or an adventurer by first thought would not be they are taking her to rape but more they are taking her to BBEG. If the picture was of a man dressed like a pleasure slave my thought would be that they were going to rape him.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 18, 2012)

TanithT said:


> If you choose, you can certainly make a Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer RPG, complete with authentically liberal use of the n-word.  What you can't do if you make that choice is complain that more African-Americans aren't buying or playing your system.  Because, duuuh.  It's not likely to be much fun for them.




And that is completely within their rights and I would consider it acceptable for their wallets to make a decision.  You have made your decisions know on these products.. Which you have not touched, nor know anything about, based on outdated knowledge.  If I 

When did I complain about the hobby's lack of anything?  It is self-selection preventing you from entering into the hobby.  Visual selection of the product based on your specific ideas and judgments of previous observations of individuals/materials that you perceive as similar.

Hrmm.




> What I desire at the moment is to use language unbefitting to the forum.




First you threaten to commit an assault on my person, now language?



> But I'll limit myself to pointing out that it took many years and a lot of horrific experiences to take me from being a fanatic gamer who clocked all-weekend long sessions and multiple 8-hour slots at every gaming con I could get to, wrote articles for the original Dragon magazine and pretty much lived for gaming, to where I am with the hobby today.




Glad to hear you have changed.  Sometimes hobbies lose their flair for individuals involved in them.  Perhaps the hobby has passed you by in some way.  I'm sorry to hear this... But you have a seemingly quite active 'anti-RPG' lean in general, and don't seem to be playing any sort of games at all per this discussion, save for design of an unseen material.  I would love to see what you're working on... Feel free to post anything and we can discuss them.  You can even critique my materials, as its all listed in the blog on the link below.




> Apparently I didn't convey this very well.  Because what you're saying is that you're quite sure that the experiences that discouraged me were merely trivial, and if I really liked gaming, I would ignore them.  Would that be an accurate summary?




Ever stabbed at a session?  I'll show you if you wanna see... Though I sadly don't have a camera.

Didn't turn me off the game.  Turned me off a player, or an small group, or a con... But I still love the game for all the screws I have had to deal with.  Stating it is the game's fault is just a Leibermann'ing of the argument.  





> Some does, some doesn't.




Fair enough.  You know, except for the whole fact that, if I took the original Cores and splats with illos and compared them... Well, there's random nudity, submission, at least one nude woman tied to a bier for sacrifice... 

I mean, it's not even trying at this point.



> Funnily enough, while I have seen a number of sexual violence images where women are depicted as the victims and/or in need of rescue, I honestly can not remember a single image or storyline in a mass market RPG where a male was depicted this way.  Of course there may be some that I've just never seen.




See: Menzo.  An entire city of matriarchy that enslaves men to torture and force into rituals to create spider monsters? Wait, that may not count..  



> Okay, where are they and why aren't any of them in this thread speaking for themselves?




Because they don't post on forums?  Sorry, I just don't see the point of calling my female friends to post an opinion that is... pretty well established.  But alright.




> Oh, I get to look at all the new stuff, because it's in the house - I'm not the only nerd in residence here.   And too often I facepalm and put it back down again.   There is stuff that is getting better, but some of it is actually getting worse as far as I can tell.  *cough cough Exalted Princess Cameltoe cough cough*




The cover...

Hrmm.

What was it again by judging by those?

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> There are so many things that make up a society and how it functions saying that we can postulate what magic would do is not really realistic. We can speculate like fantasy authors do but we can never know for sure. It is like novels of alternative history. I have seen several done on what of the south had won the war. In the one slavery still existed in 1990s in the other slavery died out and the civil rights movement didn't take until 1960s to happen. Both authors made good arguments on why there speculation was the right one.




You realize we're discussing a system where we know exactly how much it takes to do... Pretty much anything?  And the balance and power behind everything?

Sociology in the D&D world can be summed up with a discussion, GP, and a die roll.  We can pretty much isolate the numbers on an entire world... That's what a roleplaying game system does.  



> Morrus made a good point just because you don't see it does not make me or Tanith or any woman seeing wrong. And it is very discouraging to talk about this over and over every few years and still have to defend the idea that hey we see it and we don't really like it.




Again, intent vs. impact.  



> That was not attack on gender at all.




It was, but go on.




> There are a lot of people who believe men can't be raped I know better. There have been gender studies on this subject and the majority of men and women when shown a picture where  a man is being held tied and gagged with other men standing over them and asked what do you think is going to happen the majority said the man was going to be killed very few mentioned or thought of rape. With a woman in the same pose both men and woman were more likely to say raped then killed.




May I have the article on this study?  I'd love to see when it occurred, the specifics behind the study, and the statistics behind it... And if there was peer review on the subject. 



> About the art work being discussed if the woman being held was dressed as a warrior or an adventurer by first thought would not be they are taking her to rape but more they are taking her to BBEG. If the picture was of a man dressed like a pleasure slave my thought would be that they were going to rape him.




Again, intent vs. impact... And we are judging the image based on no actual image.  Tried looking for the specific item... Can't find it.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> You realize we're discussing a system where we know exactly how much it takes to do... Pretty much anything?  And the balance and power behind everything?
> 
> Sociology in the D&D world can be summed up with a discussion, GP, and a die roll.  We can pretty much isolate the numbers on an entire world... That's what a roleplaying game system does.
> 
> ...




I was not talking about a system but system attempting to model the middle ages but have magic even low magic. 

Impact matters especially to companies wanting to make money. The whole 4E release offended a lot of gamers and several WOTC designers admitted it could have been handled better. I don't think the publishers of Hrn mean to offend woman with that picture that was not their intent but it has an impact of doing that.

And no there was no gender bias at what I said at all. The fact is statistically woman have been raped more then men. I was brought up my my mother who was never raped who was brought up by her mother who also was never raped to protect myself that rape is something that could happen to me. My brothers were not brought up this way. I am not talking about child molestation here I am talking being raped on a date or by a stranger getting into my car. My brothers were warned about being mugged. 

All my girl friends were taught the same thing.  I have asked my male friends this and not one of them were ever taught to be worried about being raped as man. 

As I said in our society rape is seen as an almost female kind of crime. You don't see the subject of men being raped in many novels, books or TV shows. 

Almost all support groups for rape is made up of woman who have been raped a lot of centers don't have any kind of support for men. And no I am not saying any of this is right but it is how our society views the subject of rape and men.

The study was part of a course I took in 1999 to be able to lead a rape support group that included men. We were taught what men go through with a system that is not set up to deal with this from the police officers, the courts and their family and friends.  Like I said for a lot of people it is hard to convince other men that rape happens a lot of them have the attitude that it wouldn't happen them because they would be able to fight off their rapist. 

Woman don't tend to think that and while some people do wonder if a woman is not beaten up why she didn't fight harder no one really expects her to be able to fight off her rapist if he is man because men are usually stronger then woman. 

One of the guys in my support group talked about how is father questioned that since he didn't fight the other guy off that maybe deep down he wanted it to happen. 

This is the last I am going to say on this subject with you. I am glad that being stabbed didn't drive you away from the hobby. But that does not change the fact that woman have been driven way from the hobby by sexist male gamers. 

But the fact that you refuse to see where some of us are coming from and denying that there is an issue at all that some how this is all how we choose to look at things and because you know female gamers who don't makes us in the wrong makes this pointless at this point.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Jun 18, 2012)

Here is my experience. Me and other women/girls who play rpg:s have grown really thick skin. This is kinda requiment or you'll end up stopping rpg:s. Men/boys however, can be more unsure and easily emotional. This is because of some extra attitudes they have to endure. I have seen pretty much all kinda behavior in different groups. Granted in my country cilrcles were smaller, and there were much less unstable people, much less actually than I've seen in some other, more causual hobbies.


I woudn't blame art so much. It's like that because of pop-cultere of fantasy. Fantasy has not gotten so much updates than some other genres because it happens in "once-upon a time lands". This is why some skin colors get passed more than others.

Problems come from people in real life/various internet sources/general cultural attitude/father&brother issues. Sensetive people tend to become oversensetive, relating usually quite other things than what happens at gaming table. However, then these people tend to lash out with high negatives on social issues that irk them. This problem however is not related just to females in rpgs. 

But rpg:s all classicly set to be more of a male-hobby. Girls not allowed, getting attitude, dismissing comments based on your sex "oh no more girls", "you are here for your boyfiend, right" "you don't know the rules" "you can only play female characters". I've gotten all of those and so much more. I don't care but I know quite a few girls driven away by attitude.

Maybe some people here argue on art so much, since they feel it enchances boys vr girls and attitude that comes with it. I think this is so much more complicated.

I kinda like art this way. My only wish is more skimpy dressed sexualized males. Who also look badass. Like those ladies nowdays mostly do.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 18, 2012)

Zelda Themelin said:


> I kinda like art this way. My only wish is more skimpy dressed sexualized males. Who also look badass. Like those ladies nowdays mostly do.




And I completely encourage the beefcakes 

 [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] Oh, RE: Infant/Child Mortality vs. Filth Fever: I actually compiled a simple macro/paste scheme (looking to actually make it macro by the million, but have it doing a macro of a little over 150k/run)... After 8 iterations (1.21 million individuals over the span from birth to adulthood with a 2% infection chance per year, much lower than the 5-20% chance for flu) produces a 8.9% mortality rate.  

It is interesting to note that the mortality rate actually would seem to form a standard peak and valley if applied across the ages as the average Constitution gain from Birth to Adulthood (going from d6 to 3d6, or a rough average of 7 points) is only a single point off of the loss due to old age.  I think I may have to actually create another chart for the Elderly, and I feel the numbers may actually change if I ran the instances of saves out to, lets say, 4 saves versus 3 as the extra save actually provides for another point of failure (we assume an auto-pass with the spreadsheet).

I actually expected a much higher rate of mortality due to the fact many children will have difficulty passing their initial checks; however, it seems that my original hypothesis was slightly off.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> The Society for Creative ANACHRONISM doesn't perform a full recreation?
> That is kind of the point of the A in SCA, no?



Role-playing GAME.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> The Society for Creative ANACHRONISM doesn't perform a full recreation?
> That is kind of the point of the A in SCA, no?




It is he Society for _CREATIVE_ Anachronism.  You want the Society for Destructive Anachronism, the bunch of splitters who killed themselves off when they tried to reconstruct the Black Plague, and succeeded.

So, we have the Good Parts version.  You know, the one without the gannet...


----------



## Umbran (Jun 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I enjoy realism to an extent but there are some topics that are just not kosher with modern players and one of those that seems to upset a great deal of people is the subject of rape.





So much so, that we have a policy on this one.  Which is to say, DON'T GO THERE. 

We've already seen one quote which, taken out of context, could be incredibly hurtful.  So, I ask you all, please, to leave that thread by the wayside.  Thanks.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 18, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It is he Society for _CREATIVE_ Anachronism.  You want the Society for Destructive Anachronism, the bunch of splitters who killed themselves off when they tried to reconstruct the Black Plague, and succeeded.
> 
> So, we have the Good Parts version.  You know, the one without the gannet...




And yet I am tired of hearing people discuss their understanding of combat because they have taken to the field in modernized as-close-as-we-understand-it recreations of arms and armor.  You know, where we use machines that we created within the last three centuries in the creation, and whose use are not life-or-death or even preventing injury.

Again, I do not consider myself an expert on the Civil War if I go out, eat a passel of hardtack, and fire a period rifle in uniform.  Or that I understand the depth of what my grandfather went through in his time in the service because I played paintball once.

We exist in a society where the very idea that difference exists leans towards verboten territory.  We alter the depictions of everything in our minds to a highly romanticized view of the period... And then are shocked to learn that that view wasn't the reality of the period.  The SCA, like Civil War reenactments, makes its claims on 'we do something close to X, therefore we are doing x'.  You do not see dressage riders claiming to have an intricate understanding of the roles of knights in battle... On this appeal to authority I'm not buying.  

And while SCA is a fun activity, it is nothing more than a paintball session with more equipment and (apparently) chimeric meals.  I'm glad that that is something enjoyed... But it does not make a member of the SCA into a medievalist.  

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 18, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Not so much seeing a lot of male depictions this way - for starters, they are much more statistically likely to be wearing clothes. Even when their bodies are shown, the message is not "look at this submissive, powerless, sexualized object to be gazed at and acted upon". The message is more like "Here is a big, strong, physically powerful man - he can get all the girls."




Since when is a picture of a barbarian girl in a bikini with a big sword kicking some ass considered powerless ? 





TanithT said:


> If more pretty, silk-draped elfboys in helpless or submissive positions showed up in the art, I'd be good with that argument. If we saw attractive, scantily clothed men with soft, 'come-hither - I am here for your pleasure" expressions, I'd certainly agree.




Isn't that pretty much every male elf?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> And yet I am tired of hearing people discuss their understanding of combat because they have taken to the field in modernized as-close-as-we-understand-it recreations of arms and armor.  You know, where we use machines that we created within the last three centuries in the creation, and whose use are not life-or-death or even preventing injury.
> 
> Again, I do not consider myself an expert on the Civil War if I go out, eat a passel of hardtack, and fire a period rifle in uniform.  Or that I understand the depth of what my grandfather went through in his time in the service because I played paintball once.
> 
> ...




It may not be exactly the same as it was during the middle ages but making the armor and getting hit in that armor gives you an idea of how it felt and what works and what does not. 

There have also been serious historical study done on medieval armor. 

Plus it does not take a genius to figure out that the more bare skin the more the danger of being hit being a more deadly blow. 

In all the museums and all the pictures I have studied of armor I have never once seen any peek a boo armor.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 18, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Since when is a picture of a barbarian girl in a bikini with a big sword kicking some ass considered powerless ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow way to complete dismiss everything that has been said. No one has said that a female barbarian in a bikini with a sword is powerless if the male barbarians dress the same way. 

It is when you take the female character and dress her totally different than her male counterparts in way to make her as sexy as possible. 

I have seen plenty of artwork that does not show male elves dressed the way you describe but way to go to introduce a straw man to deflect valid criticism of some the way female characters are drawn in RPGs.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 18, 2012)

Zelda Themelin said:


> Here is my experience. Me and other women/girls who play rpg:s have grown really thick skin. This is kinda requiment or you'll end up stopping rpg:s. Men/boys however, can be more unsure and easily emotional. This is because of some extra attitudes they have to endure. I have seen pretty much all kinda behavior in different groups. Granted in my country cilrcles were smaller, and there were much less unstable people, much less actually than I've seen in some other, more causual hobbies.
> 
> 
> I woudn't blame art so much. It's like that because of pop-cultere of fantasy. Fantasy has not gotten so much updates than some other genres because it happens in "once-upon a time lands". This is why some skin colors get passed more than others.
> ...




I disagree with a lot of what you have said here. I do think that art work that portrays female characters as bimbos in stripper armor gives legitimacy to the way some guys treat female gamers. It is subtle in its message but the message is there.

Your statement that it is there because of pop art does not make it okay there are a lot of issues with the woman are portrayed in pop culture. Sex should be used for sex not to sell a tractor or a gun. Yet scantily clad models are used to sell both. 

I like hot guys and I like looking at them but I don't want them in my RPGs unless that is their purpose you know like a drawing of an incubus. They can be hot and still dressed appropriately for the situation.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> And that is completely within their rights and I would consider it acceptable for their wallets to make a decision.  You have made your decisions know on these products.. Which you have not touched, nor know anything about, based on outdated knowledge.




Did I not just say that a large amount of new RPG material is always in the house, and that yes, I do look at it?  Fairly often I don't have to look very far before being discouraged by what's inside.  But I certainly do look.   




> When did I complain about the hobby's lack of anything?  It is self-selection preventing you from entering into the hobby.




_Entering_ the hobby?  Dude.  I wrote for Dragon magazine back in the day.  I ran for RPGA tournaments.   I learned to game on the original D&D boxed set.  Do you mind toning the condescension down just a notch?




> Visual selection of the product based on your specific ideas and judgments of previous observations of individuals/materials that you perceive as similar.




Once again, please tone the condescension down a notch.  I can read.  I don't just pick it up and look at the pictures, or just the cover.  Though the visual illustrations are a significant part of the overall impression I get from a product.  Because I'm not blind in addition to being not illiterate.




> First you threaten to commit an assault on my person, now language?




Please to also turn the hyperbole down a notch.  People may not be able to hear you over the sound it's making.





> Glad to hear you have changed.




Did you actually just read how I was describing my personal experiences in gaming over the years, and how they changed my comfort level with the hobby for the worse, and say that you're glad to hear it?  Really?




> But you have a seemingly quite active 'anti-RPG' lean in general, and don't seem to be playing any sort of games at all per this discussion, save for design of an unseen material.




Extrapolating anything I've said into my being "anti-RPG" is hyperbole.  It just isn't so.

Other than my online game, which has been running for over a decade with most of the same players - pretty cool, and some really fine, dedicated writers/roleplayers there who happen to live in different states - there's occasional tabletops with my friends.  Though all of us are busy, so they're pretty infrequent.  I'm no longer willing to sign up for random games with people I don't know, and that's limited my opportunities quite a bit.




> I would love to see what you're working on... Feel free to post anything and we can discuss them.




Meh.  Go peruse the Dragon archives if you care that much about seeing what I wrote.  Or don't.  I'm way past the point of wanting to share anything with a general audience, and particularly not here.  




> See: Menzo.  An entire city of matriarchy that enslaves men to torture and force into rituals to create spider monsters? Wait, that may not count..




Oh, it does, though I'm not convinced that enslaving and torturing any group of people is a particularly good thing.  Still, it makes for excellent conflict background for storytelling, and it's nice that there is at least one counterexample to the 'women are always the victims' meme.

But do any of the stories the source material is telling in Menzoberranzan really focus on how helpless and powerless the males are compared to the females?  Or are the males still depicted as pretty damn strong characters?  *cough cough Drizzt Do'Urden and Jarlaxle, cough cough**





> Because they don't post on forums?  Sorry, I just don't see the point of calling my female friends to post an opinion that is... pretty well established.  But alright.




Hey, the lurkers support me in email.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 18, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Since when is a picture of a barbarian girl in a bikini with a big sword kicking some ass considered powerless ?




Depends on the context.  When all the women are wearing bikinis and all the men are in armor, it sends a message. Like, that women are supposed to prioritize looking hot for the guys over minor little details like not getting killed.  

Also depends on whether she's showing as much comparative muscle as the male barbarians - eg, does she look as much like a female bodybuilder or powerlifter as the guys look like male bodybuilders? 




> Isn't that pretty much every male elf?



Um, no.  I enjoy pretty, scantily clad elfboy art when I see it, but it's extremely rare in a mass market RPG.  I can find it on the Internet, but it's still hard to find in comparison to the cheesecake.

Closest thing you find is "gladiator" and "barbarian" stuff where you see big burly hulking strong dudes flashing a lot of muscle and looking bad@ss.  I would not characterize them as pretty or come-hither, nor say that they are being depicted as objects to be acted on as opposed to being the actors.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 18, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Did I not just say that a large amount of new RPG material is always in the house, and that yes, I do look at it?  Fairly often I don't have to look very far before being discouraged by what's inside.  But I certainly do look.




Yes, again, judging books by covers.





> _Entering_ the hobby?  Dude.  I wrote for Dragon magazine back in the day.  I ran for RPGA tournaments.   I learned to game on the original D&D boxed set.  Do you mind toning the condescension down just a notch?




Yes, and what have you done lately?  If I leave my house I guess I do not enter it ever again... That is quite strange.  For someone who complains about misconstrued language...




> Once again, please tone the condescension down a notch.  I can read.  I don't just pick it up and look at the pictures, or just the cover.  Though the visual illustrations are a significant part of the overall impression I get from a product.  Because I'm not blind in addition to being not illiterate.




I'm glad that you, again, use the cover image to a book that discusses magic as your decision to back away from a product.  I'm guessing you don't use Eldritch Wizardry in your Basic games?



> Please to also turn the hyperbole down a notch.  People may not be able to hear you over the sound it's making.




When a sorceress covered in tattoos is considered pornography?  I lost the control over the hyperbolostat about two pages ago.




> Did you actually just read how I was describing my personal experiences in gaming over the years, and how they changed my comfort level with the hobby for the worse, and say that you're glad to hear it?  Really?




I have yet to hear of a personal experience actually occurring at the gaming table.  And yes, your ability to change and define what you want to do with your life is laudable.  If you decide to leave the hobby you have made a decision.  Free will does not mean you get your favored choice, and free speech does not prevent your offense.





> Extrapolating anything I've said into my being "anti-RPG" is hyperbole.  It just isn't so.




Uhhuh.  Sorry, I should have stated 'anti-RPG-industry', or perhaps 'industry intolerant'.  You seem ready to jump down the throat of any depiction that does not fit within your limited scope.

Moderation in all things but what we want is not moderation.  It's imposing a viewpoint.



> Other than my online game, which has been running for over a decade with most of the same players - pretty cool, and some really fine, dedicated writers/roleplayers there who happen to live in different states - there's occasional tabletops with my friends.  Though all of us are busy, so they're pretty infrequent.  I'm no longer willing to sign up for random games with people I don't know, and that's limited my opportunities quite a bit.




So you have self-eliminated yourself from the pool of available players.  Again, I am not seeing how this is a detriment to either side, as you are able to practice your specific views within your limited scope.  





> Meh.  Go peruse the Dragon archives if you care that much about seeing what I wrote.  Or don't.  I'm way past the point of wanting to share anything with a general audience, and particularly not here.




I would be happy to.  Have the entire collection.  What did you write under then?  I'll index and look you up.




> Oh, it does, though I'm not convinced that enslaving and torturing any group of people is a particularly good thing.  Still, it makes for excellent conflict background for storytelling, and it's nice that there is at least one counterexample to the 'women are always the victims' meme.




So men being forced into psychosexual rituals to produce demons and powerful creatures is acceptable because it provides 'background'... Alright.  My mistake... 



> But do any of the stories the source material is telling in Menzoberranzan really focus on how helpless and powerless the males are compared to the females?  Or are the males still depicted as pretty damn strong characters?  *cough cough Drizzt Do'Urden and Jarlaxle, cough cough**




In a theocratic matriarchy Drizzt and Jarlaxle are far below the ranks of most of the elite of Menzo.  As Jarlaxle   runs what amounts to a hidden House for male Drow who have thrown off their shackles or been driven to destruction he is a power-broker.  Drizzt actually has to run, out of the Underdark and into the wilderness, then to his adventuring party.  

If you look through the old 2e Menzo text you'll actually see that Jarlaxle is not exactly a first among equals; in fact, most of the Matron Mothers and even their right hands are of a power over that of Jarlaxle with his Fighter build.  If you made similar transfers to that made for 3e for Jarlaxle you'll see that it places the MMs and their right hands into the upper low to mid Epic levels... But again, a fighter who has a dagger-bracer and a few tricks up his sleeve (no mental control, moderate weapon deflection) doesn't hold up to priestesses and (in the case of one house) Psions who can do a lot more harm.



> Hey, the lurkers support me in email.




Oh noes! Not... A parody song! Truly you embarrass me with your in-depth critiques.  I'm stating my points, and what I have personally gathered from conversations.  Others have now posted... But ehh, probably not worth reading as they were immediately attacked for their own viewpoints as a female player.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 18, 2012)

Loonook said:


> Yes, again, judging books by covers.




I don't think you're reading the same things that I'm writing.




> Yes, and what have you done lately?



Nothing I have any interest in discussing here.  Given that you took a handful of random fantasy books I'd read and turned that list into an attack against me for my imagined political viewpoint, my level of WTF with this communication has gone far beyond my willingness to volunteer anything else. 




> I'm glad that you, again, use the cover image to a book that discusses magic as your decision to back away from a product.  I'm guessing you don't use Eldritch Wizardry in your Basic games?



You may want to check f you're actually in a parallel universe, because I really don't think you're responding to anything I've actually written here.




> When a sorceress covered in tattoos is considered pornography?  I lost the control over the hyperbolostat about two pages ago.



The sorceress covered by magic tattoos _makes sense_, yo.  She needs access to them.  Did anyone say that particular image had no reason to exist except for the pornographic value?




> I have yet to hear of a personal experience actually occurring at the gaming table.



This is becoming a very familiar refrain.  I don't actually think you're reading or responding to what is being said here.  




> What did you write under then?  I'll index and look you up.



PM me if you care that much and I'll dig up the issue numbers.  And, kindly spare me the annoyance of turning their contents into a political position or a personal attack. 




> So men being forced into psychosexual rituals to produce demons and powerful creatures is acceptable because it provides 'background'... Alright.  My mistake...



What part of not thinking that torture and slavery is good for anyone did you miss?  





> In a theocratic matriarchy Drizzt and Jarlaxle are far below the ranks of most of the elite of Menzo.



Sure, and that dude in full plate standing next to the bikini chick is only a first level fighter.  Your point?


----------



## TanithT (Jun 18, 2012)

Umbran said:


> So much so, that we have a policy on this one.  Which is to say, DON'T GO THERE.




I would love to not go there.  Ever.  And I promise I'll try hard not to bring inappropriate references onto this forum.

Thing is, how do you even talk about the stuff that makes women feel uncomfortable about the hobby and NOT mention stuff like "well, there's rape imagery in this roleplaying book, and some of us have had bad experiences around the gaming table involving male players who wanted to roleplay it."

Seriously.  How?

Would be really nice to declare that it doesn't exist in RPG-land.  Except that isn't true, and that's part of the problem.  

You can't really ask the questions, "Why does our hobby have a reputation for being 'creepy' in the outside world and even inside of fandom in general?  Why do a nontrivial number of women say that they feel uncomfortable with gaming and don't want to be anywhere near a gaming room?" without mentioning this issue.  Because it's a factor, and pretending it doesn't exist kind of cripples the discussion.


----------



## FickleGM (Jun 19, 2012)

I think that you can reference the rape imagery without discussing rape.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 19, 2012)

TanithT said:


> What part of not thinking that torture and slavery is good for anyone did you miss?
> 
> Sure, and that dude in full plate standing next to the bikini chick is only a first level fighter.  Your point?




Yes... Torture and slavery are not good for anyone... When we are specifically judging gender, and the idea that gender politics are at play in Menzo seems to be meaningless to you.  "Women suffer throughout fantasy, provide an example where men struggle" *Provides example* "well EVERYONE suffers there."

You know when I said that, in your example the woman may be assaulted, but men are going to be hung, gelded, ripped to shreds, tortured?  Yeah, you seem to not get that man matter.  It is women matter or we all matter, never a specific point where even a corollary.


Did you not notice the whole 'being forced to consort with demons to create monsters'?  How about 'killing helpless males to appease the goddess'? 

What is interesting is that Gygax was in contact with Andre Norton during the creation of the Drow, even letting her sit in on games the led to the writing of Quag Keep... Hrmm...


Again.  You accuse me of not reading, and I have read... And there have been no specific examples from you.  You can PM me with the issues and I would be happy to read your articles.

And yes, you are literally judging a book by its cover.  The mention of the Exalted book with the cameltoe sorceress?  Directly off of the cover of a book on Magic in the series (Savant and Sorcerer).

Then let us discuss your full plate fighter vs. bikini-fighter.  Unless we're playing 4e... What 1st level fighter has plate?  Second, the bikini-fighter who relies on Dex is no different than any depiction of the monk in any 3.x or up materials:












Amazingly enough, not all fighters will be wearing full plate.  Hell, I cannot recall a PC in my games who has worn full plate in ages.  The combination of available unarmored bonuses, even at 1st level, can allow for expenditures into better weaponry and other options.  And once you get into magical armor availability?  Hell, as stated there are glammer armors, ethereal armors, and even armor that hides itself as a ring, torc or pin... Armor that manifests as smoke in a bottle... Armor that is tactile-responsive... And several are from a single Dragon article that I have been looking for for about a month to no avail.

In short, you are arguing that two individuals, who may have different classes, races, skill sets, etc. who stand near each other should look exactly the same?  I'm not eating ACP to be politically correct.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 19, 2012)

Loonook said:


> And yet I am tired of hearing people discuss their understanding of combat because they have taken to the field in modernized as-close-as-we-understand-it recreations of arms and armor.




Heck, using modern plumbing instead of wiping ourselves with dirt and leaves after doing our business in the woods makes us not 100% authentically medieval.  But we don't claim to be.  We prefer to take a pass on the not-fun stuff like cholera, and play by rules that are reasonably authentic but flexible enough to also be safe, healthy and fun for everyone.  Even if someone of that gender or ethnic origin would probably not have had quite so much fun in the actual middle ages.  Or lived as long.  Or had the benefits of modern medicine and hygiene.  Et cetera.

Can you even imagine Pennsic without port-a-potties?  Personally, I'd as soon not.  

There's actually not a lot of historical question about the arms and armor of most time periods spanning the last thousand-odd years, because we either have surviving examples or solid forensic evidence for things like the ore deposits they mined, the leather tanning processes they used, the thickness and forging techniques of armor and weapons, etc.  The data exists and it is actually pretty good. 




> And while SCA is a fun activity, it is nothing more than a paintball session with more equipment and (apparently) chimeric meals.  I'm glad that that is something enjoyed... But it does not make a member of the SCA into a medievalist.



I'll be the first to admit that our actual armor and weapons are not authentic in terms of materials.  Heck, my first set of armor was made out of old carpet, and I have another set made out of pickle barrels.  My plate was made of modern steel using both machines and hand tooling.  We've adapted a lot of the historical data for physical safety over historical accuracy, and the marshals call it by what actually works on the field and what's safe.  

One thing we do get from donning heavy armor and bashing each other about with rattan sticks is a pretty good understanding of the physics of the thing in general.  I won't claim more than that, but I will say that it's certainly helped my understanding of the game mechanics that are intended to simulate them.

I don't fight dragons and bugbears, because those creatures don't exist.  Actually if they did, I'd much rather wrangle them into a zoo collection than fight them, but that's beside the point.  I have been in vigorous physical arguments with large carnivores who wanted to complain about their standards of veterinary care, and that's also been pretty educational.  

 I don't cross swords with orcs because orcs don't exist either. I have worn plate armor on a battlefield where people were doing their best to hit me very hard with fast moving heavy weapons, so I think I have a better-than-usual idea of the physical dynamics of effective vs bloody dangerous, stupid, unsafe, unworkable, fake, get-your-ass-killed female armor.  That's really all, though.  

None of this makes me "medieval".  I do think it's reasonable to say that I have a fair idea of the physical mechanics of what female fighters who mix it up with dragons and bugbears and orcs must do.  Assuming they want to avoid getting knocked down or killed in physical altercations with both creatures and armored opponents who are, on average, much bigger than they are.  Which I imagine most of them do.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 19, 2012)

Loonook said:


> You know when I said that, in your example the woman may be assaulted, but men are going to be hung, gelded, ripped to shreds, tortured?  Yeah, you seem to not get that man matter.  It is women matter or we all matter, never a specific point where even a corollary.




I am getting really, really tired of your telling me that I am saying things or meaning things that just don't exist.

Men and women matter, equally so.  We're both human.  What I am saying is that inequality is wrong, not that victimizing men is any less wrong than victimizing women.



> You can PM me with the issues and I would be happy to read your articles.



I don't particularly want you to read my articles.  If you think I'm making stuff up, I'll PM Morrus if he's agreeable with the issue numbers, and he can confirm that I am not, since he can also see the name on the PayPal account I used to subscribe with.  Because I have absolutely no desire to share anything I've written so that you can do the same thing with my articles that you did with my list of casually read fantasy books.  And with pretty much everything I've written.  Not currently feeling good about sharing my personal information either.




> And yes, you are literally judging a book by its cover.  The mention of the Exalted book with the cameltoe sorceress?  Directly off of the cover of a book on Magic in the series (Savant and Sorcerer).



Are you saying that this image honestly isn't representational of anything else in the books?  That it's *just* the cover, and the rest of the books are fine and dandy?  Cause, ain't so.  




> the bikini-fighter who relies on Dex is no different than any depiction of the monk in any 3.x or up materials:



The image you posted is pretty okay, though I'd kinda worry about falling out of a sports bra that had holes in the middle like that.  It really depends on context and whether the male monks are running around in skintight skimpies also, or whether they're in loose robes. 




> In short, you are arguing that two individuals, who may have different classes, races, skill sets, etc. who stand near each other should look exactly the same?  I'm not eating ACP to be politically correct.



No.  I'm saying that if all or most of the men are wearing clothing that is fully practical and that mostly covers them, and all or most of the women are wearing clothing that is impractical and revealing, it's going to send a message. 

I'm not talking about making the dex based monks look like the heavy tank fighters, or comparing a mage in her indoor laboratory to someone who is supposed to be fighting in the snow with a greatsword.  Adventurers should be dressed for the adventure, and if they are depicted as being short on gear or as wearing gear that is stupid for the circumstances they are in, it sends a message about those characters.  That's all.


----------



## Janx (Jun 19, 2012)

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Kynn (Jun 19, 2012)

Why did I look at this thread?


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Jun 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I disagree with a lot of what you have said here. I do think that art work that portrays female characters as bimbos in stripper armor gives legitimacy to the way some guys treat female gamers. It is subtle in its message but the message is there.
> 
> Your statement that it is there because of pop art does not make it okay there are a lot of issues with the woman are portrayed in pop culture. Sex should be used for sex not to sell a tractor or a gun. Yet scantily clad models are used to sell both.
> 
> I like hot guys and I like looking at them but I don't want them in my RPGs unless that is their purpose you know like a drawing of an incubus. They can be hot and still dressed appropriately for the situation.





You have point here, but you did make me go little "huh". I don't control why art/sociaty works like that what. And I've given up long time ago, that certain over-sexual trends would change. We even have Toddlers & Tiaras as wise internet has taught me. 

And I happen to like sexualized art. And I am woman. And we guite obviously feel differently about these things. I would ok with realistic clothing choices too, which hopefully woudn't look ugly-practical. And being able to be awesome in underwear is part of feeling powerful. Rules tend not to allow that unless you are very high lv or caster.

Selling everything with sex is quite different thing than fantasy pictures in rpg:s.  I find that kinda silly and sometimes annoying. I find lego friends much more annoying, though because it enforces gender differences on little kids. 

Humans suck love, live with it.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 19, 2012)

TanithT said:


> I am getting really, really tired of your telling me that I am saying things or meaning things that just don't exist.
> 
> Men and women matter, equally so.  We're both human.  What I am saying is that inequality is wrong, not that victimizing men is any less wrong than victimizing women.




And in your posts previously you have brushed off exactly what I am discussing, when I made the point, for the reasons I listed.




> I don't particularly want you to read my articles.  If you think I'm making stuff up, I'll PM Morrus if he's agreeable with the issue numbers, and he can confirm that I am not, since he can also see the name on the PayPal account I used to subscribe with.  Because I have absolutely no desire to share anything I've written so that you can do the same thing with my articles that you did with my list of casually read fantasy books.  And with pretty much everything I've written.  Not currently feeling good about sharing my personal information either.




You published your name and information in a series of articles in an accessible medium... But you don't feel comfortable sharing those articles?

Allllright.



> Are you saying that this image honestly isn't representational of anything else in the books?  That it's *just* the cover, and the rest of the books are fine and dandy?  Cause, ain't so.




Will not read past the cover.  Check.



> The image you posted is pretty okay, though I'd kinda worry about falling out of a sports bra that had holes in the middle like that.  It really depends on context and whether the male monks are running around in skintight skimpies also, or whether they're in loose robes.




They do, as you can see in any book that shows Monks.  Also, sports bras?  Not too common in the world outside of our own period... Secure clothing, wrappings, but not a sportsbra.  



> No.  I'm saying that if all or most of the men are wearing clothing that is fully practical and that mostly covers them, and all or most of the women are wearing clothing that is impractical and revealing, it's going to send a message.




And as I showed up on the thread... This isn't at all the case.  Seoni is the only iconic that, per your instructions, wears such clothing without a reason.  But I guess you ignored that post where I did the rundown?



> I'm not talking about making the dex based monks look like the heavy tank fighters, or comparing a mage in her indoor laboratory to someone who is supposed to be fighting in the snow with a greatsword.  Adventurers should be dressed for the adventure, and if they are depicted as being short on gear or as wearing gear that is stupid for the circumstances they are in, it sends a message about those characters.  That's all.




And for 2500 GP I can walk around naked.  Anywhere.  And from our previous example of 'scantily clad sorceress'?

She's wearing boots.  And using defensive fire magic per the text against a white dragon and the cold.  The item can be made slotless, or into a ring, hat, etc... In D&D its a small purchase for any 5th level character or above in boot form, and affordable... What, 8th, 9th level for a different slot/slotless.

Or, as a fighter, I could just add Glam to my armor.  For the same price I can dress in any normal outfit I could wish. 

You seem to be arguing for everything to be correct to your standards... Yet even at a very solid passing grade (and damned near perfect for representations per your guidelines) you hold a grudge with Pathfinder.  And Harn, the game built around being THE 'realistic' interpretation of medieval times, must change for your tastes?

Again, in the marketplace of ideas, you should have the right to speak freely... but it comes with the privilege to be offended.  I really am beginning to feel for Penny Arcade right now...

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 19, 2012)

Loonook said:


> You published your name and information in a series of articles in an accessible medium... But you don't feel comfortable sharing those articles?




Nope.  I don't see any reason to share my personal information nor my real name on this thread, and lots of reasons not to.  Morrus has the information in PM, and he knows the name on my PayPal account.  No one else needs to.  I am not interested in your offer to "discuss" anything I've written.  




> And as I showed up on the thread... This isn't at all the case.  Seoni is the only iconic that, per your instructions, wears such clothing without a reason.  But I guess you ignored that post where I did the rundown?



I have no particular interest in doing your homework.  If you felt like picking a particular book and talking about it, I have no beef with that, but you don't get to assign it to someone else because you said so.  I thought the contents of the Free RPG Day swag bag were a better and more recent random sampling of what was being marketed and promoted today, and one that many people would have free access to.  So that's what I choose to discuss.  




> You seem to be arguing for everything to be correct to your standards... Yet even at a very solid passing grade (and damned near perfect for representations per your guidelines) you hold a grudge with Pathfinder.



No and no.  I said that the most recent books that had made me facepalm were Pathfinder.  They put out a lot of material by many different people, and a pretty sizable chunk of it ends up in the house.  I did not say that I had problems with the system nor with everything they've ever published.  Much of it is excellent.




> And Harn, the game built around being THE 'realistic' interpretation of medieval times, must change for your tastes?



Didn't say that either.  I said that if a game excludes or targets one gender or one race to be victims rather than adventurers, it is likely to make people of that gender or race feel uncomfortable and not want to be around it.  You can play "Huckleberry Finn and the N***er Hunters" if you want, as authentically as you want.  I have absolutely nothing to say about that.  Just don't complain if you don't get a lot of African-Americans wanting to play with you.  Or be anywhere near you.  

I feel like I'm playing that old Atari 'Blockbuster" game and endlessly bouncing bricks off of a wall.   Is there a point to engaging any further?


----------



## Loonook (Jun 19, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Nope.  I don't see any reason to share my personal information or my last name on this thread, and lots of reasons not to.  Morrus has the information in PM, and he knows the name on my PayPal account.  No one else needs to.  I am not interested in your offer to "discuss" anything I've written.




Uhhuh.



> I have no particular interest in doing your homework.  If you felt like picking a particular book and talking about it, I have no beef with that, but you don't get to assign it to someone else because you said so.  I thought the contents of the Free RPG Day swag bag were a better and more recent random sampling of what was being marketed and promoted today, and one that many people would have free access to.  So that's what I choose to discuss.




And I say that if you want to complain about the hobby's attitudes you may want to determine the center rather than the outskirts.  I don't complain about an entire group of people because of fringe elements in an echo chamber...



> No and no.  I said that the most recent books that had made me facepalm were Pathfinder.  They put out a lot of material by many different people, and a pretty sizable chunk of it ends up in the house.  I did not say that I had problems with the system nor with everything they've ever published.  Much of it is excellent.






			
				Your earlier post said:
			
		

> Are you saying that this image honestly isn't representational of anything else in the books? That it's *just* the cover, and the rest of the books are fine and dandy? Cause, ain't so.




Just pointing out the fact that you do judge books by their covers... Or a single image contained within them.



> Didn't say that either.  I said that if a game excludes or targets one gender or one race to be victims rather than adventurers, it is likely to make people of that gender or race feel uncomfortable and not want to be around it.




And you vote with your pocketbook.  Or wallet.  Or debit card.  Or gold doubloons.  There's a market for the product, and that market is being served.  You, and those who feel the way you do, do not serve as the arbiters of the social mores.  Right to speech, privilege of offense.




> I feel like I'm playing that old Atari 'Blockbuster" game and bouncing bricks off of a wall here.   Is there a point to engaging any further?









If you believe that this is a game, that's fine.  You're really not going to change my opinion through your arguments when they're not made from an understanding of place.  You can accuse me of wanting you to do 'homework', but the whole point is that you're not presenting evidence, pictures, or materials beyond 'here is how I interpret (unposted image that cannot be found online)' and then refusing to accept that said image, in its context, is affected by your own biases.  

That is how bias works.  We come into a situation with prejudicial evidence.  I've listened to your arguments, but you present old materials first (Frazetta), a blanket statement which I refuted (Pathfinder) and an evaluation of materials which do not pass your own sniff test (genre conventions and 'fit the setting/story' for Cosmic Patrol and Harn in your Free RPG Day pack).  

You have the agency to not play the game.  It is not my responsibility, or anyone else's, to provide materials specific to your needs. You can create your own materials, encourage others... But if you consider a scantily clad woman appearing 1-2 in a book with your own interpretation of it being unnecessary or pornographic?  That's an incorrigible standpoint.

As I've stated, repeatedly, the chainmail bikini is silly.  Does kitsch not exist in this world anymore?  

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## TanithT (Jun 19, 2012)

Loonook said:


> And I say that if you want to complain about the hobby's attitudes you may want to determine the center rather than the outskirts.  I don't complain about an entire group of people because of fringe elements in an echo chamber...




The promotional materials put out for Free RPG Day are fringe elements in an echo chamber?  




> Just pointing out the fact that you do judge books by their covers... Or a single image contained within them.



Mentioning an iconically explicit cover image as part of a larger discussion while stating that yes, I have indeed looked through the entire book is not exactly 'judging a book by its cover'.  That particular image is a well enough known one to serve as a good example, but it is not the sole criteria for assessing that game system's impact.  




> And you vote with your pocketbook.  Or wallet.  Or debit card.  Or gold doubloons.  There's a market for the product, and that market is being served.  You, and those who feel the way you do, do not serve as the arbiters of the social mores.  Right to speech, privilege of offense.



Nor may you stop anyone else from stating their experience and their opinion.





> You can accuse me of wanting you to do 'homework', but the whole point is that you're not presenting evidence, pictures, or materials beyond 'here is how I interpret (unposted image that cannot be found online)' and then refusing to accept that said image, in its context, is affected by your own biases.



I selected the material I did because it was this year's Free RPG Day promo - anyone who was anywhere near a participating game store could get it for free.  As it was a promotional giveaway, I don't imagine any of it is hard to come by.

If you would like to say that I am lying or exaggerating in my description of the outfits, I suppose you can, but I'm way past caring at this point.  If someone who is not antagonistic cares enough to ask politely, I could take the time to do a scan.  But frankly I don't see the point in doing anything to continue discussion with you.




> That is how bias works.  We come into a situation with prejudicial evidence.  I've listened to your arguments, but you present old materials first (Frazetta), a blanket statement which I refuted (Pathfinder) and an evaluation of materials which do not pass your own sniff test (genre conventions and 'fit the setting/story' for Cosmic Patrol and Harn in your Free RPG Day pack).



Frazetta is old material but his style is still imitated, and was influential in the genre.  I did not make any blanket statements about Pathfinder previously, but I'll make one now.  In general I like the system and they produce many good supplements as well as some I wish they'd picked different artwork for.  I don't have a ton of issues with the core book, certainly not enough to make me consider Pathfinder specifically to be a problem.

I have explained already why the Harn image did not fit the storyline presented in the accompanying text, and I don't feel inclined to continue banging my head against a brick wall by doing it again.  I don't agree with the rationale you presented for the Cosmic Patrol "bathing suit for an axe fight" image.  But I'm running all out of give-a-damn to argue about it.

This road leads nowhere. I suggest we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 19, 2012)

TanithT said:


> The promotional materials put out for Free RPG Day are fringe elements in an echo chamber?




The materials are described as being on the outskirts, rather than the core of materials.  If I am given a free sample at a convention, no matter what the type, it is usually going to be coming as a parcel from a specific group that wants me to check out their product.  The materials you presented as 'obscene' are on the outskirts of the hobby.  But again, let us be obtuse and mix our descriptions up here.




> Mentioning an iconically explicit cover image as part of a larger discussion while stating that yes, I have indeed looked through the entire book is not exactly 'judging a book by its cover'.  That particular image is a well enough known one to serve as a good example, but it is not the sole criteria for assessing that game system's impact.




The game system's impact?  Interesting... So we're judging whole systems now?  How about Pathfinder? Oh wait... We'll get to it...



> Nor may you stop anyone else from stating their experience and their opinion.




And you cannot decide that the opinion is worth any more than its face value.  As I said, you have the right to speak... and the privilege to be offended.



> I selected the material I did because it was this year's Free RPG Day promo - anyone who was anywhere near a participating game store could get it for free.  As it was a promotional giveaway, I don't imagine any of it is hard to come by.




And none of it here?



> If you would like to say that I am lying or exaggerating in my description of the outfits, I suppose you can, but I'm way past caring at this point.  If someone who is not antagonistic cares enough to ask politely, I could take the time to do a scan.  But frankly I don't see the point in doing anything to continue discussion with you.




Antagonistic?  So people who disagree with you, without expressing hostility (you know, by cursing, threatening, or suggesting sexual acts) are antagonistic?  Explains... a lot actually.



> Frazetta is old material but his style is still imitated, and was influential in the genre.




Where?  Wanna show me anywhere in D&D within the last... 10 years where a Frazetta 'van art' piece of art appears? Pathfinder? 



> I did not make any blanket statements about Pathfinder previously, but I'll make one now.  In general I like the system and they produce many good supplements as well as some I wish they'd picked different artwork for.  I don't have a ton of issues with the core book, certainly not enough to make me consider Pathfinder specifically to be a problem.




Oh, so one of the mainstream RPGs isn't a specific problem.  How about D&D?  Those are the largest market share in the Frazetta playbook for fantasy art... Go on.



> I have explained already why the Harn image did not fit the storyline presented in the accompanying text, and I don't feel inclined to continue banging my head against a brick wall by doing it again.  I don't agree with the rationale you presented for the Cosmic Patrol "bathing suit for an axe fight" image.  But I'm running all out of give-a-damn to argue about it.




Yeah, not at all what I presented for Cosmic Patrol (it is a series based on pulp, very clearly shows its retro-future roots).



> This road leads nowhere. I suggest we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.




Ahh, agree to disagree.  I asked for examples.  I have provided pictoral examples for my arguments, you provide a twenty-word description. . . And actively refuse to provide further to the contrary. . . 

While accusing me of being an 'antagonist', sexist, and all sorts of other terms... Awesome.  

That's not exactly how agree to disagree works.  But I will accept you tapping out on the discussion.  And continue to buy all of those smutty, horrible depictions of submissive women.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jun 19, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu1fMB0HXK4&feature=relmfu]Special 11: Sexist Art in D&D - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 19, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Depends on the context. When all the women are wearing bikinis and all the men are in armor, it sends a message. Like, that women are supposed to prioritize looking hot for the guys over minor little details like not getting killed.




I'm talking about when the males in the pictures are also doing the loincloth thing. 



TanithT said:


> Also depends on whether she's showing as much comparative muscle as the male barbarians - eg, does she look as much like a female bodybuilder or powerlifter as the guys look like male bodybuilders?




Hey, way to move the goalposts. 



TanithT said:


> Um, no. I enjoy pretty, scantily clad elfboy art when I see it, but it's extremely rare in a mass market RPG. I can find it on the Internet, but it's still hard to find in comparison to the cheesecake.
> 
> Closest thing you find is "gladiator" and "barbarian" stuff where you see big burly hulking strong dudes flashing a lot of muscle and looking bad@ss. I would not characterize them as pretty or come-hither, nor say that they are being depicted as objects to be acted on as opposed to being the actors.




Heh. I was just taking a potshot at elfboyz.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 19, 2012)

Zelda Themelin said:


> You have point here, but you did make me go little "huh". I don't control why art/sociaty works like that what. And I've given up long time ago, that certain over-sexual trends would change. We even have Toddlers & Tiaras as wise internet has taught me.
> 
> And I happen to like sexualized art. And I am woman. And we guite obviously feel differently about these things. I would ok with realistic clothing choices too, which hopefully woudn't look ugly-practical. And being able to be awesome in underwear is part of feeling powerful. Rules tend not to allow that unless you are very high lv or caster.
> 
> ...




Of course you don't control it. But it did sound like you were saying that fantasy art in RPGs is the way it is because of pop culture and nothing can be done about it.

Actually something can be done about it. If you let the advertisers know that you don't kike something and you will not be buying the product  that is one big way to do it. Here in the US people who have been offended by a TV show have gotten advertisers to pull out of the show.

You have right to like what you like. I don't mind sexy art work except when it is in my RPGs and deals with what is supposed to be an adventurer. 

I knows what you mane about being powerful even in your underwear and if there was a picture of that say of an adventurer kicking the crap out of someone who woke them up in the inn I would be okay with that. It would be kind of cool but no adventurer goes adventuring in their underwear.  

The opposite of cheeseccake is not ugly. You can still have attractive people dressed in armor and clothes meant for adventuring.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 19, 2012)

Loonook said:


> Yes... Torture and slavery are not good for anyone... When we are specifically judging gender, and the idea that gender politics are at play in Menzo seems to be meaningless to you.  "Women suffer throughout fantasy, provide an example where men struggle" *Provides example* "well EVERYONE suffers there."
> 
> You know when I said that, in your example the woman may be assaulted, but men are going to be hung, gelded, ripped to shreds, tortured?  Yeah, you seem to not get that man matter.  It is women matter or we all matter, never a specific point where even a corollary.
> 
> ...




I know I said I was not going to do this but I have to answer the Andre Norton comment. I knew Andre Norton we talked about this subject and yes she gave Gygax advice. They wanted an evil matriarchal society and that is what Gygax came up with.

Andre Norton believed in equality between men and woman and that both sexes should be treated with respect. She never would have said it is okay to torture men in real life any more than it is okay to torture woman in real life. 

The whole point of the drow is to give the PCs something to defeat. 

As for the picture of the monk there is not much wrong with this picture she is not drawn in a cheesecake style. She has well developed muscles and looks like she can kick butt. I do think they could have done without the peek a boo cleavage but that is my only complaint her stance is not the typical butt and boob stance some artists use.

Speaking of the iconics how come both Hennet the sorcerer and  Nebin the illusionist get to wear full out of clothes but Mialee the wizard has the stupid bare legs and bare belly outfit?


----------



## Loonook (Jun 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I know I said I was not going to do this but I have to answer the Andre Norton comment. I knew Andre Norton we talked about this subject and yes she gave Gygax advice. They wanted an evil matriarchal society and that is what Gygax came up with.
> 
> Andre Norton believed in equality between men and woman and that both sexes should be treated with respect. She never would have said it is okay to torture men in real life any more than it is okay to torture woman in real life.




Uhhuh.  And yet, the gender reversal still stands.  Norton has been discussed by scholars across the board... And I covered everything I wanted to cover on the topic.



> Speaking of the iconics how come both Hennet the sorcerer and  Nebin the illusionist get to wear full out of clothes but Mialee the wizard has the stupid bare legs and bare belly outfit?




Hennet wears full clothing?







That's weird... Looks pretty much barechested to me.  That may just be one depiction...











Guess not.  Yeah, Hennet is not 'fully clothed' in any picture that I can recall other than his Epic Iconic (?)... And that's a maybe.

On Nebin... I cannot recall a gnome of either gender who isn't dressed to the hilt.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 19, 2012)

Folks,

Rhetorical question here:  Are you actively trying to learn from other people in this discussion, or are you trying to "win".  No need to publicly answer.  Just be honest with yourself.

I ask, because I see a lot of folks asserting things, repeatedly, against each other, and precious little, "Hm, you have a point..." going on.  Much giving, not much taking, so to speak.  That's not constructive, and quickly turns into bloviation.

If your goal is to win, you won't.  Sorry.  Not going to happen.  You're going to beat your heads against each other forever, or at least until the discussion becomes risky enough to shut down.

So, remember, don't be this person:


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 19, 2012)

Loonook said:


> Uhhuh.  And yet, the gender reversal still stands.  Norton has been discussed by scholars across the board... And I covered everything I wanted to cover on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have never seen the other picture I have no idea where it is from. But he is not nearly as unclothed as Mialee is he has full high rise pants on. He is not baring both his chest and legs. In the 3.5 picture his belly is covered it is not the same as at all. Fully clothed might have been the wrong term but he is not walking around baring as much flesh as possible. Mialee should put on some pants to go adventuring. Why waste spells on endure elements and risk nasty sunburns and exposure to to all the elements dressed like that.

And lets be a little grown up here men chests are not considered a sexual part of their body they will not get arrested for walking around without a shirt. Woman on the other hand would because breasts are considered a sexual body part which is why cleavage showing is considered sexy and some offices don't allow it and why the military does not allow it. 


And as I have said over and over and over which you have chosen to ignore the issue is when you dress female characters differently from the men of the same class. Which is what was done in the 3.5 handbook with the female magic user. 

You are just looking to argue and refusing to acknowledge any thing anyone says if it does not met your view. 

It is refreshing to know that WOTC is looking at this issue and wants to be more inclusive in 5E. As that wonderful video Robert Sullivan pointed out silly is silly and if a man would look silly in it then so would a woman and vice versa. 
I was looking at the 3.5 players handbook the one that anyone was was playing 3.5 was likely to own.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I have never seen the other picture I have no idea where it is from. But he is not nearly as unclothed as Mialee is he has full high rise pants on. He is not baring both his chest and legs.
> 
> And as I have said over and over and over which you have chosen to ignore the issue is when you dress female characters differently from the men of the same class. Which is what was done in the 3.5 handbook with the female magic user.




Not really.  Mialee is completely within line with Hennet... Both are arcane casters.  And the gnome, who as I said seems pretty much in-line with his race (where I can't find a female gnome in allegedly scant dress)?  Well, he has more clothes than everyone.



> You are just looking to argue and refusing to acknowledge any thing anyone says if it does not met your view.
> 
> It is refreshing to know that WOTC is looking at this issue and wants to be more inclusive in 5E. As that wonderful video Robert Sullivan pointed out silly is silly and if a man would look silly in it then so would a woman and vice versa.
> I was looking at the 3.5 players handbook the one that anyone was was playing 3.5 was likely to own.




And if I do not agree with you I'm just looking to argue?

You throw up these issues... Then I throw out a counterpoint, and that is somehow being antagonistic...

It is called debating an issue.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> It is refreshing to know that WOTC is looking at this issue and wants to be more inclusive in 5E. As that wonderful video Robert Sullivan pointed out silly is silly and if a man would look silly in it then so would a woman and vice versa.



Out of curiosity, what do you make of female artists who draw, umm, impractically sexed-up heroines, or female cosplayers who choose to wear revealing/sexy-for-a-certain-definition-of costumes? 

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, so to speak. If it were up to me, I'd fill RPG books with women in practical armor, women in combat-lingerie, elf boys kissing one another (because ticking off the homophobes in the audience brings me a childish delight, I'm sorry to say) and morbidly obese anthropomorphic dragons in plate armor (because I played one, and he's one of my favorite characters). Needless to say, my RPG books probably wouldn't sell very well...

But a variety of art would be nice, without too too much realism or justification of images outside of the simple pleasure they bring.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 19, 2012)

Loonook said:


> Uhhuh.  And yet, the gender reversal still stands.  Norton has been discussed by scholars across the board... And I covered everything I wanted to cover on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What scholars do you have any links? Andre Norton is a grandmaster of science fiction and is thought very highly in the field by not only readers but other SF writers and publishers. Her books have won awards.  Children's librarians have rated a lot of her books very highly. 

The majority of her books show men and woman in equal positions. There are a few exceptions like the early Witch World novels and it is only the one land that behaves like that in the series. The latter books deal with the changes that happen because of one earthman coming to the Witch World.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> What scholars do you have any links?



I'd like to know, too. I've read Norton, know her status in the SF/F community, and was completely unaware there was critical-type criticism --really, crit of any sort-- about her.


----------



## Loonook (Jun 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> What scholars do you have any links? Andre Norton is a grandmaster of science fiction and is thought very highly in the field by not only readers but other SF writers and publishers. Her books have won awards.  Children's librarians have rated a lot of her books very highly.
> 
> The majority of her books show men and woman in equal positions. There are a few exceptions like the early Witch World novels and it is only the one land that behaves like that in the series. The latter books deal with the changes that happen because of one earthman coming to the Witch World.




As I have now been told twice in the thread, I am apparently not here to do homework for you.  There is actually a great wiki that shows all scholarly works/articles on Andre Norton and Scifi authors in general... You can read through the critiques. And of course, the work itself.  But again, misandry is accepted these days... And, you know, work on the Drow.

800, 900 pages tops of criticism.  Treat yourselves.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 19, 2012)

Mallus said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you make of female artists who draw, umm, impractically sexed-up heroines, or female cosplayers who choose to wear revealing/sexy-for-a-certain-definition-of costumes?
> 
> I don't really have a dog in this hunt, so to speak. If it were up to me, I'd fill RPG books with women in practical armor, women in combat-lingerie, elf boys kissing one another (because ticking off the homophobes in the audience brings me a childish delight, I'm sorry to say) and morbidly obese anthropomorphic dragons in plate armor (because I played one, and he's one of my favorite characters). Needless to say, my RPG books probably wouldn't sell very well...
> 
> But a variety of art would be nice, without too too much realism or justification of images outside of the simple pleasure they bring.




I have no issue with what an artist chooses to draw. I don''t have an issue with sexed up art I own Boris and Frazeeta originals. 

I have no issue with what a woman choose to do with her body . Or how she dresses at cons or if she makes a living as booth babe, stripper or Playboy bunny.

I have no issue with RPG art showing succubi dressed in a very sexual way because that is what they do. 

I don't like silly the video Robert Sullivan posted is an excellent point of view.
I object to woman and woman only being drawn in a silly way. He made a point if you would not but a male character in the art drawn that way why would you draw the woman that way.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 19, 2012)

Loonook said:


> But again, misandry is accepted these days...



What are you on about?


----------



## Mallus (Jun 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I object to woman and woman only being drawn in a silly way. He made a point if you would not but a male character in the art drawn that way why would you draw the woman that way.



Gotcha.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 19, 2012)

Loonook said:


> As I have now been told twice in the thread, I am apparently not here to do homework for you.  There is actually a great wiki that shows all scholarly works/articles on Andre Norton and Scifi authors in general... You can read through the critiques. And of course, the work itself.  But again, misandry is accepted these days... And, you know, work on the Drow.
> 
> 800, 900 pages tops of criticism.  Treat yourselves.
> 
> ...




So because you are in a snit over what Tanith said you are going to act childish. I just looked and could not find what you were talking about the only wiki page I found had some brief biological data and that was it.

She didn't do the majority of work on the drow Gygax did so lay that blame on him not her. She sat in one or two games and that was about it.

And no one is saying misandry is okay certainly not Gygax or Norton the drow were portrayed as evil to be defeated by the good guys that is not an endorsement for the way the men were treated. 

And not I or Tanith have said that it is okay torture, rape or abuse men.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 19, 2012)

And now, we are getting snide and personal.

How about... not?

There were numerous warnings earlier that this was touchy, and that we expected folks to be careful.  Apparently, folks have short memories.  And having you all butt heads is adding precious little of value to the site.

Thread closed.


----------

