Armor designs for females? [Archive] - Page 2 - Giant in the Playground Forums

SaurOps

2017-07-22, 11:21 PM

Haven't there already been enough examples in this thread to point out that this isn't the case?

WoW exists as it is and Exalted spent what seems like an age pulling itself out of Bikini Witch Hell, so not really, no.

The nastiest stuff I've read was in the Warhammer FRP manual. But this has not been my experience in general with TRPGs. Most of the time it's rolling for hit point damage, and at zero a combatant falls over.

Exalted has brutal infection rules for mortals. Sometimes, magic makes it that way for heroes and gods as well, especially in the case of Final Viridescence, which resembles death by extreme radiation poisoning.

There's a Freudian joke in there but I won't say it because it'll get censored.

Good. He was a hack, anyway; his framework tells us more about his own problems than it does about any general human condition.

Sex and death aren't among the most important realities facing mankind? You must live a sheltered life.

I've been to several funerals but no weddings, so death is readily apparent as a motivator. This isn't about that, though, but about the presentation of death and sexuality as all-powerful or somehow complementary. You know what? MRSA isn't sexy. Getting your guts shot or torn out isn't sexy. Going to funerals doesn't really feel arousing, either.

Men and women are portrayed differently in traditional fantasy art because men and women are different from one another

But both are given and made of flesh. [/SOTN Dracula]

As was said upthread, not wanting to die is unisex. I suppose death wishes would be, too, but there are usually cheaper and easier ways to do this than spending a fortune on metal underwear. Which probably wouldn't even be commissioned by a smith unless you paid another fortune as a bribe, hush money, whatever.

and most fantasy art is made for an audience of men.

[CITATION NEEDED], and big time, because I came here from planet White Wolf/Onyx Path. Maybe you just need to look harder and stop defending bikini armor all the time.

Men want role models of masculinity which involves problem-solving heroes. And men want women who look good as mates (fertile, young, pretty, healthy) and who also are gussied up to fit into the imaginary setting.

Really? Even men who aren't het?

What do women want in their fantasy art? Probably problem-solving heroines in practical armour. And men, I don't know, women don't seem to dig scantily clad men as much as the vice versa, so they probably want to see problem-solving heroes in practical armour.

I've heard women also profess to want to be huge monsters on occasion. Crinos form, with its non-gendered appearance, seems to have some appeal, among other examples. Power is power.

Given the general trend towards women's liberation, and the influx of girls and women into TRP gaming and other "fantasy" modes, I think we should expect what we're seeing, which is more practically armoured women than before. The mistake is in thinking that men will appreciate having this become the immovable norm, and that their cheesecake will be denied to them on the grounds that women's preferences must rule.

Why the dang blasted hell do you need cheesecake when the internet is bursting with porn?

I'm not sure what you mean. I avoid videogames because they're unrealistic and tacky. Even their cheesecake is s***.

HA! Like the cheesecake interrupting any diegesis, written or digital, is any more sensible or tasteful.

goto124

2017-07-22, 11:22 PM

"Sex sells" and "women sexiness = being an object, men sexiness = being powerful" are exactly the trends people (who dislike the female sexy armors) want to buck. This thread proceeded by 3 pages when I last left it, so allow me to respond to something that was directed at me 3 pages back:

Sexiness is not sexuality. While it is obviously in the eye of the beholder, seeing someone flirting with people and offering them flowers is, to me, going to greatly diminish how sexy someone is.

Actually, I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm not even mad or angry or anything, just plain confused and rather curious as to how the logic flows.

SaurOps

2017-07-22, 11:25 PM

"Sex sells" and "women sexiness = being an object, men sexiness = being powerful" are exactly the trends people (who dislike the female sexy armors) want to buck. This thread proceeded by 3 pages when I last left it, so allow me to respond to something that was directed at me 3 pages back:

Actually, I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm not even mad or angry or anything, just plain confused and rather curious as to how the logic flows.

Also, sex sells is on very shaky ground as a maxim. It turns out, no, it actually doesn't, or at least, not what an awful lot of writers and marketing creeps thought was sex or sexy.

scalyfreak

2017-07-22, 11:41 PM

I'm not sure what you mean. I avoid videogames because they're unrealistic and tacky. Even their cheesecake is s***.

All of them?

Do you also avoid movies and TV? Because if that is your opinion of all video games everywhere, you really should steer clear of those two mediums as well.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-22, 11:50 PM

And the most honest form of scrutiny, standards, expectations, and interpretation is "who is going to lay down cold hard cash for it."

You should ignore that criticism if you are getting work and making money, because the wonders of technology allow otherwise insignificant numbers of self-righteous busybodies to make an awful lot of noise, and they are not your friends because they do not care about you.

Ok:

CREATE FAN FICTION. GET PAID BY NO ONE.
:biggrin:
THEREFORE WRITE ANYTHING I WANT.

Because no one can pay for it, therefore no one has any right to criticize me or hold me to any expectations by your logic.

But I will write something saying I agree with you if you give me ten dollars. :smallamused:

Talakeal

2017-07-22, 11:52 PM

Actually, I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm not even mad or angry or anything, just plain confused and rather curious as to how the logic flows.

Sexy, sexualized, and sexual are all different things with different meanings. Google can find you plenty of articles on the difference. There is one particular article that I wanted to link but I can't find it at the moment about how video game designers are told to try and avoid having their (overtly sexualized) female characters actually having sex (or even being in a relationship) as it is a turn off for many male gamers.

Deophaun

2017-07-23, 12:15 AM

CREATE FAN FICTION. GET PAID BY NO ONE.
:biggrin:
THEREFORE WRITE ANYTHING I WANT.
Yes, that's generally how it works. Have you read fan fiction?

Because no one can pay for it, therefore no one has any right to criticize me or hold me to any expectations by your logic.
Again, have you read fan fiction? Because if you're going in there with expectations...

"Sex sells" and "women sexiness = being an object, men sexiness = being powerful" are exactly the trends people (who dislike the female sexy armors) want to buck.A trend indicates a change from one state to something else. This is a constant. It's like saying "the Earth going round the Sun is a trend we want to buck."

And you know how you "buck" your "trend?" You go and draw non-sexy female armors. You make product and commission people to draw non-sexy female armors for it. And--here's the kicker--you make your non-sexy female armor artwork bearing product good enough that people want to give you money. Tons of money. Other people see you making tons of money and they say "Hey, I like money, I want tons of it too. I'm gonna do what that guy's doing!" Boom! Trend bucked! And you didn't have to waste a millisecond complaining about other people's preferences.

Edit: And I'm sorry, but people are objects. It's their nature. Unless you want to deny the existence of women, complaining about them being treated as objects is just silly.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-23, 12:18 AM

Yes, that's generally how it works. Have you read fan fiction?

Again, have you read fan fiction? Because if you're going in there with expectations...

I can't answer those questions. Your expecting too much of me. I'll only answer those questions for ten bucks. :smallamused:

goto124

2017-07-23, 12:19 AM

There is one particular article that I wanted to link but I can't find it at the moment about how video game designers are told to try and avoid having their (overtly sexualized) female characters actually having sex (or even being in a relationship) as it is a turn off for many male gamers.

Isn't this a tie-in to how sexy fantasy women's clothes (and other aspects of games, RP or video or otherwise) are part of the whole "catering to male gaze"? You ask about a situation where a company with limited money had to dedicated exactly one drawn picture of a badass warrior who is also sexy, and apparently 'sexy' here means 'turns the male gamers on' instead of being a personality trait that fleshes out the character herself.

That said, I am interested in that article.

2D8HP

2017-07-23, 12:26 AM

Also, sex sells is on very shaky ground as a maxim. It turns out, no, it actually doesn't, or at least, not what an awful lot of writers and marketing creeps thought was sex or sexy.

I've not bought some stuff (I think it was 3rd party D20 era adventures) that had "cheesecake" covers, not because I found it offensive, but because I found it shameful (I can't recall, but there's an even chance that the clerk at my FLGS would've been a women). This extents to other types of media as well, for example, if an issue of Esquire (I really read it for the articles,. Really. Don't doubt me like that!), has a scantily clad lady on the cover, I probably won't buy it if the clerk is female (I wish thete was a word that was for both women and girls that didn't same humanity denying), and if the cover features a shirtless guy on it, I'm less likely to buy it if the clerk is male (boy or man, since I'm old a lot of clerks now look like girls and boys to me than adults), and yes I have experienced the young lady behind the counter ask me, "She's pretty isn't she?", when Halle Berry in a bikini on the cover, and I have experienced the young man behind the counter look as if he was smelly something bad when it was a bare torso'd Changing Tatum on the cover, neither experience do I hope to repeat. So yes, "cheesecake" and "beefcake" may reduce sales (I'm still going to buy it if it's Helen Mirren or Patrick Stewart on the cover no matter what though!).

Talakeal

2017-07-23, 12:48 AM

Isn't this a tie-in to how sexy fantasy women's clothes (and other aspects of games, RP or video or otherwise) are part of the whole "catering to male gaze"? You ask about a situation where a company with limited money had to dedicated exactly one drawn picture of a badass warrior who is also sexy, and apparently 'sexy' here means 'turns the male gamers on' instead of being a personality trait that fleshes out the character herself.

That said, I am interested in that article.

Yes, yes it is.

My point was that sexy is not the same as being romantic or flirtatious, not a value judgment about the so called male gaze.

Although I am kind of curious about how "sexy" would manifest as a personality trait as it seems to be more of a descriptor which could apply to any number of traits or combinations thereof rather than a trait in its own right.

SaurOps

2017-07-23, 01:48 AM

I've not bought some stuff (I think it was 3rd party D20 era adventures) that had "cheesecake" covers, not because I found it offensive, but because I found it shameful (I can't recall, but there's an even chance that the clerk at my FLGS would've been a women). This extents to other types of media as well, for example, if an issue of Esquire (I really read it for the articles,. Really. Don't doubt me like that!), has a scantily clad lady on the cover, I probably won't buy it if the clerk is female (I wish thete was a word that was for both women and girls that didn't same humanity denying), and if the cover features a shirtless guy on it, I'm less likely to buy it if the clerk is male (boy or man, since I'm old a lot of clerks now look like girls and boys to me than adults), and yes I have experienced the young lady behind the counter ask me, "She's pretty isn't she?", when Halle Berry in a bikini on the cover, and I have experienced the young man behind the counter look as if he was smelly something bad when it was a bare torso'd Changing Tatum on the cover, neither experience do I hope to repeat. So yes, "cheesecake" and "beefcake" may reduce sales (I'm still going to buy it if it's Helen Mirren or Patrick Stewart on the cover no matter what though!).

Oddly enough, I was just thinking about an example of sex not selling that involved a movie that had Patrick Stewart in it, and in fact ended up bankrupting the studio that made it. I guess that it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeforce_(film)) had the wrong person nude through most of the movie... (^VVVVVV^)

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 07:52 AM

You're proud of your pecks. Amusingly, an armor that grants +0 armor is still potentially useful in D&D. :smalltongue:

I don't care what it does in D&D rules. D&D is not the whole of gaming, and even less of the whole of overlapping genres being discussed.

It's no more snuff material than swashbuckling pirates. That's factual. You can't say characters like Mialee are snuff bait if Captain Jack Sparrow isn't too.

Jack Sparrow is in a setting where there are firearms, and water to fall into, based on a time period when armor had largely fallen out of use for people in his position. There are reasons behind that design choice.

D&D wizards aren't wearing armor because of silly D&D design decisions.

Keltest

2017-07-23, 08:03 AM

I don't care what it does in D&D rules. D&D is not the whole of gaming, and even less of the whole of overlapping genres being discussed.

Jack Sparrow is in a setting where there are firearms, and water to fall into, based on a time period when armor had largely fallen out of use for people in his position. There are reasons behind that design choice.

D&D wizards aren't wearing armor because of silly D&D design decisions.

I think it touches on a valid point though. Someone mentioned much earlier a Forgotten Realms character who has a cleavage window in her chainmail... because it was designed by an incredibly vain sorceress that the character looks more or less identical do, and it is powerfully enchanted, and thus more protective and more comfortable than the full plate the character had been wearing for most of the book until that point.

magical armor is a thing, especially for spellcasters, which is part of the reason I'm slightly more inclined to let explicitly magically powerful characters get away with things like that. They probably don't need the actual armor anyway, although I'm still going to look at the art oddly if whatever other garments theyre wearing look uncomfortable to wear.

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-23, 10:22 AM

Exalted has brutal infection rules for mortals. Sometimes, magic makes it that way for heroes and gods as well, especially in the case of Final Viridescence, which resembles death by extreme radiation poisoning.

As I said, not in my experience. Never played Exalted. Neither have most, probably.

Good. He was a hack, anyway; his framework tells us more about his own problems than it does about any general human condition.

Never made a Freudian slip? Freud was the Opener of the Way.

I've been to several funerals but no weddings, so death is readily apparent as a motivator. This isn't about that, though, but about the presentation of death and sexuality as all-powerful or somehow complementary. You know what? MRSA isn't sexy. Getting your guts shot or torn out isn't sexy. Going to funerals doesn't really feel arousing, either.

Ever heard of Dracula? Or WWII bomber nose art?

...than spending a fortune on metal underwear. Which probably wouldn't even be commissioned by a smith unless you paid another fortune as a bribe, hush money, whatever.

That would make for a good story.

[CITATION NEEDED], and big time, because I came here from planet White Wolf/Onyx Path. Maybe you just need to look harder and stop defending bikini armor all the time.

TRPG gamerdom has been male:female 50:50 from the get-go?

Really? Even men who aren't het?

Now you're being difficult.

Why the dang blasted hell do you need cheesecake when the internet is bursting with porn?

Do you ever just look at your wife and admire her rather than rip her clothes off and have at it?

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-23, 10:25 AM

All of them?

Do you also avoid movies and TV? Because if that is your opinion of all video games everywhere, you really should steer clear of those two mediums as well.

Most of it, yes.

SaurOps

2017-07-23, 11:00 AM

As I said, not in my experience. Never played Exalted. Neither have most, probably.

It's probably not the only one.

Never made a Freudian slip? Freud was the Opener of the Way.

Freud got handed off to a wetnurse and projected himself onto everyone. Feel free to make another joke about that, but it's not on me.

Ever heard of Dracula?

One never stops hearing about Dracula, but it was a Victorian shamefest from a different world, and yet also a kind of safe space for vicarious kink, since it's fiction.

Or WWII bomber nose art?

Some people like to practice art whenever they can so as to not get rusty. However, this still isn't the kind of thing that you're saying, because you just cited a work of fiction and something that people do at base, between alternated hurrying on for missions, waiting for missions, and the rare moment when sleep is possible. One does not typically paint when on an actual bombing run, and certainly not on the nose of the plane.

That would make for a good story.

An exceedingly short one, most likely. The concept is sweaty.

TRPG gamerdom has been male:female 50:50 from the get-go?

I doubt that it's been very male-dominated over the past 25 years, at least.

Now you're being difficult.

Is that what you call it when people remind you that large cross sections of people don't actually share your views?

Do you ever just look at your wife and admire her rather than rip her clothes off and have at it?

That's specifically hardcore porn. Softcore nudes, model shots, etc. also exist under the same banner of porn. So, again, one wonders, why is it that a non-porn product has to have porn in it?

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 11:16 AM

Freud got handed off to a wetnurse and projected himself onto everyone. Feel free to make another joke about that, but it's not on me.

Indeed, the most "insightful" thing about Freud's work is what it tells us about the man himself.

Sadly, a century or so later, there are still "professionals" who take his work seriously and inflict Freud's deeply personal issues onto the entire human population.

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 11:18 AM

I don't care what it does in D&D rules. D&D is not the whole of gaming, and even less of the whole of overlapping genres being discussed.
Which is why it was accented with humor, and not the main point. Just a side point noting that, hey, in the context of D&D art (which the thread was about) there are actually benefits for wearing less armor. I also already answered your protest concerning the D&D-centric nature of the thread, and so I'm wondering if you missed it or are merely being obtuse. :smallsmile:

Jack Sparrow is in a setting where there are firearms, and water to fall into, based on a time period when armor had largely fallen out of use for people in his position. There are reasons behind that design choice.
Thanks for making my point for me, chief. It's a design choice, because armor wasn't fashionable. And while armor had fallen out of use, it wasn't because it didn't work. Armor could stop a pistol and a sword. Yet it wasn't worn for various reasons, none of which trump "avoid dying" (mostly because it was expensive). So by your logic, everyone not wearing armor was an idiot. I mean, it's not like you couldn't design armor that could be discarded if you were to fall overboard (a vest with metal plates in it would be easy enough to get out of if you were to fall into the ocean).

It all comes down to the design choice, as you state. Your argument was less armor or no armor, when superior armor is available, is nothing more than stupidity, suicide, and snuff fetish bait. Well...then that makes the pirates buffoons as well. Because it's not like the armor couldn't be made. It's not like it couldn't be commissioned. It just wasn't fashionable at the time.

I'm just enjoying the hypocrisy. It reeks of it in this thread. There's no difference between fighting these guys (https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/c/c2/Orc.JPG/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/350?cb=20070317024515) dressed like this (http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/cayden_cailean.jpg) or dressed like this (http://pre00.deviantart.net/b211/th/pre/f/2015/311/1/6/barbarian_by_yy6242-d9fxc1b.png), other than your own preference.

Please continue demonstrating my points for me. It's very helpful of you. :smallamused:

D&D wizards aren't wearing armor because of silly D&D design decisions.
Yeah, that having the benefit of walking around in scale mail armor with nary a belt to latch or burden to bear for hours on end is pretty nice isn't it?

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-23, 11:21 AM

l
Freud got handed off to a wetnurse and projected himself onto everyone. Feel free to make another joke about that, but it's not on me.
Actually, Freud originally theorized that his patients were severely sexually abused. The science board at the time deemed the mere thought abhorrent and probably wrong for that reason.
So he came up with something stupider.
That story doesn't get told as much because it makes psychology look bad, and they have enough trouble being called a pseudo-science or soft-science.

One never stops hearing about Dracula, but it was a Victorian shamefest from a different world, and yet also a kind of safe space for vicarious kink, since it's fiction.
Why is the 80's, a world now 30 years old, less of a different world than the victorian era?

Some people like to practice art whenever they can so as to not get rusty. However, this still isn't the kind of thing that you're saying, because you just cited a work of fiction and something that people do at base, between alternated hurrying on for missions, waiting for missions, and the rare moment when sleep is possible. One does not typically paint when on an actual bombing run, and certainly not on the nose of the plane.

Put those goalposts back, please. This is entirely tangential to the point.

I doubt that it's been very male-dominated over the past 25 years, at least.
According to the little and difficult-to-find market data that I'm not going to mine for a third time just for this silliness,
TRPGs as of 2008 were still heavily male-dominated. (80/20)
Granted that is 9-year-old data at this point, but looking at their marketing stratrgies will reveal the target market based on who is most likely to buy it:
Mostly males ages 12-30.
Marketing, etc.

Is that what you call it when people remind you that large cross sections of people don't actually share your views?
Homosexual males are not the target market for scantily clad females, in what I'm sure is the shocker of the century.
In the second shocker of the century, 3-5% of the male population is not a significant enough portion to merit throwing in nonstop asterisks.

That's specifically hardcore porn. Softcore nudes, model shots, etc. also exist under the same banner of porn. So, again, one wonders, why is it that a non-porn product has to have porn in it?

By this metric, all sexual imagery is porn.
So my question is this:
Are sexy depictions of women allowed at all outside of porn? Or is it flat-out forbidden no matter who is producing it?

Arbane

2017-07-23, 11:32 AM

I doubt that it's been very male-dominated over the past 25 years, at least.

Are you kidding? Gaming continues to be mostly a hobby for white male nerds, and my time on the internet gives me the impression that a LOT of female gamers have at least one horror story that ends with '....and I'm amazed I ever played again'. Which strongly implies there are a lot more stories we're not hearing that end with '...and I never played again;.

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 11:39 AM

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 11:40 AM

Which is why it was accented with humor, and not the main point. Just a side point noting that, hey, in the context of D&D art (which the thread was about) there are actually benefits for wearing less armor. I also already answered your protest concerning the D&D-centric nature of the thread, and so I'm wondering if you missed it or are merely being obtuse. :smallsmile:

Sticking a smiley face after every other line doesn't make your comments any less wrong, any less smug, or any less insulting.

Thanks for making my point for me, chief. It's a design choice, because armor wasn't fashionable. And while armor had fallen out of use, it wasn't because it didn't work. Armor could stop a pistol and a sword. Yet it wasn't worn for various reasons, none of which trump "avoid dying" (mostly because it was expensive). So by your logic, everyone not wearing armor was an idiot. I mean, it's not like you couldn't design armor that could be discarded if you were to fall overboard (a vest with metal plates in it would be easy enough to get out of if you were to fall into the ocean).

It all comes down to the design choice, as you state. Your argument was less armor or no armor, when superior armor is available, is nothing more than stupidity, suicide, and snuff fetish bait. Well...then that makes the pirates buffoons as well. Because it's not like the armor couldn't be made. It's not like it couldn't be commissioned. It just wasn't fashionable at the time.

I'm just enjoying the hypocrisy. It reeks of it in this thread. There's no difference between fighting these guys (https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/c/c2/Orc.JPG/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/350?cb=20070317024515) dressed like this (http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/cayden_cailean.jpg) or dressed like this (http://pre00.deviantart.net/b211/th/pre/f/2015/311/1/6/barbarian_by_yy6242-d9fxc1b.png), other than your own preference

It had nothing to do with "fashion", and the only place your point was "proven" was in your own head. People in that and other time periods weren't making armor decisions based on fashion, they were making the same sorts of cost-benefit tradeoffs that real people have always made. Our ancestors were not idiots.

It doesn't come down to "design choice", it comes down to depicting characters as something other than fools, and treating them as something other than symbolic iconography.

But I've come to realize that this argument is pointless, as you're just going to keep circling back to this blinkered notion that everything is about subjective personal preference and aesthetics, that form dominates function, and that art is just about symbols. I guess I shouldn't be shocked, given the corrosive influence of postmodernism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair).

And all the while, you're going to accuse anyone who won't jump on your little train of being a "hypocrite" simply because they're looking for something more substantive than your "aesthetics uber alles" approach can deal with.

/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet))

2D8HP

2017-07-23, 12:02 PM

D&D wizards aren't wearing armor because of silly D&D design decisions.

IIRC, an issue of The Dragon in the late 1970's or eary '80's (which is when I bought my D&D stuff) explained how more Iron than a dagger close to the spell-caster interferes with the spell, which has at least some basis in folklore.

TRPG gamerdom has been male:female 50:50 from the get-go?

My Dad's girlfriend, and her friend (both women) played D&D in the 1970's (so all two of the adults I knew who had played D&D outside of conventions, or behind the counter at Gambit and Games of Berkeley were women), but most of the gamers I knew in the 1980's were overwhelmingly male (and mostly boys not men, and if you still count early 20-something young men as boys, as I do now, overwhelmingly boys).

IIRC, it was after Shadowrun, and Vampire came out that girls and women entered the hobby in any numbers, and I saw them at the table much (though I did have a women DM for D&D before than, and as I recall she really wanted to play Ars Magica instead, whreas I really wanted to play Pendragon instead, which she decided was "sexist" because they were different rules for "Knights" and "Ladies"), Cyberpunk players were all still male as I recall. For the record, of '90's RPG's that I played, the most fun was Shadowrun which had a "mixed" table, I didn't like Vampire which had a mixed table, and Cyberpunk was just so boring, but if it matters the tables I played at were more mixed racially for Cyberpunk (and D&D before that), but since all male less mixed by gender.

The 21st century is better than the '90's gamewise in that they are people willing to play D&D again, and better than the '80's and '90's in that people will play Pendragon besides me (including women, but they play as "Knights" not "Ladies", thank you Brienne of Tarth!).

In general the tables that I've played at that have women are more fun (they can quote Monty Python besides Holy Grail), SinceI don't take polls, I don't know if images of "chainmail bikinis" scare women off (I would guess not as much as being told to play cleric/healers does, the same as the boys), but if not having those images will bring more women to the tables than sure drop them, but in '70's D&D I can only remember one "chainmail bikini" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/DungeonMasterGuide4Cover.jpg/200px-DungeonMasterGuide4Cover.jpg

The "bikinis" seemed more like an '80's and '90's thing to me.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 12:11 PM

IIRC, an issue of The Dragon in the late 1970's or eary '80's (which is when I bought my D&D stuff) explained how more Iron than a dagger close to the spell-caster interferes with the spell, which has at least some basis in folklore.

1) Seems like reverse-design, coming up with a reason to justify the aesthetic decision.
2) I'd like to see this folklore.
3) Bronze.
4) Spellcasting classes that can wear armor go back quite a ways in D&D.

Talakeal

2017-07-23, 12:23 PM

2) I'd like to see this folklore.

I have always heard that iron contains "anti-magic" properties. A quick Wikipedia search yields this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_in_folklore

I know it isn't exactly a reputable source, but it should serve as an adequate starting point for further research.

scalyfreak

2017-07-23, 12:24 PM

1) Seems like reverse-design, coming up with a reason to justify the aesthetic decision.
2) I'd like to see this folklore.
3) Bronze.
4) Spellcasting classes that can wear armor go back quite a ways in D&D.

Cold iron repels fey, ghosts, evil spirits, and evil magic. The reason hanging a horse shoe above your door brings good luck is it keeps those things out. Including witches.

If you want to research more, I'm certain google can point you towards one or two reputable sources among all the white noise caused by the many ghost hunter websites out there. Or you can ask someone who grew up in the northern half of Europe, and who has an active interest in the folklore and oral traditions of their homeland.

Personally, I think making a leap from that concept to declaring that a wizard can't cast spells if they wear too much weapons and armor is ridiculous. For one, it implies the wizard and his/her spells are evil, which most PC in D&D aren't. For another, most weapons and armor are made of steel, not cold iron. Most likely, they wanted an excuse to force wizard characters to dress in robes, and this was an easy way to do it.

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 12:24 PM

Sticking a smiley face after every other line doesn't make your comments any less wrong, any less smug, or any less insulting.
That's cool man. Doesn't need to. I'm not particularly worried about offending people who go out of their way to be offended on behalf of figments.

It had nothing to do with "fashion", and the only place your point was "proven" was in your own head. People in that and other time periods weren't making armor decisions based on fashion, they were making the same sorts of cost-benefit tradeoffs that real people have always made. Our ancestors were not idiots.
This is a simple definition miscommunication. You do know that fashion means and is used to describe things other than just simply trying to look pretty, right? Such as particular customs or societal norms? To say "armor fell out of fashion" isn't to say that enough runway models weren't packing steel, it's to say that it was no longer widely popular.

As to proving points, that's not hard. On one hand you act as though fighting folks with little armor is nothing less that suicidal stupidity, assured death, snuff porn in motion. Yet on the other hand, you seem fine to dismiss such notions when applied to Captain Jack Sparrow or anyone else, despite the fact they are never in any less danger. Ergo, it's very easy to show it's just a case of smoke and mirrors.

Nobody whined about Aragorn's ranger outfit (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hikL4s1ANg0/VOEtbjVqnXI/AAAAAAAADPI/K5wa27QYJiI/s1600/costume-aragorn-fotr2.JPG), even though it's not armor. He actually puts on some armor when he's about to be fighting in a siege against untold numbers of orcs and not moving around, but nobody complains that he's just snuff bait the other 90% of the time he's out adventuring and slaughtering orcs.

Hypocrisy. Get it? It's apparently good for the gander but not for the goose. Either it's true all the time or it's not true at all. So if you admit that Captain Jack Sparrow or Aragorn aren't snuff bait, you by proxy admit that neither is the barbarian who wear's boots, a loincloth, and a wolfskin cloak.

So that beggars the question, what's your real motivation? Could it be that you just don't like the idea? Maybe it messes with your sense of artistic vision? Maybe you think it's silly? You're very comfortable branding characters (and presumably players by proxy) idiots, and artists ignorant, yet your justification for such is so easily dispelled with just a few images and comparisons. Oh d-dear, I do hope that you're not offended by my rejection of your claims that the preferences of others are born out of ignorance and foolishness. I might not be able to sleep at night with such a heavy burden on my conscience. :smallfrown:

It doesn't come down to "design choice", it comes down to depicting characters as something other than fools, and treating them as something other than symbolic iconography.
If someone wants to depict their character as a fool (http://global.qlik.com/~/media/Images/Blog/entries/posts-large/Wise_fool-Large.ashx?h=349&w=625), power to them. :smallsmile:

But I've come to realize that this argument is pointless, as you're just going to keep circling back to this blinkered notion that everything is about subjective personal preference and aesthetics, that form dominates function, and that art is just about symbols. I guess I shouldn't be shocked, given the corrosive influence of postmodernism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair).
Oh that's rich man. I absolutely hate post modernism. I think it's a scourge on the world. I also realize that what I'm talking about isn't post modernism. Unless you think Raphael Slaying the Demon (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3e/65/98/3e659815a972cf089ac4720648a0f2dd.jpg) is post modern artistic drivel. In which case, sure I'm on board with that then. Just because I find fault with your reasoning doesn't mean I find fault with reason. :smallwink:

And all the while, you're going to accuse anyone who won't jump on your little train of being a "hypocrite" simply because they're looking for something more substantive than your "aesthetics uber alles" approach can deal with.

/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet))
C'est la vie. :smallsmile:

SaurOps

2017-07-23, 12:29 PM

Are you kidding? Gaming continues to be mostly a hobby for white male nerds, and my time on the internet gives me the impression that a LOT of female gamers have at least one horror story that ends with '....and I'm amazed I ever played again'. Which strongly implies there are a lot more stories we're not hearing that end with '...and I never played again;.

Or that they kept playing and aren't in venues that you frequent?

Actually, Freud originally theorized that his patients were severely sexually abused. The science board at the time deemed the mere thought abhorrent and probably wrong for that reason.
So he came up with something stupider.
That story doesn't get told as much because it makes psychology look bad, and they have enough trouble being called a pseudo-science or soft-science.

Must be why they're going for neuroscience over psychoanalysis nowadays.

Why is the 80's, a world now 30 years old, less of a different world than the victorian era?

What, exactly, are you trying to do with this question? The 1980s are well within the Information Age, containing many different facets of life that people from a century before would never have been able to imagine. That's a rather tall hurdle.

Put those goalposts back, please. This is entirely tangential to the point.

I'm doubting that there is a point to be had in insisting that I accept psychoanalysis by someone without any apparent accreditations to begin with. Especially not with what it was used to try and justify...

According to the little and difficult-to-find market data that I'm not going to mine for a third time just for this silliness,
TRPGs as of 2008 were still heavily male-dominated. (80/20)
Granted that is 9-year-old data at this point, but looking at their marketing stratrgies will reveal the target market based on who is most likely to buy it:
Mostly males ages 12-30.
Marketing, etc.

And another look at marketing strategy reveals that Lifeforce flopped in spite of having Mathilda May wear nothing for most of the movie, and that it was a gender-flipped Dracula with space vampires. It was the death of the Cannon Group, which had only ever eked along slightly making B-movie schlock, on account of making less than $12 million.

Lifeforce isn't the only example of its kind, either. People want to be entertained, not get sucked into the creator's creepy magical realm, and the top-grossing films seem to bear that out.

Homosexual males are not the target market for scantily clad females, in what I'm sure is the shocker of the century.
In the second shocker of the century, 3-5% of the male population is not a significant enough portion to merit throwing in nonstop asterisks.

The statement, as originally cast, was a broad-sweeping generalization of a population much larger than the TRPG industry. Which suggests that if the TRPG industry wanted to actually reach out and grow, it would cut it out with ridiculous chain-link bikini illustrations and stick with what would make sense. Sticking with the Metal Bikini fixation would doom it to relegation, much like the Cannon group, above.

By this metric, all sexual imagery is porn.

No, by this metric, art meant specifically to titillate is porn. The other side of the argument seemed oddly fixated on keeping porn-like elements in places where they didn't belong, like on a battlefield. The entire mess with Stekel's theory of Eros and Thanatos over the past few posts revolved around this. And it doesn't make any sense to place the two together, again, because not wanting to die is unisex. So you wear armor instead of "armor" instead of, to put another spin on Donnadogsoth's patronizing statement about "admiring your wife", the equivalent of knowing that there's a knife fight about to break out that you can't avoid and making your wife dress up as Leia after being captured by Jabba the Hut in RotJ. Pointless, dumb, and an all-around bad move that would likely get her killed.

So my question is this:
Are sexy depictions of women allowed at all outside of porn? Or is it flat-out forbidden no matter who is producing it?

Boundaries are often necessary in life and art, so that one form doesn't have to split its attention between two purposes. Trying to present a serious fight scene while also including pinups or porn is typically going to make the end product suffer in both respects. Lots of people probably think that they can pull it off, but in the end, trying to pull double duty here is an abyss that consumes them all.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 12:29 PM

I think it touches on a valid point though. Someone mentioned much earlier a Forgotten Realms character who has a cleavage window in her chainmail... because it was designed by an incredibly vain sorceress that the character looks more or less identical do, and it is powerfully enchanted, and thus more protective and more comfortable than the full plate the character had been wearing for most of the book until that point.

That's a very specific case, and I can't tell if it's lampshading the trope, or just the author making an excuse for what they wanted to do anyway.

magical armor is a thing, especially for spellcasters, which is part of the reason I'm slightly more inclined to let explicitly magically powerful characters get away with things like that. They probably don't need the actual armor anyway, although I'm still going to look at the art oddly if whatever other garments theyre wearing look uncomfortable to wear.

Uncomfortable, and/or impractical for "adventuring"... and "just happens" to be revealing or otherwise blatantly provocative.

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 12:32 PM

Cold iron repels fey, ghosts, evil spirits, and evil magic. The reason hanging a horse shoe above your door brings good luck is it keeps those things out. Including witches.

If you want to research more, I'm certain google can point you towards one or two reputable sources among all the white noise caused by the many ghost hunter websites out there. Or you can ask someone who grew up in the northern half of Europe, and who has an active interest in the folklore and oral traditions of their homeland.

Personally, I think making a leap from that concept to declaring that a wizard can't cast spells if they wear too much weapons and armor is ridiculous. For one, it implies the wizard and his/her spells are evil, which most PC in D&D aren't. For another, most weapons and armor are made of steel, not cold iron. Most likely, they wanted an excuse to force wizard characters to dress in robes, and this was an easy way to do it.

I was under the impression that only druids had any issue with metals, and it was the weight and restriction of armor that made it harder to cast spells. Which is why you suffer a little spell failure from things like leather armor, but not much. Apparently wizards need to be able to perform elaborate dance moves to properly cast spells. :smalltongue:

Mike_G

2017-07-23, 12:33 PM

Thanks for making my point for me, chief. It's a design choice, because armor wasn't fashionable. And while armor had fallen out of use, it wasn't because it didn't work. Armor could stop a pistol and a sword. Yet it wasn't worn for various reasons, none of which trump "avoid dying" (mostly because it was expensive). So by your logic, everyone not wearing armor was an idiot. I mean, it's not like you couldn't design armor that could be discarded if you were to fall overboard (a vest with metal plates in it would be easy enough to get out of if you were to fall into the ocean).

Actually, armor fell out of use for lots of reasons. Armies got bigger, so cost of equipping them was more of an issue. Cannon got common, and even muskets will defeat many types of armor, so the relative benefit went down as the cost went up. And full plate weighs a lot, tires you out, and cuts your vision. Worth it if it makes you invulnerable, less worth it if it only makes you kinda invulnerable.

Falling overboard in any degree if armor is bad, and it's tough to unbuckle straps under water before you die. Fishermen have drown because they couldn't get their boots off in time after they filled with water and dragged them down. Can't imagine struggling out of a breastplate. WWII soldiers drowned on amphibious landings being pulled down by gear which was more easily ditched than a mail hauberk.

I totally see the argument against armor on ship to ship combat.

I'm just enjoying the hypocrisy. It reeks of it in this thread. There's no difference between fighting these guys (https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/c/c2/Orc.JPG/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/350?cb=20070317024515) dressed like this (http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/cayden_cailean.jpg) or dressed like this (http://pre00.deviantart.net/b211/th/pre/f/2015/311/1/6/barbarian_by_yy6242-d9fxc1b.png), other than your own preference.

Again, I see what you're saying about fantasy having a lot of unarmored characters who don't get the hate that the chainmail bikini gets, but in your example, they first guy is better protected from many weapon. Maybe not the Orc axe. But light slashing swords, yes, a bit. In the Crimea, the British cavalry complained that their sabres wouldn't cut through the heavy coats of the Russian Cossacks. Not even metal, just heavy cloth. They could stab through, but not hack through them. They could have sliced Conan or Red Sonya to the bone.

Again, I say art is what you want to look at, so if you like Princess of Mars style naked warriors, that's fine.

I like the idea of warriors that would want something between their favorite skin and the slashing blades. I think naked sword fighters of either sex are silly. And I do think that art where every male is covered head to toe and every woman is wearing a handful of glitter a little sexist. I prefer the "We haven't invented clothes yet" worlds of Frank Frazetta where everybody is in a furry or leather or metal Speedo to the "only men's armor covers the sternum" art.

Keltest

2017-07-23, 12:40 PM

That's a very specific case, and I can't tell if it's lampshading the trope, or just the author making an excuse for what they wanted to do anyway.

Uncomfortable, and/or impractical for "adventuring"... and "just happens" to be revealing or otherwise blatantly provocative.

Its probably both.

Anyway, once you get super magic involved, "impractical" stops being a thing. Who cares about being sworded when your skin is protected by a magical force field? Who cares about sunburn when you cant be affected by the sun? Who cares about dehydration when you can create water by waving your hand? If they have all that and are also vain enough to run around in revealing or provocative clothing, that's at least some characterization on top of the titillation.

scalyfreak

2017-07-23, 12:43 PM

I was under the impression that only druids had any issue with metals, and it was the weight and restriction of armor that made it harder to cast spells. Which is why you suffer a little spell failure from things like leather armor, but not much. Apparently wizards need to be able to perform elaborate dance moves to properly cast spells. :smalltongue:

It depends on the system, obviously.

I always prefer the ones that state that if you're a spell casting class you don't get the full benefit of armor, or even necessarily help from it, simply because you haven't spent most of your life learning how to move about in one. You have studied other things, and a heavy, clumsy, suit of metal that makes it hard to breath and move, just will not give you any advantages. So you decide not to wear one.

And you have a whole new appreciation for the group's knight and mercenary who occasionally do back flips and effortless sprinting in their respective suits of armor.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 12:43 PM

Its probably both.

Anyway, once you get super magic involved, "impractical" stops being a thing. Who cares about being sworded when your skin is protected by a magical force field? Who cares about sunburn when you cant be affected by the sun? Who cares about dehydration when you can create water by waving your hand? If they have all that and are also vain enough to run around in revealing or provocative clothing, that's at least some characterization on top of the titillation.

I think we can look beyond settings/systems that have "super magic".

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 12:50 PM

Keltest

2017-07-23, 12:50 PM

I think we can look beyond settings/systems that have "super magic".

Maybe, although I think that most settings that have magic will have some variation of "here is some basic traveling magic to replace all that traveling equipment and learning you would otherwise need."

An anti-sunburn spell, for example, seems fairly mundane. In D&D for example, Endure Elements is a first level spell. Armor spells being rarer, but also a common staple of the combat wizard.

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 01:00 PM

Actually, armor fell out of use for lots of reasons. Armies got bigger, so cost of equipping them was more of an issue. Cannon got common, and even muskets will defeat many types of armor, so the relative benefit went down as the cost went up. And full plate weighs a lot, tires you out, and cuts your vision. Worth it if it makes you invulnerable, less worth it if it only makes you kinda invulnerable.

Falling overboard in any degree if armor is bad, and it's tough to unbuckle straps under water before you die. Fishermen have drown because they couldn't get their boots off in time after they filled with water and dragged them down. Can't imagine struggling out of a breastplate. WWII soldiers drowned on amphibious landings being pulled down by gear which was more easily ditched than a mail hauberk.

I totally see the argument against armor on ship to ship combat.
I was mostly referring to the fact that armor fell out of fashion because of things like the cost, not that armor stopped working. A few iron plates in a vest can protect against archaic firearms. Yet people didn't bother. So why didn't people bother? For lots of reasons I'm sure, but they could have tried to use armor if they wanted. Especially pirates who aren't required to meet military uniform standards and wouldn't need to march in them. But they didn't, 'cause either it didn't matter to them or they had other priorities.

Still not snuff bait. :smallamused:

Again, I see what you're saying about fantasy having a lot of unarmored characters who don't get the hate that the chainmail bikini gets, but in your example, they first guy is better protected from many weapon. Maybe not the Orc axe. But light slashing swords, yes, a bit. In the Crimea, the British cavalry complained that their sabres wouldn't cut through the heavy coats of the Russian Cossacks. Not even metal, just heavy cloth. They could stab through, but not hack through them. They could have sliced Conan or Red Sonya to the bone.
For sure. But as long as the clothes aren't functioning as some sort of armor (and a heavy cassock could probably double as a padded armor equivalent at least, similar to silken ceremonial armor in PF), there's no functional difference. And if there's no functional difference, it comes down to aesthetic appeal.

Again, I say art is what you want to look at, so if you like Princess of Mars style naked warriors, that's fine.

I like the idea of warriors that would want something between their favorite skin and the slashing blades. I think naked sword fighters of either sex are silly. And I do think that art where every male is covered head to toe and every woman is wearing a handful of glitter a little sexist. I prefer the "We haven't invented clothes yet" worlds of Frank Frazetta where everybody is in a furry or leather or metal Speedo to the "only men's armor covers the sternum" art.
Yeah, ditto. I generally prefer equal opportunity wardrobes, and generally like characters with lots of gear and outfits and stuff. But that's just me, and sometimes I see pictures that are appealing even outside my usual artistic preference. For example, here's some art I've used for character potraits on my sheets.

Image #1 (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/castlevania/images/4/46/Offart33.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140516095647)
Image #2 (https://images-ext-1.discordapp.net/.eJw9xTsSgyAQANC70OOCnyA2OUpmJRuDAyuyWGVy93R5zfuoq ya1qHdrRRaA8OS1w9qkYYsHd-HIUABFqAnEjBv9M8aC9zPMg4fe2JvprbOT9YMDyZgS1YecF1aC lXjHHFkTaaZQj4wcqOpXZEzdXra7HafJjYN3Tn1_UPIwkw.mon oQINwtdwod3HbNOe7Wuqay04)
Image #3 (http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs31/f/2008/216/e/b/Hollow_Witch_by_asuka111.jpg)
Image #4 (https://images.discordapp.net/.eJwFwVEOgyAMANC7cABKGRPqbQgSNFNKaI0fy-6-977mnqdZza46ZAXYDik8NyvKM7dqG3M7ax6H2MIXZNVc9qt2Ff DR00Jvtzh04YUhEfiUIkaKSOgSUgoO7v7p_HQ7ejO_PwjOIuo. h1PVTyn6CQkOObEN8UlLVSihhlY?width=324&height=518)
Image #5 (http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/191/f/c/psp_wallpaper__demon_girl_by_sinnercerberus11-d56pqpu.jpg)
Image #6 (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NlAebx5oOQU/T_fiVHDU6iI/AAAAAAAAAYk/xFL8P6jijFQ/s1600/Dark_Witch-Concept_art_extract.jpg)
Image #7 (http://s14.postimg.org/3zax1d8kh/CHAos.png)
Image #8 (http://25.media.tumblr.com/8d44578087260b549dbe1eb0d84850ba/tumblr_mfqeo21Kmw1rdy3s5o1_500.png)
Image #9 (http://th03.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2010/158/5/a/Black_witch_by_melshine.jpg)
Image #10 (http://safebooru.org//images/885/e11978ec252eb5582b3b86cd5221a58808196c52.jpg?89054 1)

Doesn't mean I have a problem with this portrait (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4f/62/53/4f6253c109dd27e2d7d3fb904917dcaa.jpg), or think that the character (or player) is an idiot, the artist ignorant, or that anything about it screams that she's snuff bait. In fact, viewing it just makes me want to make a badass barbarian lady who wrecks faces.

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 01:03 PM

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-23, 01:16 PM

Again, I say art is what you want to look at, so if you like Princess of Mars style naked warriors, that's fine.

I like the idea of warriors that would want something between their favorite skin and the slashing blades. I think naked sword fighters of either sex are silly. And I do think that art where every male is covered head to toe and every woman is wearing a handful of glitter a little sexist. I prefer the "We haven't invented clothes yet" worlds of Frank Frazetta where everybody is in a furry or leather or metal Speedo to the "only men's armor covers the sternum" art.

Ding ding ding ding

People in this thread continue to argue the usefulness of armor as if it matters.

It doesn't.

Not every piece of art wants to nor needs to be realistic.
Wanting to look at art with realistic armor is a simply one out of many possible preferences.

2D8HP

2017-07-23, 01:19 PM

Cold iron repels fey, ghosts, evil spirits, and evil magic. The reason hanging a horse shoe above your door brings good luck is it keeps those things out. Including witches....
...Most likely, they wanted an excuse to force wizard characters to dress in robes, and this was an easy way to do it.

Like most of early D&D, it was ad hoc, so yes.

Also I should have said "folklore as filtered through the stories of Poul Anderson".

I was under the impression that only druids had any issue with metals, and it was the weight and restriction of armor that made it harder to cast spells. Which is why you suffer a little spell failure from things like leather armor, but not much. Apparently wizards need to be able to perform elaborate dance moves to properly cast spells. :smalltongue:

Druids in 5e, 0e and 1e were different.

Originally Elves could act as either "Fighting-Men" or "Magic-Users", but not at the same time, then with supplements sb d th AD&D PHB they became the potential "gish" that could wear armor and cast spells, while humans couldn't, which only made sense (sort of) if you assume that all Elves used "Elven Chain" (ala Anderson).

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-23, 01:22 PM

Freud got handed off to a wetnurse and projected himself onto everyone. Feel free to make another joke about that, but it's not on me.

Freud popularised transference, sublimation, freudian slips, the unconscious, the libido, and the importance of dreams. He didn't have all the answers and some of his offerings have become cultish, but that's not the point.

One never stops hearing about Dracula, but it was a Victorian shamefest from a different world, and yet also a kind of safe space for vicarious kink, since it's fiction.

What about Hammer Horror? What about Hellraiser? What about Evil Dead? Sex and violence combined go way back, and on into unspeakable real life instances of war going back to the Greeks and beyond, I'm sure. There's no hope in trying to deny the connection between eros and thanatos. What about the S&M cult? Sex is, after all, the original method of escaping the power of death through one's progeny.

Some people like to practice art whenever they can so as to not get rusty. However, this still isn't the kind of thing that you're saying, because you just cited a work of fiction and something that people do at base, between alternated hurrying on for missions, waiting for missions, and the rare moment when sleep is possible. One does not typically paint when on an actual bombing run, and certainly not on the nose of the plane.

I don't know what this means. Allied bombers often had posed, buxom women depicted on their nose art, if the WWII documentaries I've seen are any indication.

Is that what you call it when people remind you that large cross sections of people don't actually share your views?

Are you saying that 2-5% of the population not liking cheesecake is why we can't have cheesecake?

That's specifically hardcore porn. Softcore nudes, model shots, etc. also exist under the same banner of porn. So, again, one wonders, why is it that a non-porn product has to have porn in it?

Are you saying that we can't have fantasy cheesecake because non-fantasy soft porn exists?

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 01:25 PM

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-23, 01:30 PM

Mike_G

2017-07-23, 01:33 PM

sarcasm

But don't you see, none of the very practical, functional, factual considerations you listed off matter at all... it doesn't matter if several different unarmored characters from radically different circumstances are a completely apples-to-lugnuts comparison that only works when entirely stripped of context... the choice of whether or not to wear armor, and what sort of armor to wear, all came down to nothing but fashion for the people of all those various times and places.

And any objection someone might have to character gussied up in dysfunctional armor is just their personal aesthetics, since there are no objective or functional reasons behind anything anyone ever does or thinks.

/sarcasm

I agree with you on a lot of things here, but one point I have to make.

Fantasy is apples to lugnuts.

Fantasy is pretty broad, and D&D tries hard not to be very setting specific. D&D players and artists may be inspired by the Knights of the Round Table, the Three Musketeers, Conan, Princess of Mars, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Seven Samurai, or Super Robot Monkey Hyperforce Go!

All those tropes are supported somewhere in the system or a supplement.

So while this:

Mike's idea woman (http://fashionablygeek.com/videos-2/this-armored-lady-won-the-longsword-competition-at-a-world-invitational-tournament/)

is what I want a female warrior to look like (and I find this image very attractive) some people want Red Sonya types in the Larry Elmore style.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 01:53 PM

Ding ding ding ding

People in this thread continue to argue the usefulness of armor as if it matters.

It doesn't.

Not every piece of art wants to nor needs to be realistic.
Wanting to look at art with realistic armor is a simply one out of many possible preferences.

1) The impractical, nonfunctional, or fanciful armor is often treated -- through artist and/or viewer ignorance -- as if it were practical, functional, and grounded in reality. It's often less a matter of deliberate divergence, and more a matter of misinformation and misunderstanding.

2) Certain people who are asserting that focusing on the functionality, practicality, utility, and "groundedness" of armor as depicted in art is just a preference among preferences... are going a large step farther and insisting that functionality, practicality, and utility can't be judged at all and that all choices about armor were purely subjective. And they're wrong. Whether the armor would protect the wearer isn't subjective. Whether the armor would be practical to make and wear isn't subjective. Whether the armor would function as armor isn't subjective.

3) It's not about "what we want to look at" in the first place.

4) If the art in question is supposed to be depicting a particular setting, and shows people who by trade and situation should be in some sort of practical, functional armor or spacesuit or whatever... then the artists and designers need to make the hard choice of whether it's going to depict the setting accurately, or titillate. (And for most settings, the answer cannot in any honest terms be "both".) You can't have your cake and eat it too. Cheesecake, beefcake, or otherwise.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 01:59 PM

I agree with you on a lot of things here, but one point I have to make.

Fantasy is apples to lugnuts.

Fantasy is pretty broad, and D&D tries hard not to be very setting specific. D&D players and artists may be inspired by the Knights of the Round Table, the Three Musketeers, Conan, Princess of Mars, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Seven Samurai, or Super Robot Monkey Hyperforce Go!

All those tropes are supported somewhere in the system or a supplement.

So while this:

Mike's idea woman (http://fashionablygeek.com/videos-2/this-armored-lady-won-the-longsword-competition-at-a-world-invitational-tournament/)

is what I want a female warrior to look like (and I find this image very attractive) some people want Red Sonya types in the Larry Elmore style.

Samantha Swords (http://samanthaswords.tumblr.com/) is awesome as hell.

(And as an aside, that 138-car genre pileup aspect of D&D is ironically part of why the system itself ends up so out of sync with almost any particular setting, and appearing to result in bizarre settings if taken at face value.)

Honest Tiefling

2017-07-23, 02:04 PM

So while this:

Mike's idea woman (http://fashionablygeek.com/videos-2/this-armored-lady-won-the-longsword-competition-at-a-world-invitational-tournament/)

is what I want a female warrior to look like (and I find this image very attractive) some people want Red Sonya types in the Larry Elmore style.

I find this to be a good example of a compromise from the standpoint of the story being overly silly due to a lack of clothing yet still having fan service. She's armored, but still appealing.

Have to wonder how many people arguing for Red Sonya would be upset if Conan got replaced with a more conventionally attractive male lead however...

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-23, 02:05 PM

Or that they kept playing and aren't in venues that you frequent?

Must be why they're going for neuroscience over psychoanalysis nowadays.

[QUOTE]
What, exactly, are you trying to do with this question? The 1980s are well within the Information Age, containing many different facets of life that people from a century before would never have been able to imagine. That's a rather tall hurdle.

You misunderstand my question.
How is the human condition in the Victorian Era so much more different than now that its content is brushed aside as irrelevant while content from 30-40 years ago is suitable as an example of a problem right now?

To put it simply, does quoting the 1987 crime rates have anything to do with crime in 2017?

I'm doubting that there is a point to be had in insisting that I accept psychoanalysis by someone without any apparent accreditations to begin with. Especially not with what it was used to try and justify...

That's also not the point they were making.

And another look at marketing strategy reveals that Lifeforce flopped in spite of having Mathilda May wear nothing for most of the movie, and that it was a gender-flipped Dracula with space vampires. It was the death of the Cannon Group, which had only ever eked along slightly making B-movie schlock, on account of making less than $12 million.

Lifeforce isn't the only example of its kind, either. People want to be entertained, not get sucked into the creator's creepy magical realm, and the top-grossing films seem to bear that out.

This is a red herring. Address the actual point, not some other thing.

The statement, as originally cast, was a broad-sweeping generalization of a population much larger than the TRPG industry. Which suggests that if the TRPG industry wanted to actually reach out and grow, it would cut it out with ridiculous chain-link bikini illustrations and stick with what would make sense. Sticking with the Metal Bikini fixation would doom it to relegation, much like the Cannon group, above.

Again, why are you referencing 1980's TRPG art as if it is contemporary?

No, by this metric, art meant specifically to titillate is porn. The other side of the argument seemed oddly fixated on keeping porn-like elements in places where they didn't belong, like on a battlefield. The entire mess with Stekel's theory of Eros and Thanatos over the past few posts revolved around this. And it doesn't make any sense to place the two together, again, because not wanting to die is unisex. So you wear armor instead of "armor" instead of, to put another spin on Donnadogsoth's patronizing statement about "admiring your wife", the equivalent of knowing that there's a knife fight about to break out that you can't avoid and making your wife dress up as Leia after being captured by Jabba the Hut in RotJ. Pointless, dumb, and an all-around bad move that would likely get her killed.

Boundaries are often necessary in life and art, so that one form doesn't have to split its attention between two purposes. Trying to present a serious fight scene while also including pinups or porn is typically going to make the end product suffer in both respects. Lots of people probably think that they can pull it off, but in the end, trying to pull double duty here is an abyss that consumes them all.

Explain the following:

Both danger and infatuation produce adrenaline. In fact, it has been demonstrated that taking someone on a first date to a horror movie or theme park or other adrenaline-producing activity leads to more second dates than otherwise.

So if danger and sex are unrelated... why this?

I have no stake in the argument. Just curious.

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 02:05 PM

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-23, 02:06 PM

1) The impractical, nonfunctional, or fanciful armor is often treated -- through artist and/or viewer ignorance -- as if it were practical, functional, and grounded in reality. It's often less a matter of deliberate divergence, and more a matter of misinformation and misunderstanding.

2) Certain people who are asserting that focusing on the functionality, practicality, utility, and "groundedness" of armor as depicted in art is just a preference among preferences... are going a large step farther and insisting that functionality, practicality, and utility can't be judged at all and that all choices about armor were purely subjective.

3) It's not about "what we want to look at" in the first place.

Putting aside the condescension in thinking you need to education everybody about this niche thing that you and I like.

So the agenda here is this?

1. People don't know about armor.
2. Criticize art with unrealistic armor in it.
3. In that way, we will educate people about armor.

Mike_G

2017-07-23, 02:09 PM

Damn that's hot. :smallamused:

I know, right?

Lord Raziere

2017-07-23, 02:15 PM

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-23, 02:37 PM

But communicative responsibility is still a thing that needs to be considered.

Realism may not be what matters, but you still have to consider how people see you- ee there are things that matter more than money. Monetary apathy only breeds perpetuation of a bad status quo. I may draw whatever I want for myself for my personal pleasure, but I see no point in publishing or sharing any of it if its going to send the wrong message.

The underlined part makes me think you want to criticize art that doesn't push your agenda (we may also say "that pushes back your agenda") because it makes me think you're implying some kind of agenda when you start talking about "status quo."

If that is not the case, please clarify.

If that is the case, then I would say, sure, you probably don't want to make art that expresses an idea you actually don't want to. But then again, there's nothing stopping normal people, as well as edge cases, crazies, people who are just really bad at viewing art, and so on, from looking at a piece of art and making a negative judgment about you. There is also nothing stopping really sick, disgusting people from endorsing your art. As an artist, you kind of have to live with the fact that people who don't understand your work will criticize your work.

So I would open up a separate argument if you can look at Wayne Reynold's art in the Pathfinder Books and want it changed to push your agenda, that's fair. I would think you are way too obsessed with that agenda, but still, fair.

But if you look at Wayne Reynold's art in the Pathfinder Books and say he is foolish or evil for drawing them, that's you not getting it. Also, if you look at Wayne Reynold's art in the Pathfinder Books and say it is low quality art because it includes boob windows, I would also say that's you not getting it.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-23, 02:50 PM

pwykersotz

2017-07-23, 03:18 PM

But communicative responsibility is still a thing that needs to be considered.

Realism may not be what matters, but you still have to consider how people see you- and there are things that matter more than money. Monetary apathy only breeds perpetuation of a bad status quo. I may draw whatever I want for myself for my personal pleasure, but I see no point in publishing or sharing any of it if its going to send the wrong message.

Art is seldom so respectful. That's part of why so much of it is terrible, and so much of it is great.

But that aside, you exercise that responsibility by applying value judgements to what you are doing, and different people have differing value judgements. I guarantee that based on your arguments in this thread, that you and I would find each others values abhorrent on some level. So basically, your argument is groundless unless you assert an overarching value framework that you can get society at large to agree upon as well. And given the current flux of value states in western nations, you'll have a pretty hard time of that.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-23, 03:25 PM

Art is seldom so respectful. That's part of why so much of it is terrible, and so much of it is great.

But that aside, you exercise that responsibility by applying value judgements to what you are doing, and different people have differing value judgements. I guarantee that based on your arguments in this thread, that you and I would find each others values abhorrent on some level. So basically, your argument is groundless unless you assert an overarching value framework that you can get society at large to agree upon as well. And given the current flux of value states in western nations, you'll have a pretty hard time of that.

:smallconfused:

I really do not get what you guys problems with me are. people will always use value judgements, they're not invalid just because there is no framework, nor will people stop doing them just because its their opinion, nor will it stop being important just because your don't care. there are also artists out there that produce a lot of bad content and get money, so you can't just say that all artists are good and valid and that all fans except the ones who pay are bad, your just an artist being a jerk to other people then.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-23, 03:26 PM

Vitruvian, everyone has an agenda, thats called life. you can't criticize anyone for having a motivation for why they do anything. else the only vliad reason you can give to do anything is "no reason." which is absurd.

I get everyone has agendas. I'm not, like, 3 years old. Lol.

Like, I have an agenda where I think it'd be cool if men and women were treated equally (I'm told at times that this means feminism, and at times this doesn't, so I word it this way for the sake of clarity).

But what people in this thread are trying to tell me (and I think you are included but you may clarify that you are not because, honestly, people tend to blur together in these threads sometimes) is if I hold this agenda, I should be disgusted with or at the very least unsupportive of boob windows in the Wayne Reynolds art, or with drawings of Mialee.

My thing is, no, I shouldn't, and nor should you, because that is not a savvy way to digest this art. The portion of your quote which I have underlined is wrong - there are valid motivations and invalid motivations for whatever you do, up to and including your criticism of art. Let's list some:

- The boob windows in Wayne Reynold's art does nothing to set back this agenda of treating men and women equally. Thus, if you are motivated to criticize the boob window because it sets back your agenda, you have an invalid motivation because the results you are working toward will actually not help your agenda.
- The good reasons for the boob windows to exist outweigh the badness of how much it sets back my agenda (we'll say this quantity of badness not zero, for the sake of making this example here), so you have a motivation that should be overridden in this case.
- When I am evaluating art, besides asking whether its message agrees with me, I also think there is worth in independently evaluating its quality in terms of just how effectively does it communicate the message it was meant to. I don't like how Wayne Reynolds seems to mostly not understand how wrists work, but besides that, I think it is effective enough at communicating ideas which have no relation to my agenda that I don't really care about the value to which it runs counter to my agenda, especially as I believe taking away the boob windows would also compromise its effectiveness at communicating those other ideas. (Disclaimer: I bring this up to cover my bases on why you can criticize people's motivations for criticizing art. I am aware that I am in a thread about female armor design, and this point is tangential to it.)

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 03:53 PM

Putting aside the condescension in thinking you need to education everybody about this niche thing that you and I like.

So the agenda here is this?

1. People don't know about armor.
2. Criticize art with unrealistic armor in it.
3. In that way, we will educate people about armor.

The "agenda" is to avoid bad information getting confused for good information out of some artist or publisher's desire to pander to the lowest common denominator, or work their own kink.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-23, 03:59 PM

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 04:02 PM

I don't have an agenda that I know of (I even double checked the definition (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agenda?s=t) to make sure). That said, I don't mind resisting other people's agendas when they infringe upon others ability to consume what they enjoy. In other words...

But communicative responsibility is still a thing that needs to be considered.

Realism may not be what matters, but you still have to consider how people see you- and there are things that matter more than money. Monetary apathy only breeds perpetuation of a bad status quo. I may draw whatever I want for myself for my personal pleasure, but I see no point in publishing or sharing any of it if its going to send the wrong message.
It's not your place to decide what is or is not the wrong message for everyone else. Nor is it mine. Your telling people not to share art and push their preferences underground to try to support some true way is part of may issue with these discussions. It always comes down to either personal preference or someone trying to push their moral system onto others like it was the highest truth.

Look, if you think art sends the wrong message, fine. Don't use it for your characters. Don't view it for your leisure. Whatever. However, that's a choice that's for everyone else to make for themselves. It's not universal, and frankly, I find the suggestion of it as stupid as suggesting my playing video games since I was 2 years old means I'm going to jump on turtles and steal cars, or suggesting that because I play a Malconvoker in D&D that I'm going to be summoning goetic demons to get a raise at work.

You're free to suggest it as you like. Just as others are free to ignore that suggestion. :smallsmile:

EDIT:
I really do not get what you guys problems with me are.
Why do you think anyone has a problem with you, exactly? :smallconfused:

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-23, 04:03 PM

Lord Raziere

2017-07-23, 04:04 PM

Like, I have an agenda where I think it'd be cool if men and women were treated equally (I'm told at times that this means feminism, and at times this doesn't, so I word it this way for the sake of clarity).

But what people in this thread are trying to tell me (and I think you are included but you may clarify that you are not because, honestly, people tend to blur together in these threads sometimes) is if I hold this agenda, I should be disgusted with or at the very least unsupportive of boob windows in the Wayne Reynolds art, or with drawings of Mialee.

My thing is, no, I shouldn't, and nor should you, because that is not a savvy way to digest this art. The portion of your quote which I have underlined is wrong - there are valid motivations and invalid motivations for whatever you do, up to and including your criticism of art. Let's list some:

- The boob windows in Wayne Reynold's art does nothing to set back this agenda of treating men and women equally. Thus, if you are motivated to criticize the boob window because it sets back your agenda, you have an invalid motivation because the results you are working toward will actually not help your agenda.
- The good reasons for the boob windows to exist outweigh the badness of how much it sets back my agenda (we'll say this quantity of badness not zero, for the sake of making this example here), so you have a motivation that should be overridden in this case.
- When I am evaluating art, besides asking whether its message agrees with me, I also think there is worth in independently evaluating its quality in terms of just how effectively does it communicate the message it was meant to. I don't like how Wayne Reynolds seems to mostly not understand how wrists work, but besides that, I think it is effective enough at communicating ideas which have no relation to my agenda that I don't really care about the value to which it runs counter to my agenda, especially as I believe taking away the boob windows would also compromise its effectiveness at communicating those other ideas. (Disclaimer: I bring this up to cover my bases on why you can criticize people's motivations for criticizing art. I am aware that I am in a thread about female armor design, and this point is tangential to it.)

and I agree with that.

That doesn't change the fact there are people out there who are just scumbags who exploit whatever they can for their own gain. nor can we ignore them, because they spew out bull that causes problems because of it.

just because the sexiness is there, doesn't mean its done well, or should always be included. artists and writers don't just make a picture or something and its good forever, they refine their focus, they improve what they feel they do, they make decisions what is important to focus on, they cut what needs cutting and add what needs adding, its a process. and you have to make decisions whether its good to include something at all for the sake of the overall quality, and sexiness can improve some things probably. I don't what, but its possible, I'm not ruling it out. It can also detract from other things. and I as an artist, have to make the decision and carefully consider these things, as well as how to execute these things properly.

To be honest, I don't have much of an opinion on whether something should be scantily clad or not. its something highly dependent upon the world, the genre, the character, the in-setting culture, the circumstances, the level of silliness and so on for when and how its appropriate. I mean I could make a world where a lot of fighters are scantily clad in bikinis and such but I wouldn't take it seriously AT ALL. By then I'd probably be including cute anime vampire girls who fight in sun because their enchanted combat bikinis protect them from that, and I wouldn't be pretending that any of this supposed to be taken seriously, and just include a lot of comedy in that as well.

if your asking me to write a serious fantasy story with a strong female protagonist on the other hand, thats a completely different story, and I can't in good conscience not clad her sensibly.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-07-23, 04:09 PM

I don't have an agenda that I know of (I even double checked the definition (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agenda?s=t) to make sure). That said, I don't mind resisting other people's agendas when they infringe upon others ability to consume what they enjoy. In other words...

It's not your place to decide what is or is not the wrong message for everyone else. Nor is it mine. Your telling people not to share art and push their preferences underground to try to support some true way is part of may issue with these discussions. It always comes down to either personal preference or someone trying to push their moral system onto others like it was the highest truth.

Look, if you think art sends the wrong message, fine. Don't use it for your characters. Don't view it for your leisure. Whatever. However, that's a choice that's for everyone else to make for themselves. It's not universal, and frankly, I find the suggestion of it as stupid as suggesting my playing video games since I was 2 years old means I'm going to jump on turtles and steal cars, or suggesting that because I play a Malconvoker in D&D that I'm going to be summoning goetic demons to get a raise at work.

You're free to suggest it as you like. Just as others are free to ignore that suggestion. :smallsmile:

I completely agree. Again, I have to repeat the maxim: "I don't like X" is not the same as "X is bad." This confusion is one of the worst things about this forum. Many posters seem convinced that their way is not only right, but obviously right and others are wrong if not evil.

Your values are not necessarily my values, and telling me that I'm doing it wrong is condescending, rude, and ultimately counterproductive even if I originally am inclined to your side. Build up from a common base, don't put down. "Here, try this--it's even better" works so much better to persuade than screaming badwrongfun or talking about others' tastes as if they're wrong instead of just not to your taste. Hiding it behind BS reasons like "realism" or "verisimilitude" (which is a code word for "things I like") is even worse.

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 04:13 PM

As opposed to de-prettifying art and pandering to realistic-armour obsessives?
It's amazing, isn't it? :smalltongue:

Mike_G

2017-07-23, 04:17 PM

The "agenda" is to avoid bad information getting confused for good information out of some artist or publisher's desire to pander to the lowest common denominator, or work their own kink.

OK.

I'm seeing both sides here, and I'm going to have to argue against my own tastes.

I loathe the boob windows. I hate the chainmail bikinis. I roll my eyes at the huge spikey pauldrons until I can see my own brainstem.

I hate that stuff like I hate kale.

But it's fantasy art.

It doesn't have to inform, or educate, or even make the world a better, more equal place.

If people like bad art, let them like bad art. People let Michael Bay make movies, and that's just wrong as hell, but we let him.

And the audience is self selecting. If really sexist art drives women away from a game, well, that's the game's loss. Fandom in general is becoming a lot more female friendly and accepting and even female driven than it was when I was playing 1e D&D in my friend's basement with my all male group of Alpha Nerds.

5e seems to be trying to avoid the Playboy Bunny with a sword thing. I think that's progress.

But let's be honest. D&D isn't Habitat for Humanity or Amnesty International. It not the job of fantasy art to save the world.

Let the bad art be bad. If you don't like it, don't use it. Vote with your wallet and don't buy the supplement with the T&A covers.

Because if pop culture has taught us anything, it's that bad, objectifying art isn't going anywhere.

So instead of arguing with the guy who posts the woman in full plate that leaves her heart and abdominal organs exposed, just share this picture of Samantha Swords. (http://fashionablygeek.com/videos-2/this-armored-lady-won-the-longsword-competition-at-a-world-invitational-tournament/)

And make the world simultaneously a more realistic and sexier place.

scalyfreak

2017-07-23, 04:29 PM

So instead of arguing with the guy who posts the woman in full plate that leaves her heart and abdominal organs exposed, just share this picture of Samantha Swords. (http://fashionablygeek.com/videos-2/this-armored-lady-won-the-longsword-competition-at-a-world-invitational-tournament/)

If I ever get a chance to bring my D&D cleric ideas out to play I am using that for my character sheet.

Other than that, I agree with the majority of what you just said. (Someone really should stop Michael Bay from making more movies.)

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 04:29 PM

I mean I could make a world where a lot of fighters are scantily clad in bikinis and such but I wouldn't take it seriously AT ALL. By then I'd probably be including cute anime vampire girls who fight in sun because their enchanted combat bikinis protect them from that, and I wouldn't be pretending that any of this supposed to be taken seriously, and just include a lot of comedy in that as well.

if your asking me to write a serious fantasy story with a strong female protagonist on the other hand, thats a completely different story, and I can't in good conscience not clad her sensibly.
Those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Merely, you feel they must be because you couldn't take the former seriously, so you can't imagine the latter - strong protagonist - being a feature of it. But it's not impossible. Given the overtones of sexuality often associated with vampires, perhaps it's vampire custom for powerful matriarchs in their society to wear things like this sparkling number (https://img1.etsystatic.com/135/1/9716139/il_570xN.936454709_m3zr.jpg), or this one here (https://img0.etsystatic.com/121/2/9716139/il_570xN.937561720_d6mw.jpg), going back thousands of years to the first vampire queen who fashioned her regalia from the tears of an angel whom she enthralled, and which absorbed the light of the sun allowing her to walk in broad daylight, turning sunlight as easily as her flesh turns steel.

A celebration of their perfection, akin to that of satanic rituals. A homage to the first vampire queen, the proudest of vampire daughters adorn these as a sign of their power and pride. A lineage, a legacy, of lust, decadence, and pride. And of course, you could certainly add some comical flair to the story, since those outside of the vampire society wouldn't get it, or a fledgling vampire in a house being all bashful and blushing at the very notion.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-23, 04:32 PM

and I agree with that.

That doesn't change the fact there are people out there who are just scumbags who exploit whatever they can for their own gain. nor can we ignore them, because they spew out bull that causes problems because of it.

just because the sexiness is there, doesn't mean its done well, or should always be included. artists and writers don't just make a picture or something and its good forever, they refine their focus, they improve what they feel they do, they make decisions what is important to focus on, they cut what needs cutting and add what needs adding, its a process. and you have to make decisions whether its good to include something at all for the sake of the overall quality, and sexiness can improve some things probably. I don't what, but its possible, I'm not ruling it out. It can also detract from other things. and I as an artist, have to make the decision and carefully consider these things, as well as how to execute these things properly.

Okay, you appear to me to be saying that there is a lot of nuance in evaluating art (which I agree with) and that there are a lot of artists who include sexiness in a foolish or cynical manner whom we should wag our fingers at.

I think I can agree with that. But I'd also have to point out that either our goalpost has moved, or I was not understanding where your goalpost was.

Let's go concrete and take a specific image...

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/0a2620_8106455064534dc188b1b6cb34912700.jpg/v1/fill/w_635,h_495,al_c,q_90/0a2620_8106455064534dc188b1b6cb34912700.webp

It looks to me like the goalpost is that Wayne Reynolds is a scumbag who is exploiting a boob window for his own gain. It looks to me like you are about to convince me that his picture is some bull he spewed out and it will cause problems for me because I think men and women should be treated equally.

I hate to make you repeat yourself, but can you tell me why this is so, by quoting yourself if you want, or what your goalpost is, if it isn't that? For clarity's sake?

To be honest, I don't have much of an opinion on whether something should be scantily clad or not. its something highly dependent upon the world, the genre, the character, the in-setting culture, the circumstances, the level of silliness and so on for when and how its appropriate. I mean I could make a world where a lot of fighters are scantily clad in bikinis and such but I wouldn't take it seriously AT ALL. By then I'd probably be including cute anime vampire girls who fight in sun because their enchanted combat bikinis protect them from that, and I wouldn't be pretending that any of this supposed to be taken seriously, and just include a lot of comedy in that as well.

if your asking me to write a serious fantasy story with a strong female protagonist on the other hand, thats a completely different story, and I can't in good conscience not clad her sensibly.

Okay, so I also perceive a goalpost here where, for the picture above, I am also supposed to laugh at the boob window in this picture, or be uncomfortable because there is some kind of implied snuff here.

But I'm just not convinced. I'm not convinced because it seems obvious to me that the vibe of this picture is not to have a world where people get shot/stabbed in the boob window, so I don't even think about it. And if I did think about it, I would say, "wow, that's weird of me. Let's set that notion aside."

I know how unfair it is to argue that you have to convince me of something, because for all you know, I could be really egotistic or just trolling you and you'll never convince me, so let's take my thought and turn it into a universal principle:

I would say when we evaluate art, we need to respect the tone of the piece. I think the tone of the picture provided is neither serious realism, nor is it comedy. The tone is something along the lines of "this is cool, heroic action." I think that tone is expressed in multiple ways such as its layout, the medium used, the color palette, the subject matter, etc. To say that the boob windows were a bad move because boob windows don't fit gritty realism is not valid criticism because it is not gritty realism. To say that the boob windows therefore make this a comedic picture is also not valid because the tone of cool heroic action can tolerate boob windows.

Talakeal

2017-07-23, 04:33 PM

The "agenda" is to avoid bad information getting confused for good information out of some artist or publisher's desire to pander to the lowest common denominator, or work their own kink.

If your agenda is to get rid of fiction induced misconceptions maybe you should go after something which is more commonly believed and more relevant to modern life than whether or not certain types of antiquated clothing would impractical when fighting mythical creatures? Something like criminals being allowed a single phone call or defibrillators being used to shock dead people back to life maybe?

if your asking me to write a serious fantasy story with a strong female protagonist on the other hand, thats a completely different story, and I can't in good conscience not clad her sensibly.

Why not? There are plenty of strong (in every sense of the word) characters in other genres, not to mention real life, who wear impractical outfits. Why is fantasy the exception?

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 04:36 PM

OK.

I'm seeing both sides here, and I'm going to have to argue against my own tastes.

I loathe the boob windows. I hate the chainmail bikinis. I roll my eyes at the huge spikey pauldrons until I can see my own brainstem.

I hate that stuff like I hate kale.

But it's fantasy art.

It doesn't have to inform, or educate, or even make the world a better, more equal place.

If people like bad art, let them like bad art. People let Michael Bay make movies, and that's just wrong as hell, but we let him.

And the audience is self selecting. If really sexist art drives women away from a game, well, that's the game's loss. Fandom in general is becoming a lot more female friendly and accepting and even female driven than it was when I was playing 1e D&D in my friend's basement with my all male group of Alpha Nerds.

5e seems to be trying to avoid the Playboy Bunny with a sword thing. I think that's progress.

But let's be honest. D&D isn't Habitat for Humanity or Amnesty International. It not the job of fantasy art to save the world.

Let the bad art be bad. If you don't like it, don't use it. Vote with your wallet and don't buy the supplement with the T&A covers.

Because if pop culture has taught us anything, it's that bad, objectifying art isn't going anywhere.

So instead of arguing with the guy who posts the woman in full plate that leaves her heart and abdominal organs exposed, just share this picture of Samantha Swords. (http://fashionablygeek.com/videos-2/this-armored-lady-won-the-longsword-competition-at-a-world-invitational-tournament/)

And make the world simultaneously a more realistic and sexier place.

Great, now watch the material driven by symbolism or pandering dominate the market because it "has more impact", just like Michael Bay's crapfest movies... and we end up with the most aggravating trope of all, Reality is Unrealistic. Try making a movie with special effects that aren't over the top and full of flash and bang and zap and pow. Try having explosions and gunfire and collisions that emulate how things interact and look and sound in real life.

Same thing happens with the art we're talking about. "Where's the drama? Where's the impact? Where's the hotness?" Show real armor and real weapons, on characters who have the shocking motivation of not dying, and then watch the seconds count down until you're accused of being "boring" or "plain" or having "an social agenda".

scalyfreak

2017-07-23, 04:37 PM

Why not? There are plenty of strong (in every sense of the word) characters in other genres, not to mention real life, who wear impractical outfits. Why is fantasy the exception?

A female CEO in a business suit consisting of a tight skirt and fitted jacket, and in very high heels, comes to mind... let's tear her outfit apart next! (That was sarcasm. I loathe the blue font.)

Same thing happens with the art we're talking about. "Where's the drama? Where's the impact? Where's the hotness?" Show real armor and real weapons, on characters who have the shocking motivation of not dying, and then watch the seconds count down until you're accused of being "boring" or "plain" or having "an social agenda".

If that's all your art has going for it, sure. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone accuse Game of Thrones of being boring.

Talakeal

2017-07-23, 04:41 PM

A female CEO in a business suit consisting of a tight skirt and fitted jacket, and in very high heels, comes to mind... let's tear her outfit apart next! (That was sarcasm. I loathe the blue font.)

Wait, what part is sarcasm?

Formal business attire of all sorts, especially ties and high heels, are shown to be very unhealthy, reduce employee morale and raise expenses, and are incredibly restrictive if an emergency situation that requires physical activity comes up.

Yet virtually every major organization requires their employees, and often even their patrons, to adhere to these standards because it "looks professional".

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 04:44 PM

If your agenda is to get rid of fiction induced misconceptions maybe you should go after something which is more commonly believed and more relevant to modern life than whether or not certain types of antiquated clothing would impractical when fighting mythical creatures? Something like criminals being allowed a single phone call or defibrillators being used to shock dead people back to life maybe?

I'd love to see those sorts of things cleaned up too.

But those things weren't the topic of discussion.

Why not? There are plenty of strong (in every sense of the word) characters in other genres, not to mention real life, who wear impractical outfits. Why is fantasy the exception?

Because wearing an "impractical outfit" in some of those other genres won't get you killed. In some it would, and we already talked about space suits that don't work.

That Wonder Woman change that had her in pants and a jacket for a while... and not wearing a skirt and halter-top (whatever you'd call that) into combat... that took so much backlash from certain parts of "fandom"... but I thought it was a great change.

pwykersotz

2017-07-23, 04:45 PM

:smallconfused:

I really do not get what you guys problems with me are. people will always use value judgements, they're not invalid just because there is no framework, nor will people stop doing them just because its their opinion, nor will it stop being important just because your don't care. there are also artists out there that produce a lot of bad content and get money, so you can't just say that all artists are good and valid and that all fans except the ones who pay are bad, your just an artist being a jerk to other people then.

Wait, what? Why do you think I have a problem with you? We have different value systems, and at some point it diverges into the severe. That's not a big deal, people have differences. Nothing new. It's not a personal attack, nor a statement of your character.

I'm criticizing your statement because it is incomplete, and it assumes your values while automatically dismissing others. And note that criticism doesn't mean I disagree, I just think your point is weak and could use shoring up.

Yes, people will always use value judgements.
They are not invalid because there is no framework, but they are indefensible without it.
Yes, people will do things in spite of the opinions of others.
No, importance and care aren't necessarily linked (though importance is a value).
Yes bad artists can make good money.

But if you're going to say that boob windows are distasteful (a point where I agree) you have to back it up with more than vague conjecture in order for it to be worth anything.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-23, 04:45 PM

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 04:50 PM

And the audience is self selecting. If really sexist art drives women away from a game, well, that's the game's loss. Fandom in general is becoming a lot more female friendly and accepting and even female driven than it was when I was playing 1e D&D in my friend's basement with my all male group of Alpha Nerds.
Fun anecdotes.

So I grew up on the bible belt playing with a group of teenage girls. I was the GM, and there was my sister, two cousins, my sister's friend, and occasionally another of our friends who was also female. When we weren't playing D&D, there were arguments over Backstreet Boys vs N'sync, and whether pink or orange was the better color for summer attire (pink dash it all, pink!), and listening to Shania Twain and Brittney Spears. Of course, when we were playing D&D, it was the typical nerd party.

No, really. Every one of us could recite the Deadalewives D&D skit from memory. One of the party members was the absolute munchkin power gamer (the sort who tries to twist mechanics to get the most powerful and best of everything), whose wizard wanted nothing more than more and more power (she once decided that since trolls can't fly and are vulnerable to fire, she would go genocide a tribe of trolls for more XP and lulz). One of them was the chronic kleptomaniac thief. One of them was the group slut who tried to bang everything in sight and hit on everything with a pulse (she even took ranks in Profession [The Oldest] to demonstrate her prowess, leading to much head shaking on my part as a GM). One of them was the idealist fantasy nerd who kept IRL journals of their adventures.

And damn if half the party didn't pick art for their characters that was freakin' saucy. The munchkin took Leadership so she could get a hot and sexy bae to travel with her. He was a big stupid fighter who was a mixture of Vin Diesel and some dude from whatever boy band she was always on about. They mercilessly looted and pillaged dungeons, slew dragons, and felled demons, before taking over the dungeons and remodeling them into yet another vacation house. I eventually just started handing them the layouts of the dungeons they cleared so they could spend their downtime buying gear and decorating their newly acquired lairs.

(Unfortunately, there was a guy who kind of ruined it. He chastised them for being silly, taking things too far, etc. Worse yet, one of the girls got a crush on him, but he ended up with a crush on another of the girls, drama occurred, bad juju. It was freaking awesome while it lasted.)

Fast forward to some years later. Regularly playing with women online and offline. My friend's wife (then girlfriend, later fiance, now mother of child) in tabletop, and lots of friends online. The women I met were just like the guys, often more brazen in their appreciation for a bit of skin. Probably because they're immune to being viewed as horndogs for liking the tits and ass. Maybe I just got lucky enough to hang out with people with a sense of humor who didn't take everything too seriously (omg, do you see how this shows her midriff, it clearly is a message that I need to be making sammiches in the kitchen).

I've seen women quit the game. Never because of boobs. Always because some jerk made the game unfun for everyone. Incidentally, that's the same reason I've seen men quit the game too. Go figure. :smallannoyed:

scalyfreak

2017-07-23, 04:50 PM

Wait, what part is sarcasm?

Formal business attire of all sorts, especially ties and high heels, are shown to be very unhealthy, reduce employee morale and raise expenses, and are incredibly restrictive if an emergency situation that requires physical activity comes up.

Yet virtually every major organization requires their employees, and often even their patrons, to adhere to these standards because it "looks professional".

The part about subjecting the formal business outfit that often is required by women who work in positions of power in the corporate world, to the same level of scrutiny and condemnation as we've been doing with fantasy art in this thread.

Real world people don't always dress in the most comfortable and practical manner, choosing instead to dress to an appearance expected of them, using that appearance to send a specific message (they're called "power suits" for a reason). The types of battles fought in offices and board rooms rarely end with physical injury or damage to vital organs, so the participants can probably be forgiven for dressing in whatever way they believe provides the greatest psychological advantage. More than one woman who works in that kind of environment occasionally refers to the process of donning the business suit and applying the make-up that goes with it, as dressing for battle.

But that's not what this thread was supposed to be about, so let's leave it at that.

Mike_G

2017-07-23, 04:52 PM

Great, now watch the material driven by symbolism or pandering dominate the market because it "has more impact", just like Michael Bay's crapfest movies... and we end up with the most aggravating trope of all, Reality is Unrealistic. Try making a movie with special effects that aren't over the top and full of flash and bang and zap and pow. Try having explosions and gunfire and collisions that emulate how things interact and look and sound in real life.

Same thing happens with the art we're talking about. "Where's the drama? Where's the impact? Where's the hotness?" Show real armor and real weapons, on characters who have the shocking motivation of not dying, and then watch the seconds count down until you're accused of being "boring" or "plain" or having "an social agenda".

I agree with you on aesthetics, but I think you're being overly alarmist.

There's plenty of good art out there. The newer editions are moving towards less "steel lingerie" costuming. Support the good stuff. You can't stop the bad stuff.

Bad fantasy art goes back a long ways. Look at the Edgar Rice Boroughs and Robert E Howard covers. Look at comics since...well, since there have been comics. The world didn't end. Good art didn't stop being made. Everybody on this thread, regardless of what side they were arguing thinks the Samantha Swords photo is cool despite not being unrealistic and fetishy.

The only ways forward are censoring bad art, which we shouldn't do because Godwin's Law, or promoting and supporting the good art.

And, not for nothing, neither one of us is going to be given Universal Power to Determine Good and Bad any time soon.

Recherché

2017-07-23, 04:54 PM

Damn that's hot. :smallamused:

Anyone know if she's available and/or interested in women? :smallamused:

Anyways one of my things about stripperriffic armor in art is that it makes me feel a lot less welcome and safe in the community. When supposedly heroic women are depicted with a focus on sexual attributes and none on practical armor while their male equivalents are depicted in outfits that either are power fantasies or cool looking but non-revealing armors, well it leads me to the conclusion that the women are valued for their sexual attributes while men are valued for what they actually do. This is not a comforting thought. Maybe its possible that the guys at the table won't treat a flesh and blood woman that way but I have no evidence that such is the case and a lot of art suggesting that they won't think of me as a whole person. And maybe this won't lead to violence. Maybe it won't lead to uncomfortable rape jokes or attempts at groping. But gods be damned if it doesn't make me that much more wary. That much less enthused. That much more defensive.

Who knows maybe its a good and accurate warning system that should be preserved?

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 04:55 PM

The part about subjecting the formal business outfit that often is required by women who work in positions of power in the corporate world, to the same level of scrutiny and condemnation as we've been doing with fantasy art in this thread.

Real world people don't always dress in the most comfortable and practical manner, choosing instead to dress to an appearance expected of them, using that appearance to send a specific message (they're called "power suits" for a reason). The types of battles fought in offices and board rooms rarely end with physical injury or damage to vital organs, so the participants can probably be forgiven for dressing in whatever way they believe provides the greatest psychological advantage. More than one woman who works in that kind of environment occasionally refers to the process of donning the business suit and applying the make-up that goes with it, as dressing for battle.

But that's not what this thread was supposed to be about, so let's leave it at that.

I'd be happy to see real clothing go through the same level of scrutiny as a filter between the "artistes" in the fashion industry, and what real people are subjected to out in the real world.

Anyone know if she's available and/or interested in women? :smallamused:

Anyways one of my things about stripperriffic armor in art is that it makes me feel a lot less welcome and safe in the community. When supposedly heroic women are depicted with a focus on sexual attributes and none on practical armor while their male equivalents are depicted in outfits that either are power fantasies or cool looking but non-revealing armors, well it leads me to the conclusion that the women are valued for their sexual attributes while men are valued for what they actually do. This is not a comforting thought. Maybe its possible that the guys at the table won't treat a flesh and blood woman that way but I have no evidence that such is the case and a lot of art suggesting that they won't think of me as a whole person. And maybe this won't lead to violence. Maybe it won't lead to uncomfortable rape jokes or attempts at groping. But gods be damned if it doesn't make me that much more wary. That much less enthused. That much more defensive.

Who knows maybe its a good and accurate warning system that should be preserved?

On the subject of empowerment and such...

I've seen the stripperiffic armor (and other stripperiffic getups) defended by some artists and fans ( some female, but mostly male... ) as showing that the character is "empowered" and "in command of her own image" and "not oppressed".

Which to me sounds like nothing more or less than them claiming that somehow the only power a woman can have must originate from her sexuality and attractiveness, and that women who don't "show it off" cannot possibly be free and equal human beings making that choice for themselves.

scalyfreak

2017-07-23, 04:57 PM

I'd be happy to see real clothing go through the same level of scrutiny as a filter between the "artistes" in the fashion industry, and what real people are subjected to out in the real world.

Absolutely not.

Because that discussion by its very nature crosses over into telling people what they should and should not wear, followed by condemning their preferences, their taste, and by extension them as people.

Let's not go there.

Talakeal

2017-07-23, 04:59 PM

Ashiel

2017-07-23, 05:00 PM

scalyfreak

2017-07-23, 05:01 PM

But if that is what you want to discuss, maybe a better comparison would be people who ride their bicycle without a helmet? Plenty of people (myself included) do it even though it is literally risking death or serious injury for the sake of comfort, fashion, or convenience.

It actually isn't what I want to discuss. See #339 for why.

Recherché

2017-07-23, 05:02 PM

I'd be happy to see real clothing go through the same level of scrutiny as a filter between the "artistes" in the fashion industry, and what real people are subjected to out in the real world.

Hi! I'm a fashionista and seamstress here. A lot of real world suits and other clothing are completely and totally impractical for moving around in. You do not want to be wearing high heels if you need to run. Short pencil skirts are bad juju for moving quickly without flashing everyone. A lot of suit tops are constructed in such a a way to hinder the shoulder's range of motion.

However these are clothes worn by people in no imminent danger and who don't need to do much physically. The people who are expecting to go into danger and who know that they need to do impressive physical feats tend to wear clothes that are much less fashionable, much more practical, not as tight, very covering and otherwise very different from a monkey suit.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 05:03 PM

Absolutely not.

Because that discussion by its very nature crosses over into telling people what they should and should not wear, followed by condemning their preferences, their taste, and by extension them as people.

Let's not go there.

Because the fashion industry, retailers, marketers, etc, somehow don't tell people what they should and should not wear, or condemn their preferences, their tastes, and by extension them as people?

Hi! I'm a fashionista and seamstress here. A lot of real world suits and other clothing are completely and totally impractical for moving around in. You do not want to be wearing high heels if you need to run. Short pencil skirts are bad juju for moving quickly without flashing everyone. A lot of suit tops are constructed in such a a way to hinder the shoulder's range of motion.

It's not a personal attack, and I'm sorry if it came off that way.

But I kinda resent the constant pressure to wear impractical, uncomfortable, confining, inconvenient, and often climate-inappropriate clothing -- and for women, it must be orders of magnitude worse between the added pressure and the even-more-impractical getups.

scalyfreak

2017-07-23, 05:05 PM

Because the fashion industry, retailers, marketers, etc, somehow don't tell people what they should and should not wear, or condemn their preferences, their tastes, and by extension them as people?

Still not going there.

If you're looking for this to turn into yet another one of the never-ending internet rants on how a multi-million dollar industry turns the people in our society into unthinking sheep, you're baiting the wrong person. Sorry to disappoint.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 05:16 PM

Still not going there.

If you're looking for this to turn into yet another one of the never-ending internet rants on how a multi-million dollar industry turns the people in our society into unthinking sheep, you're baiting the wrong person. Sorry to disappoint.

I'm not the one who brought it up, someone else did, in what (to me) read like one of those "Well why aren't you also criticizing this other tangentially related thing that wasn't part of the discussion at all? Maybe you have a double standard?" distractions, to which my response was "I'd love to criticize that other thing, I could criticize it all day long, but it's not the subject of this thread".

Then you chime in with "well we can't criticize that other thing, that would involve all this wrong stuff"... to which I replied that that other thing is already doing all that wrong stuff on its own...

And now you're accusing me of trying to turn this into an internet rant and baiting you?

Geezus, go try that trap-discussion gotcha-ism crap with someone else.

Here's the full context:

If your agenda is to get rid of fiction induced misconceptions maybe you should go after something which is more commonly believed and more relevant to modern life than whether or not certain types of antiquated clothing would impractical when fighting mythical creatures? Something like criminals being allowed a single phone call or defibrillators being used to shock dead people back to life maybe?

Why not? There are plenty of strong (in every sense of the word) characters in other genres, not to mention real life, who wear impractical outfits. Why is fantasy the exception?

A female CEO in a business suit consisting of a tight skirt and fitted jacket, and in very high heels, comes to mind... let's tear her outfit apart next! (That was sarcasm. I loathe the blue font.)

Wait, what part is sarcasm?

Formal business attire of all sorts, especially ties and high heels, are shown to be very unhealthy, reduce employee morale and raise expenses, and are incredibly restrictive if an emergency situation that requires physical activity comes up.

Yet virtually every major organization requires their employees, and often even their patrons, to adhere to these standards because it "looks professional".

I'd love to see those sorts of things cleaned up too.

But those things weren't the topic of discussion.

Because wearing an "impractical outfit" in some of those other genres won't get you killed. In some it would, and we already talked about space suits that don't work.

That Wonder Woman change that had her in pants and a jacket for a while... and not wearing a skirt and halter-top (whatever you'd call that) into combat... that took so much backlash from certain parts of "fandom"... but I thought it was a great change.

The part about subjecting the formal business outfit that often is required by women who work in positions of power in the corporate world, to the same level of scrutiny and condemnation as we've been doing with fantasy art in this thread.

Real world people don't always dress in the most comfortable and practical manner, choosing instead to dress to an appearance expected of them, using that appearance to send a specific message (they're called "power suits" for a reason). The types of battles fought in offices and board rooms rarely end with physical injury or damage to vital organs, so the participants can probably be forgiven for dressing in whatever way they believe provides the greatest psychological advantage. More than one woman who works in that kind of environment occasionally refers to the process of donning the business suit and applying the make-up that goes with it, as dressing for battle.

But that's not what this thread was supposed to be about, so let's leave it at that.

I'd be happy to see real clothing go through the same level of scrutiny as a filter between the "artistes" in the fashion industry, and what real people are subjected to out in the real world.

Absolutely not.

Because that discussion by its very nature crosses over into telling people what they should and should not wear, followed by condemning their preferences, their taste, and by extension them as people.

Let's not go there.

Because the fashion industry, retailers, marketers, etc, somehow don't tell people what they should and should not wear, or condemn their preferences, their tastes, and by extension them as people?

Still not going there.

If you're looking for this to turn into yet another one of the never-ending internet rants on how a multi-million dollar industry turns the people in our society into unthinking sheep, you're baiting the wrong person. Sorry to disappoint.

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-23, 05:22 PM

But I kinda resent the constant pressure to wear impractical, uncomfortable, confining, inconvenient, and often climate-inappropriate clothing -- and for women, it must be orders of magnitude worse between the added pressure and the even-more-impractical getups.

Big fan of sweatsuits in public?

Talakeal

2017-07-23, 05:26 PM

It actually isn't what I want to discuss. See #339 for why.

So if I want to wear impractical or revealing clothing in real life its fine and telling me not to is wrong (if only society at large shared that opinion!), but if I want to imagine myself wearing impractical or revealing clothing in a game its harmful and worthy of condemnation? Doesn't that seem to be kind off?

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 05:27 PM

Big fan of sweatsuits in public?

Doesn't really follow from what I said, but whatever.

Mike_G

2017-07-23, 05:31 PM

Recherché

2017-07-23, 05:32 PM

Big fan of sweatsuits in public?

The number of options between a business suit and sweatpants is near infinite. Changing business wear to be more practical and comfortable does not necessarily mean that it will change to sweatpants. Personally I'm in favor of a revival of Tang dynasty men's clothing for business. It's comfy and gorgeous.

Recherché

2017-07-23, 05:38 PM

So if I want to wear impractical or revealing clothing in real life its fine and telling me not to is wrong (if only society at large shared that opinion!), but if I want to imagine myself wearing impractical or revealing clothing in a game its harmful and worthy of condemnation? Doesn't that seem to be kind off?

How about this as an option, if you want to wear completely impractical clothes in non dangerous situations and you give all genders the same variety of options you're good. If you're in a situation where your sartorial choices are likely to save your life or kill you and/or one gender is restricted to more impractical options then we have a problem.

AKA it's fine with me if you go grocery shopping shirtless but going into a burning building wearing the male stripper's version of a firefighter outfit is a bad idea.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-23, 05:39 PM

Those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Merely, you feel they must be because you couldn't take the former seriously, so you can't imagine the latter - strong protagonist - being a feature of it. But it's not impossible. Given the overtones of sexuality often associated with vampires, perhaps it's vampire custom for powerful matriarchs in their society to wear things like this sparkling number (https://img1.etsystatic.com/135/1/9716139/il_570xN.936454709_m3zr.jpg), or this one here (https://img0.etsystatic.com/121/2/9716139/il_570xN.937561720_d6mw.jpg), going back thousands of years to the first vampire queen who fashioned her regalia from the tears of an angel whom she enthralled, and which absorbed the light of the sun allowing her to walk in broad daylight, turning sunlight as easily as her flesh turns steel.

A celebration of their perfection, akin to that of satanic rituals. A homage to the first vampire queen, the proudest of vampire daughters adorn these as a sign of their power and pride. A lineage, a legacy, of lust, decadence, and pride. And of course, you could certainly add some comical flair to the story, since those outside of the vampire society wouldn't get it, or a fledgling vampire in a house being all bashful and blushing at the very notion.

I was thinking something closer to a high fantasy adventure populated by nothing but lesbians from different races fighting various evil things with ridiculous swords and gunaxes and lots of snark and genre savviness and explosions, with perhaps a running gag of a farm boy who an old wizard tries to make a destined hero to save everyone but the farm boy consistently defies destiny to be a normal farm guy by running away and taking normal jobs until he finally kills the old wizard then goes back to his village and makes people happy by growing food and whatnot while the female fighters solve things with violence while only meeting him in passing in my example but I guess that can work to.

Why not? There are plenty of strong (in every sense of the word) characters in other genres, not to mention real life, who wear impractical outfits. Why is fantasy the exception?

Why do you assume it is? There is a lot of bad superhero art out there. just check Linkara's reviews.

I'm not inherently against impractical stuff, I'm just saying that good writing considers how things happen, considers the details, and every detail matters. sure you can ignore things for the sake of what you like, but the more you ignore the less serious a work is. if you can explain it, work it in like Ashiel's example above, great! you pulled it off. It requires thinking everything through, and sure you can have fun and ignore all this with friends who agree for things like RPGs you can do whatever there, but when your designing for wider audiences oh, thats less forgiving.

its the difference between soft sci-fi and hard sci-fi. Sure you can just ignore the science and say its a device that does this thing,and its going to be more fun to some people, but there is also the benefit of going harder for the sake of having rules that give it some intelligence, that introduces some sense into it, that makes you more creative with you write it, some rules that you might need to make sure that it has some relation to reality, which some people value! and you have to decide whats reasonable for that. I mean yes I like wild impractical stuff like gunswords and chain axes and lightsabers and what not and so on, but its also worth researching into why they are impractical, why they don't exist in reality, what problems they have that you can use or write with to enhance the story. Ignoring the flaws of a weapon is one thing, but taking those flaws into account and using them to somehow make the fight MORE interesting while being high action awesome? That can be golden.

same thing for the impractical outfits. by knowing why some outfits are practical, you can figure out why an impractical one would deviate from being so and what benefits you get from it as well as what downsides and how this can be used. you just have to figure out what factor turns this impractical thing into something desirable.

Arbane

2017-07-23, 05:41 PM

Anyways one of my things about stripperriffic armor in art is that it makes me feel a lot less welcome and safe in the community. When supposedly heroic women are depicted with a focus on sexual attributes and none on practical armor while their male equivalents are depicted in outfits that either are power fantasies or cool looking but non-revealing armors, well it leads me to the conclusion that the women are valued for their sexual attributes while men are valued for what they actually do. This is not a comforting thought. Maybe its possible that the guys at the table won't treat a flesh and blood woman that way but I have no evidence that such is the case and a lot of art suggesting that they won't think of me as a whole person. And maybe this won't lead to violence. Maybe it won't lead to uncomfortable rape jokes or attempts at groping. But gods be damned if it doesn't make me that much more wary. That much less enthused. That much more defensive.

Who knows maybe its a good and accurate warning system that should be preserved?

Thank you for stating this so well.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-23, 05:42 PM

How about this as an option, if you want to wear completely impractical clothes in non dangerous situations and you give all genders the same variety of options you're good. If you're in a situation where your sartorial choices are likely to save your life or kill you and/or one gender is restricted to more impractical options then we have a problem.

AKA it's fine with me if you go grocery shopping shirtless but going into a burning building wearing the male stripper's version of a firefighter outfit is a bad idea.

I am now dismayed that there is no video game about handsome, muscular firemen wearing the stripper version of firefighting outfits.

That badly needs to be a thing.

Talakeal

2017-07-23, 05:45 PM

How about this as an option, if you want to wear completely impractical clothes in non dangerous situations and you give all genders the same variety of options you're good. If you're in a situation where your sartorial choices are likely to save your life or kill you and/or one gender is restricted to more impractical options then we have a problem.

AKA it's fine with me if you go grocery shopping shirtless but going into a burning building wearing the male stripper's version of a firefighter outfit is a bad idea.

I still don't like the idea of telling other people what is good for them. Yours is, imo, a for more reasonable than most people's view on the matter, but if I want to ride a bike without a helmet, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, go scuba diving without a wet suit, or walk through snake county in sandals I feel I should be allowed to, doubly so if I am merely imagining the danger (and the outfit) as a form of escapist fantasy.

Mike_G

2017-07-23, 05:52 PM

I still don't like the idea of telling other people what is good for them. Yours is, imo, a for more reasonable than most people's view on the matter, but if I want to ride a bike without a helmet, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, go scuba diving without a wet suit, or walk through snake county in sandals I feel I should be allowed to, doubly so if I am merely imagining the danger (and the outfit) as a form of escapist fantasy.

I'm a paramedic, and if you know the risks and still do all those things, all I can say is please, please agree to be an organ donor. We need all the spare parts we can get.

Seriously, the difference a helmet makes in a motorcycle crash is impressive. I've washed brains off my boots more than once.

But, again, I may call your choices very, very misguided, but it's your life.

I may have to go pick you up in the wee hours drink the images away later, but I'd rather do that than go down the whole road of who can tell whom what to do.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-23, 06:17 PM

Anyone know if she's available and/or interested in women? :smallamused:

Anyways one of my things about stripperriffic armor in art is that it makes me feel a lot less welcome and safe in the community. When supposedly heroic women are depicted with a focus on sexual attributes and none on practical armor while their male equivalents are depicted in outfits that either are power fantasies or cool looking but non-revealing armors, well it leads me to the conclusion that the women are valued for their sexual attributes while men are valued for what they actually do. This is not a comforting thought. Maybe its possible that the guys at the table won't treat a flesh and blood woman that way but I have no evidence that such is the case and a lot of art suggesting that they won't think of me as a whole person. And maybe this won't lead to violence. Maybe it won't lead to uncomfortable rape jokes or attempts at groping. But gods be damned if it doesn't make me that much more wary. That much less enthused. That much more defensive.

Who knows maybe its a good and accurate warning system that should be preserved?

I am trying to put myself in Recherché's shoes, and I'm imagining a TRPG where the game book's cover features a fully armored man with an axe and a fully nude woman with a sword. Or whatever. It is clear they are both supposed to both be frontline fightery types, and it is clear they are presented as equally menacing or heroic or whatever. We are clearly not in a satire situation, we are clearly NOT supposed to take this as pornographic.

I would agree this would turn me off from the game. And that's weird, because I thought my position is that this wouldn't.

So I thought, what would happen if we start covering the woman up little by little with armor, at which point would I no longer feel comfortable with this picture?

Do we give the woman pasties? Still uncomfortable. Upgrade to bra and add panties? Still uncomfortable. Throw some sabatons and greaves on? Still uncomfortable. And we go from there.

And I think a problem we have in forum discussion is that it is easy to take statements to extremes, especially in the absence of a concrete example of the subject. So we are often thinking about pasties or capapie Gothic armor. So maybe different people have different limits, but I would say if the outfit looks roughly equivalent to something I can picture an actual woman wearing in an analogous situation, then I can buy it. But then fantasy art tends to be exaggerated, so for me, it could be like roughly-analogous-clothing-plus-a-tiny-bit-leeway-for-exaggeration.

But when I say "analogous situation" I mean the outfit can be reminiscent of athletic clothes like leotards or sports bras *if the tone of the game can sell me that combat is like working out*. But then again, I'm just one man. I wonder what other people would think their limits are.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-23, 06:19 PM

Why do you assume it is? There is a lot of bad superhero art out there. just check Linkara's reviews.

I'm not inherently against impractical stuff, I'm just saying that good writing considers how things happen, considers the details, and every detail matters. sure you can ignore things for the sake of what you like, but the more you ignore the less serious a work is. if you can explain it, work it in like Ashiel's example above, great! you pulled it off. It requires thinking everything through, and sure you can have fun and ignore all this with friends who agree for things like RPGs you can do whatever there, but when your designing for wider audiences oh, thats less forgiving.

its the difference between soft sci-fi and hard sci-fi. Sure you can just ignore the science and say its a device that does this thing,and its going to be more fun to some people, but there is also the benefit of going harder for the sake of having rules that give it some intelligence, that introduces some sense into it, that makes you more creative with you write it, some rules that you might need to make sure that it has some relation to reality, which some people value! and you have to decide whats reasonable for that. I mean yes I like wild impractical stuff like gunswords and chain axes and lightsabers and what not and so on, but its also worth researching into why they are impractical, why they don't exist in reality, what problems they have that you can use or write with to enhance the story. Ignoring the flaws of a weapon is one thing, but taking those flaws into account and using them to somehow make the fight MORE interesting while being high action awesome? That can be golden.

same thing for the impractical outfits. by knowing why some outfits are practical, you can figure out why an impractical one would deviate from being so and what benefits you get from it as well as what downsides and how this can be used. you just have to figure out what factor turns this impractical thing into something desirable.

Pretty much exactly.

I'm not saying every setting has to be slavishly historical and every character has to be intensely practical and that it can only work out such that all characters walk around in uber-practical shapeless workwear.

Just have reasons that make sense within the setting and for that character, and go with that. Don't make setting, story, or art decisions based on tarting characters up for sexual or commercial appeal. Let the character, as an inhabitant of their world, make the decision on what to wear -- not the marketing department or some artist who knows nothing about the character and just wants to draw something kewl or sexay.

Vinyadan

2017-07-23, 06:23 PM

Mhm... these things are nothing new. Artworks aren't often expected to be a scientifically realistic representation of what they portray. Greek vases do not depict the duel between Achilles and Hector with the equipment that was assigned to them by historical texts (the Greeks did not tell history apart from mythology, and a poet reporting a myth was reporting what they considered history). The Byzantines had their own artistic tradition, and ignored everyday reality to represent armour in the code of this tradition. The Franks thought that Byzantine art looked insanely cool, so they painted their own illuminated soldiers wearing anachronistic Roman armour, because the Byzantines did it, and the Byzantines were cool. And what about that ****** Giotto, who represented first-century Jews wearing thirteenth-century Italian clothes? He knew it wasn't right, and yet he did it anyway!

I understand being unhappy about unrealistic equipment. I do think that realism adds something to the game: a beautiful game about-- killing dragons and casting spells? What I try to say is that we all handwave realism in certain areas of the game, because we want it to be a game. Some may go for spells, some may go for demons behind the stars, some may go for tech and aliens, and some may go for unmanageable equipment and visual gratification. Just think about JRPG weapons and attire. Or RL legends of impossibly heavy armour to show the strength of their bearer.

There also is another level of unrealism, that doesn't go for flashiness, as much as to give images in which the watcher can identify. I don't think that women can easily identify in chainmail bikini, but it is a kind of adaptation that exists, like Crowe's Robin Hood with amphibious landing boats for the American public, or Star Wars spaceship by Lucas, whose design reminded me a lot of car design from when the two trilogies were filmed. I never watched that Robin Hood because of the ships, because they looked stupid as hell to me, but I evidently wasn't the intended target.

There probably also are different kinds of unrealistic female armour, some looking hot to catch attention of RL boy players by arousing them, and some aiming to be pretty, to catch attention of RL girls by showing them something similar to what they'd like to wear in RL. (And other kinds too, I guess that there are a million reasons to be unrealistic). Of course, representations that show women as objects instead of subjects (and therefore characters in the story) will alienate them from the game.

Yours is, imo, a for more reasonable than most people's view on the matter, but if I want to ride a bike without a helmet, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, go scuba diving without a wet suit, or walk through snake county in sandals I feel I should be allowed to

Frankly, if people are too (_____) to worry about basic precautions that would save their life, then the best thing to do is to leverage on the fact that they are more scared of being fined than of being killed.

lightningcat

2017-07-23, 06:52 PM

Frankly, if people are too (_____) to worry about basic precautions that would save their life, then the best thing to do is to leverage on the fact that they are more scared of being fined than of being killed.

I actually agree with most of the unquoted points, but here I must disagree with.
The government that governs least, governs best.
/rant

Something that I think most people are forgetting is that the worst examples of cheesecake rpg artwork does not come from D&D or any of the other major puplishers. It comes from the Third Party publishers during the d20 boom. The biggest reason for this is not a secret either. The art was cheap. One of the worst offenders I can recall had a lingerie fairy or something similar on the cover, and was rightly panned by critics, who never opened the book to see all of the rest of the art was medieval reproductions, which was free artwork.

Remember that good art is expensive art, but expensive art is not always good art.

Vinyadan

2017-07-23, 07:33 PM

I'd be happy to see real clothing go through the same level of scrutiny as a filter between the "artistes" in the fashion industry, and what real people are subjected to out in the real world.

On the subject of empowerment and such...

I've seen the stripperiffic armor (and other stripperiffic getups) defended by some artists and fans ( some female, but mostly male... ) as showing that the character is "empowered" and "in command of her own image" and "not oppressed".

Which to me sounds like nothing more or less than them claiming that somehow the only power a woman can have must originate from her sexuality and attractiveness, and that women who don't "show it off" cannot possibly be free and equal human beings making that choice for themselves.

Forever relevant: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php/index.php?id=311

RazorChain

2017-07-23, 07:58 PM

Hi! I'm a fashionista and seamstress here. A lot of real world suits and other clothing are completely and totally impractical for moving around in. You do not want to be wearing high heels if you need to run. Short pencil skirts are bad juju for moving quickly without flashing everyone. A lot of suit tops are constructed in such a a way to hinder the shoulder's range of motion.

However these are clothes worn by people in no imminent danger and who don't need to do much physically. The people who are expecting to go into danger and who know that they need to do impressive physical feats tend to wear clothes that are much less fashionable, much more practical, not as tight, very covering and otherwise very different from a monkey suit.

I'm ex-military working private security and I can say a lot of outfits I've worn haven't been comfortable and have restricted movement but that's because it's supposed to protect me and carry lot of stuff within easy reach.

But then again sex sells and people don't want to know about how their fantasy heroes outfits chafed, how stinky, dirty and sweaty they were or know about their blisters after all that marching.

Not to mention that a woman showing up from a Boris Vallejo art in my line of work wouldn't be taken seriously, no more than a guy dressed up as a luchador

goto124

2017-07-23, 08:02 PM

The "sexy = empowerment" argument makes less sense when all the female characters in the game (depending on the game, this may mean 'all three of them' in a cast of 20 characters) is wearing some kind of stripperiffic armor, one of them uses sexiness as a 'distraction technique', another one is a really shy and child-like 18 year old girl with little agency plot-wise or otherwise, and the last one appears for all of 5 seconds to be on the recieving end of a sex joke before disappearing forever more.

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-23, 08:22 PM

There probably also are different kinds of unrealistic female armour, some looking hot to catch attention of RL boy players by arousing them, and some aiming to be pretty, to catch attention of RL girls by showing them something similar to what they'd like to wear in RL. (And other kinds too, I guess that there are a million reasons to be unrealistic). Of course, representations that show women as objects instead of subjects (and therefore characters in the story) will alienate them from the game.

The implication here is that (young) men's tastes in TRPG fantasy art alienate women from TRPGs. My question is, what would the reverse situation look like?--supposing the TRPG participant world were dominated by (young) women, would their tastes in fantasy art alienate young men?

By extension, if fantasy cheesecake alienates women by indicating a sort of hostile or unfriendly or just icky environment on the part of the men participants, what would the reverse situation look like where [art women like that is {something analogous to what women dislike in fantasy cheesecake}] indicates an analogously hostile, unfriendly, or icky environment on the part of the women participants? Has any man here been repelled by an all-girl group?

Honest Tiefling

2017-07-23, 08:24 PM

Not to mention that a woman showing up from a Boris Vallejo art in my line of work wouldn't be taken seriously, no more than a guy dressed up as a luchador

Now I WISHED people at your job dressed up as a Luchador. That'd be great.

And if dressing sexy = empowerment, why aren't the men dressing like that? Why aren't little old ladies doing it? People don't stop having sex after they're 50 after all. No, just the hot women who are apparently the only people with self confidence apparently?

As for designing a super sexy avatar after your own wife...I believe that you love her. And that you really want to take her opinions into account. But for the love of Pelor, do NOT advertise that you put your wife's character into a super hot outfit. That just reads 'Creepy as ****' to many consumers and can imply that the work is well...Related to your bedroom shenanigans.

RazorChain

2017-07-23, 08:31 PM

The implication here is that (young) men's tastes in TRPG fantasy art alienate women from TRPGs. My question is, what would the reverse situation look like?--supposing the TRPG participant world were dominated by (young) women, would their tastes in fantasy art alienate young men?

By extension, if fantasy cheesecake alienates women by indicating a sort of hostile or unfriendly or just icky environment on the part of the men participants, what would the reverse situation look like where [art women like that is {something analogous to what women dislike in fantasy cheesecake}] indicates an analogously hostile, unfriendly, or icky environment on the part of the women participants? Has any man here been repelled by an all-girl group?

Well I can say that if all the male heroes were depicted like this

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sGnyljcqx5s/UmYBbO7qDzI/AAAAAAAAMaY/TnCLe7Kr-4w/s1600/God_13.jpg

I'm not sure I'd ever started playing.

Honest Tiefling

2017-07-23, 08:34 PM

Well I can say that if all the male heroes were depicted like this...

I think Turkish Oil Wrestling would be a better comparison, but any lady is more then welcome to correct me.

EDIT: Or the lighter divisions of UFC. That certainly got a few people's attention when I was in college.

RazorChain

2017-07-23, 08:46 PM

I think Turkish Oil Wrestling would be a better comparison, but any lady is more then welcome to correct me.

EDIT: Or the lighter divisions of UFC. That certainly got a few people's attention when I was in college.

Posted so you can be corrected :smallbiggrin:

http://i.imgur.com/3t86HHl.jpg

Honest Tiefling

2017-07-23, 08:54 PM

Posted so you can be corrected :smallbiggrin:

I'm sorry, are women suddenly not interested in muscular dudes putting their hands down each other's pants anymore?

Talakeal

2017-07-23, 09:52 PM

And if dressing sexy = empowerment, why aren't the men dressing like that? Why aren't little old ladies doing it? People don't stop having sex after they're 50 after all. No, just the hot women who are apparently the only people with self confidence apparently?

Plenty of men do dress in revealing clothing, both in fiction and real life. Heck, look at all the shirtless (and usually headless) muscular torsos on the covers of romance novels.

But then you get the whole "male power fantasy" argument which states that even if men and women dress exactly the same the outfit will still carry vastly different connotations.

Satinavian

2017-07-24, 02:24 AM

I am trying to put myself in Recherché's shoes, and I'm imagining a TRPG where the game book's cover features a fully armored man with an axe and a fully nude woman with a sword. Or whatever. It is clear they are both supposed to both be frontline fightery types, and it is clear they are presented as equally menacing or heroic or whatever. We are clearly not in a satire situation, we are clearly NOT supposed to take this as pornographic.
The problem is that we have (at least) two different discussions here.

One is that the cover would look sexist and would unappealing for that reason, That has nothing to do with realism.

The other problem is the realism alone. If i saw such a cover i would immediately thing that is some sort of pulp game. With rules enforcing stupid genre conventions, fast resolution mechanisms, one sided characters and plots less serious than what could be found in a typical TOON game.
As you might guess, i would be immediately be turned off. That is not my kind of system. I do roleplaying a lot for the immersion part of it and i really hate pulp.

Look at the game

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macho_Women_with_Guns
The wikipedia entry reads :
"Macho Women with Guns is set in a near-future America where society has collapsed due to the misdeeds of the Reagan administration. Taking advantage of the earthly chaos, Satan has dispatched his female minions, the Batwinged Bimbos From Hell, to rebuild society in a form he approves of. The Vatican has responded to Satan's plans by dispatching its elite group of warrior nuns, The Sisters of Our Lady of Harley-Davidson to combat the bimbos. The two groups of women compete (sometimes violently) to rebuild civilization by vanquishing post-apocalyptic menaces and male chauvinism.

Dimensional warps caused by the conflict have opened connections to a series of parallel universes, each of which represents a different genre environment such as fantasy, Lovecraftian horror[1] or science fiction. These universes, along with Earth, constitute a campaign setting that Macho Women with Guns calls The Machoverse.

Player characters in Macho Women with Guns are buxom women with a penchant for revealing clothing who engage in combat with otherworldly menaces like the Puppies of Tindalos, satirical representations of male chauvinism such as Drunken Frat Boys, and occasionally each other. Non-women opponents in the game are usually referred to as critters."
So it is suppossedly not mysigonistic.

Would i ever even want to try it ? No.

People acually discussing realism and versimillitude do that because it is important for them, not to be some kind of moral guardians and/or push a feminist agenda.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-24, 02:41 AM

People acually discussing realism and versimillitude do that because it is important for them, not to be some kind of moral guardians and/or push a feminist agenda.

I didn't approach that one from the realism and verisimilitude angle because the original post wasn't about the realism and verisimilitude angle, and was actually about the moral guardian and feminist angle?

I addressed the realism angle a few pages back, so if you're really interested in continuing that vein, you can pick out one of my quotes from a few pages back.

edit: I don't know if I'd even call this a "moral guardian" angle, but I'd refer you to ask Recherché what to name this rather than put words in her mouth.

Recherché

2017-07-24, 02:57 AM

I am a feminist and if you want to call it a feminist agenda you can. I generally just think of it as a side effect of playing while female.

Satinavian

2017-07-24, 03:35 AM

I didn't approach that one from the realism and verisimilitude angle because the original post wasn't about the realism and verisimilitude angle, and was actually about the moral guardian and feminist angle?

Ding ding ding ding

People in this thread continue to argue the usefulness of armor as if it matters.

It doesn't.

Not every piece of art wants to nor needs to be realistic.
Wanting to look at art with realistic armor is a simply one out of many possible preferences.

You didn't approach it from the realism angle at all. You just dismissed it as irrelevant - which is where i vehemently disagree.

Of course usefulness of armor matters. There is a reason people complain about sexy armor far far more than about sexy clothing. Clothing doesn't (usually) become useless as clothing by being revealing - armor usually does.

goto124

2017-07-24, 03:52 AM

What of, say, wearing impractical clothing to a battlefield? I'm not certain what clothing would be impractical, however. Long ribbons and inappropriate materials, maybe?

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-24, 03:54 AM

You didn't approach it from the realism angle at all. You just dismissed it as irrelevant - which is where i vehemently disagree.

Of course usefulness of armor matters. There is a reason people complain about sexy armor far far more than about sexy clothing. Clothing doesn't (usually) become useless as clothing by being revealing - armor usually does.

Shoot, man. I posted a lot in this thread and you just plucked a random post.

Go read #236 and #248

Satinavian

2017-07-24, 04:29 AM

Shoot, man. I posted a lot in this thread and you just plucked a random post.

Go read #236 and #248
Sure, let's do that.

But to me, Wayne Reynolds is drawing seriously because his message to the audience is not "here is a realistic world," his message to his audience is "here is an awesome world you want to spend time in. It is full of cool, over-the-top personalities who do cool, over-the-top things in a cool world that can be over-the-top sometimes." If you're not okay with that because you need realism, okay, but I actually think it would be a fairly bad move to present Pathfinder, and by extension most D&D as perfectly realistic, because these games are about character-driven heroic fantasy.

As for which Conan I'm talking about, I'm talking about the hottest, bulge-havingest, nudest Conan you can find, because Arnold Schwarzennegger and Frank Frazetta have both sold me that Conan is a competent warrior while keeping him pretty underdressed.

side note: How come it is always the people who want characters in art to be covered up that keep bringing up snuff and gore?And for me his message is "hey, don't take any of this even remotely serious. We are here for cool badass monster fights, not for the scenery. Wordbuilding and charcter background are unimportant, let's just forget about all this and jump into the ECXITING ADVENTURES"

That is far less focus on realism than in every real D&D game i have played. And those tended to be far less realistic than the games i play in other systems.

You want to be convinced that a character is a competent warrior by seeing her wear heavy armor?

This seems like a situation where you only have a hammer, so everything looks like a nail. Just because we are in a thread talking specifically about portrayals of armor, it seems reasonable that a competent warrior should wear competent warrior armor.

But then, you can also show that someone is a competent warrior by drawing them doing things competent warriors would do - like kill people without getting killed back. You can show that a character is a competent warrior by what happens in the narrative or with what the character says if our picture is accompanied by words. You can even show that a character is a competent warrior by subtleties like their facial expression in a certain situation.

Like, I don't need to see Conan in heavy armor to be sold that he is a competent warrior.Never worked for me, sorry. Putting a warrior in unrealistic armor betrayes only one thing : The author/artist does not take the scene serious. There is no actual danger involved, only a fun, pulpy action scene and the character is not really a character but probably a two dimensional carricature fitting the genre.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-24, 04:36 AM

Okay. You do you.

I'll be here enjoying my broad variety of aesthetic tones that aren't either "realistic" or "silly," and I'm not even going to confuse "realistic" with "serious."

Satinavian

2017-07-24, 04:42 AM

What of, say, wearing impractical clothing to a battlefield? I'm not certain what clothing would be impractical, however. Long ribbons and inappropriate materials, maybe?Impractical clothing is foremost climate related. Then comes ill-fitiing clothing which can be a real problem. And after that long ribbons and stuff, yes.

Also never forget shoes. I can easily tolerate clothing showing a lot of skin on a battlefield, but high heels are a no go. (cavalry boots are fine though for cavalry)

And as i somehow lost a previous post, here is it again

I am a feminist and if you want to call it a feminist agenda you can. I generally just think of it as a side effect of playing while female.I don't have anything against either feminism or your point of view. The "moral guardian" part was not directed against anyone in this thread but i had this particular discussion also with some people who feared that those revealing pictures would be horrible rolemodels young girls need to be protected from. Also boys must not see nakedness so they are not led astray. Until you get to the reason why it is bad to have half naked women in fantasy illustration, there is some overlap with actual feminist groups. Both are more concerned with implicaations for gender roles in the context of our own culture and especcially with women while hardly ever discussing men. That is why i lumped them together, not because i believed they are the same.

As for my actual play experience with women :

- ignoring teenagers of both genders, most players hardly ever bring sex into the games.
- I would guess female RPG players are around 30%-40%, gathered from decades of gaming in 3 different cities, going to cons etc. Varying with the kind of games and still anecdotical, but "white male nerd culture" doesn't really cut it anymore
- When actually using character pictures, women rarely go for "nearly naked" or "suggestive", but still tend to go for "attractive" or "sexy". Come to think of it the pictures look very similar to what men choose for their female characters.
- Percentage of women into LARP is higher than into tabletop RPG, they might even be majority.
- Women Larping often choose extremely revealing outfits at least far exceeding what they wear everyday.
- Noneethless women Larping nearly never use "sexy armor". Even LARP weapons can hurt a lot and when it comes down to protection vs. comfort, nothing beats the realistic versions. (Admittantly the LARPS i visit tend to have "no aluminium, no plastics" rules)
- Short women prefer long weapons. Women who have training with weapons prefer those.

Are my experiences that different from yours ? I know, it is all anecdotal but this is still the kind of gaming culture i see.

Overall, if i see fantasy pictures that are as "realistic" as what i see real people do at general fantasy LARPS with their horrible genre and time period pileup, i can tolerate it (even if i don't necessarily like it). If the pictures manage to be even worse, i feel slghtly insulted.

Clistenes

2017-07-24, 05:18 AM

My problem with this isn't with the armor, but with the hair. Doesn't that get all caught and tangled in the joints of the armor like ugh? (I say this as a person with long hair.)

Well, Elizabeth wasn't supposed to fight, the armor was to look good and to protect her against assassins and snipers.

Once she had ended her speech looking good wouldn't be an issue anymore, so she should be given a helmet; a helmet was considered the most important piece of armor across all periods of time. When Philip II of Spain arrested his son, prince Don Carlos (who was going to be removed from sucession due to his mental illness, and upon hearing of it planned to escape Spain and rebel), he took a sword and a helmet, just in case his son got violent (Don Carlos was still the crown prince, so soldiers would hesitate when seizing him, which would in turn encourage him to resist, so the king decided to lead the group doing the arrest).

Lord Raziere

2017-07-24, 07:47 AM

Of course usefulness of armor matters. There is a reason people complain about sexy armor far far more than about sexy clothing. Clothing doesn't (usually) become useless as clothing by being revealing - armor usually does.

Exactly.

If you give a female fighter nothing but bikini clothing to fight in, thats one thing. She just needs a shield for it to be plausible for her to be a fighter.

A chainmail bikini on the other hand is hotbed of "why would you even waste the metal on this?" like anyone can tell you that its bad, because you don't need a history lesson to see why chainmail bikini wouldn't work as actual armor, it doesn't actually protect anything, its for certain not comfortable given that its metal especially given that said metal is only covering and therefore only touching all her private parts, the most sensitive parts of her body. Not good idea as armor or as clothing, ugh. :smallyuk::smalleek:

and sure you can enchant the chainmail bikini armor to be just as protective as full plate or something, but then again, why not just enchant an actual bikini thats comfortable to wear with this enchantment and save the metal? because then you can design a bikini thats actually aesthetically pleasing from an observers perspective while being comfortable to wear from the wearers perspective. that and the chainmail bikini would be a dead giveaway that your suiting up for battle while a normal bikini might fool someone that your just dressed in a normal bikini, so a good way for them to lower their guard.

so from:
-an aesthetic perspective
-a wearers perspective
-and a tactical perspective.

a normal cloth bikini is a better choice than a chainmail bikini. because even if there is no enchantment, if your going to go out fighting in nothing but a bikini that doesn't protect anything you might as well save the metal and be comfortable so that you can fight easier and not focus on the cold metal pressing and chafing on your privates, and you'll probably look better to everyone doing it.

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 08:01 AM

I am a feminist and if you want to call it a feminist agenda you can. I generally just think of it as a side effect of playing while female.
Given the number of women I've played with over the years, I can definitely say it's not merely a side effect of playing while female. It might be a side effect of playing while you.

Keltest

2017-07-24, 08:24 AM

What of, say, wearing impractical clothing to a battlefield? I'm not certain what clothing would be impractical, however. Long ribbons and inappropriate materials, maybe?

Anything that is likely to trip you or provide a handhold for your enemy is inconvenient at best, life threatening at worst. Anything that seriously restricts movement is to be avoided or torn until it isn't restrictive. As was mentioned, anything that isn't environment friendly is going to be bad for that reason.

Other than that, its all fairly interchangeable. The fact that it isn't armor is going to be far more impactful than the fact that its clothing.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 08:40 AM

Missed this earlier...

I am looking through the Wayne Reynolds art from Pathfinder, and I'm not having trouble taking it seriously, even thought it is full of its fair share of impractical armor.

But to me, Wayne Reynolds is drawing seriously because his message to the audience is not "here is a realistic world," his message to his audience is "here is an awesome world you want to spend time in. It is full of cool, over-the-top personalities who do cool, over-the-top things in a cool world that can be over-the-top sometimes." If you're not okay with that because you need realism, okay, but I actually think it would be a fairly bad move to present Pathfinder, and by extension most D&D as perfectly realistic, because these games are about character-driven heroic fantasy.

The Wayne Reynolds Pathfinder artwork makes me think I shouldn't take the Pathfinder world seriously, that's it's driven by the Rule of Kewl. "Over the top" is usually another way of saying "two dimensional". The world and the characters don't look awesome, they look... silly.

side note: How come it is always the people who want characters in art to be covered up that keep bringing up snuff and gore?

At least for me, because some of the people who argue in favor of lots impractical armor and incongruous clothing say "I don't want realistic, I want sexy. What are you, some kind of prude, some kind of sex-shamer?" They go on and on about "fantasy" (and I think maybe conflating two meanings of the word "fantasy").

So I have to wonder just what it is that they find so attractive about these characters (almost always women) who are very likely to end up dead soon.

And for me his message is "hey, don't take any of this even remotely serious. We are here for cool badass monster fights, not for the scenery. Wordbuilding and charcter background are unimportant, let's just forget about all this and jump into the ECXITING ADVENTURES"

That is far less focus on realism than in every real D&D game i have played. And those tended to be far less realistic than the games i play in other systems.

Never worked for me, sorry. Putting a warrior in unrealistic armor betrayes only one thing : The author/artist does not take the scene serious. There is no actual danger involved, only a fun, pulpy action scene and the character is not really a character but probably a two dimensional carricature fitting the genre.

Exactly -- on both counts.

Actana

2017-07-24, 08:49 AM

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 09:12 AM

a normal cloth bikini is a better choice than a chainmail bikini. because even if there is no enchantment, if your going to go out fighting in nothing but a bikini that doesn't protect anything you might as well save the metal and be comfortable so that you can fight easier and not focus on the cold metal pressing and chafing on your privates, and you'll probably look better to everyone doing it.
You know, you got me thinking. I very rarely ever see any actual chainmail bikinis anywhere unless I'm actively searching for chainmail bikinis as a result of conversations like this one. Like, I regularly do image searches of things like "sexy sorceress", "female knight", "female warrior", "female mage", "female wizard", "female adventurer", "fantasy witch", and so on and so forth, and while some of them are wearing only slightly more than they were born with. It seems like a bit of a red herring since I don't think anyone's ever suggested chainmail bikinis (or even scale mail bikinis, which Red Sonja has worn before I think) are a good idea, and it really doesn't seem to come up much in fantasy art either, yet it's talked about quite fervently in discussions of fantasy art.

Like, here's some google image searches I just did with safe search turned off. Each image that pops up links to bunches of other images, so before I could even get seven images deep into the searches I was flooded with art. I think the results are pretty varied.

Female Knight
Image #1 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a7/a1/2f/a7a12fced753e1fa023cce6379d1f59f--character-concept-character-art.jpg); Image #2 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/99/78/6d/99786d5c9d448300dc10725dff6b66f4.jpg); Image #3 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4a/0b/34/4a0b34e383a6d1e5ba245c207aac700a--fantasy-art-warrior-fantasy-fighter.jpg); Image #4 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/67/4e/8a/674e8a4b0daa2518342a64757bef9d3c--fantasy-warrior-woman-warrior.jpg); Image #5 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c0/a4/13/c0a413d80b329d4ffe91abe05376e32e--lady-knight-female-knight.jpg); Image #6 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ff/9e/7f/ff9e7f09bd69993a6eab0f683c0d43bd--female-armor-female-knight.jpg); Image #7 (http://pre00.deviantart.net/c550/th/pre/i/2013/207/1/0/female_knight_by_es_jeruk-d6fd03b.jpg); Image #8 (https://pp.vk.me/c7007/v7007568/3dbce/GEAA8wrIyoQ.jpg); Image #9 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a4/3f/45/a43f4530cc5cf130bfaed4bfeb8447a4.jpg); Image #10 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/97/78/bc/9778bc4544c87fb7ea397197cda069ca--female-knight-knight-armor.jpg); Image #11 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/fb/c9/9b/fbc99b02b00c38e16ae57e08ac2a6688--character-portraits-character-art.jpg); Image #12 (https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/000/762/247/large/carlos-cruz-final01high.jpg?1443928975); Image #13 (http://pre02.deviantart.net/bdf9/th/pre/i/2015/172/9/4/female_knight_armor_study_by_potchai-d8qcpen.png); Image #14 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/15/40/10/154010202bb5b855eef28af5fe44dccf--character-portraits-character-ideas.jpg); Image #15 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/fa/3c/b4/fa3cb4244a68a23bffe3480ce714fef2.jpg); Image #16 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ac/75/01/ac750145dd3666f732dfa703cbb0db60.jpg); Image #17 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/cc/62/b9/cc62b91bcbd3a50f5ce3b93b871b1047--character-concept-character-ideas.jpg); Image #18 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/09/ee/69/09ee69a6aad687c3ba57d442ef4917d3--warriors-fantasy-characters.jpg); Image #19 (http://img12.yiihuu.com/260X180/upimg/courses/2016/03/21/1-1458550999-429948.jpg?auto=h); Image #20 (http://img14.deviantart.net/549a/i/2014/097/b/0/paizo___distant_heritages_by_fdasuarez-d7dibks.jpg); Image #21 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/df/d4/bd/dfd4bd25b46bab794abb0a0f3cf6de71--female-knight-lady-knight.jpg); Image #22 (http://memes3.fjcdn.com/pictures/Female_35d64a_6226947.jpg); Image #23 (http://pre01.deviantart.net/75d3/th/pre/i/2014/011/0/a/lord_knight_by_ran_zu-d71punt.png); Image #24 (http://dlp2gfjvaz867.cloudfront.net/product_photos/34338030/tumblr_npych3GG0P1rwbv1yo1_1280_original.jpg); Image #25 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5a/62/6a/5a626a7f63f74135e800b55d119684fc--lady-knight-female-knight.jpg); Image #26 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/22/30/7e/22307effa3efe585744705f515e7e2c4.jpg); Image #27 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/73/77/42/737742b3aa5ff5167df510adf5f2a960.jpg); Image #28 (http://pm1.narvii.com/6384/880e4edea5b35ed35e6477e0ad3255a0f1acbdbf_hq.jpg); Image #29 (http://orig08.deviantart.net/1a77/f/2013/197/f/b/lady_knight_by_nekomancerz-d6aqnfz.jpg); Image #30 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/f3/e3/cff3e3825dda0632a294452b95bac351--character-concept-character-art.jpg); Image #31 (https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/036/371/large/jd-styles-01-arcknight-pc-concept3.jpg?1456317030); Image #32 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1f/c5/4e/1fc54e7c22820788032d27a803cda587.jpg) (and it just goes on and on)

Ranges from full armor to scanty warrior, with the lion's share being full armor, followed by stylized hybrids, and then finally some skimpy stuff.

Sexy Sorceress
Image #1 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/47/34/42/4734426fff1505199d78dba563ea8ba2.jpg); Image #2 (http://img13.deviantart.net/53c0/i/2015/337/3/0/necromaster_by_manusia_no_31-d9iyoos.jpg); Image #3 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/28/82/de/2882de94b1166154d68ddd013f4823c9--fantasy-girl-inspirational-artwork.jpg); Image #4 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/02/78/3b/02783be2f2abe68030cd92cec5458015--valencia-amazing-art.jpg); Image #5 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f6/51/cd/f651cd540d2671c64e32cb4029241971--cg-art-fantasy-artwork.jpg); Image #6 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/99/17/ca/9917ca27d961773e7136f41552b970b6.jpg); Image #7 (https://diasp.org/camo/8200009bdca9597b7f790d39b12f74c417646119/687474703a2f2f6f72696731332e64657669616e746172742e 6e65742f666561662f662f323031352f3036302f622f372f61 7972656e6e5f5f5f726567756c61725f62795f736572656e69 7479323230302d64386b3362656c2e6a7067); Image #8 (https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/001/641/024/medium/rupid79-lee-jung-myung-013.jpg?1449986641); Image #9 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/32/0d/13/320d133a0ab46a4ee539067340bc7a69--fantasy-characters-female-characters.jpg); Image #10 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/47/1e/d2/471ed2623ebd399f93078a2a317ffc92.jpg); Image #11 (http://th05.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2013/261/d/7/devil_queena_by_zinnadu-d6mr8q0.jpg); Image #12 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f5/ab/cc/f5abcc8cd03fc5a3bd9190a929ff163b--elf-magic-dark-elf.jpg); Image #13 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/97/30/fb/9730fb7366967e7e71ee709f14c373bb--fantasy-girl-dark-fantasy.jpg); Image #14 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/62/34/a6/6234a6352e407eee89378f666a74fc39.jpg); Image #15 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/23/a9/43/23a943a0ed8ac776931eef5fe081624a--snakes-pixie.jpg); Image #16 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a3/75/0f/a3750fa9b5075ecf33f09cfed6f42dce.jpg); Image #17 (http://pm1.narvii.com/6299/211925f43204647db57f644a8e545424bc452ea7_hq.jpg); Image #18 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b9/1c/c4/b91cc42c48540cf020efbff115ee6d5e--the-princess-cover-art.jpg); Image #19 (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QSH8r6B9Nos/Vf1l8WEvMWI/AAAAAAAAAdo/r0KT-ZOKsDQ/s1600/l.jpg); Image #20 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/42/79/b3/4279b3c6a68b8de00b124b47dd427be9--dark-art-paintings-dark-queen.jpg); Image #21 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a9/0c/57/a90c572c24c410639810b2e6d178d171--fantasy-wizard-fantasy-story.jpg); Image #22 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f6/d8/5d/f6d85de579fed08085579c9f8fb7eb3c.jpg); Image #23 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/28/b8/85/28b88555327121a48f63f2c94d894f04.jpg); Image #24 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/29/09/b8/2909b80f45752e5a6f540d1ceb83c11b.jpg); Image #25 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFYk-aNUIAAtXUn.jpg); Image #26 (http://img03.deviantart.net/8f51/i/2016/043/5/0/red_or_white_by_tamplierpainter-d9rfesr.jpg); Image #27 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a0/fa/4e/a0fa4e373ce69a49d58ce2ac06c27f13--adult-cartoons-sexy-cartoons.jpg); Image #28 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/83/dc/77/83dc77a8707a77fa419d041d50379bd2.jpg); Image #29 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/97/3a/96/973a9633fe658302fde9f79bc8c1b852.jpg); Image #30 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5d/49/d7/5d49d7af6ff90725c8df07c836c464b8.jpg); Image #31 (https://diasp.org/camo/290c5927b47b146d1a33b25b7a725cea2989dc89/687474703a2f2f6f72696730372e64657669616e746172742e 6e65742f333664642f662f323031362f3137372f632f642f63 696e6465725f5f5f727762795f62795f6a7862702d64613770 6479372e706e67); Image #32 (https://dncache-mauganscorp.netdna-ssl.com/thumbseg/1789/1789647-bigthumbnail.jpg); Image #33 (https://www.daz3d.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/960x1248/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/0/0/00-daz3d_sexy-sorceress-for-genesis-3-female_s_.jpg); Image #34 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/41/05/0e/41050ec897f0b5b9e28c396467604948.jpg); Image #35 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e0/a2/ed/e0a2edc466da2c381fdbc3d3c1f202a7--anime-fantasy-dark-fantasy.jpg); Image #36 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/2b/34/64/2b34649c45491d3c417683ab29f86a2d--mtg-art-wizards.jpg); Image #37 (http://img01.deviantart.net/599c/i/2010/026/9/1/mtg___path_of_liliana_by_kaarosusama.jpg); Image #38 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d5/97/73/d597736ba8ca26d572664787f137b198.jpg); Image #39 (http://coolvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fantasy-art-bryan-sola-liliana-vess1.jpg); Image #40 (https://cdn-az.allevents.in/banners/7352753ab9b94aa7207c4e21efd47153); Image #41 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1c/62/8b/1c628ba0360db97f08507e60da40f5b6--fantasy-wizard-anime-fantasy.jpg); Image #42 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/95/96/89/959689e94a2031daca15d30f763d52c7.jpg); Image #43 (http://cs9260.vk.me/v9260439/1ad6/lx8lb2V9B1I.jpg); Image #44 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/36/1a/c8/361ac8df23ceb9d03b01a37e4be32ded--fantasy-art-women-fantasy-girl.jpg); Image #45 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ea/f5/c2/eaf5c2f6c54018baebbed0aea91badab.jpg)

Looking for "sexy" art, we get mostly what we expect with some surprises too.

Female Wizard
Image #1 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6a/f6/aa/6af6aab3d6f1f5db5aa6001e2dd1fd4a--character-concept-character-art.jpg); Image #2 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d7/c6/32/d7c6324ca156bf53fb33ff19433381f4--fantasy-characters-female-characters.jpg); Image #3 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4b/2c/6a/4b2c6ac236d7cea25476109b162b6c5b--female-wizard-dragon-artwork.jpg); Image #4 (http://read.html5.qq.com/image?src=forum&q=5&r=0&imgflag=7&imageUrl=http://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz/VEGs1eIZ2coLVsolc0YbSw7icTibyRTRI0DOCypyiaTfQ78HDi czibR1gic2tsmiaX9icicugRodnrnZaj8WsuIfPmMvaJQ/0?wx_fmt=jpeg); Image #5 (http://pre02.deviantart.net/0878/th/pre/i/2013/294/b/8/witch_apprentice_by_tjota-d6rduhi.png); Image #6 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8f/14/a0/8f14a0e282cb4f0019d5e71574dbeee5--character-portraits-character-ideas.jpg); Image #7 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/59/03/91/5903915eb3b2f1ce8abb7ac101f4cd19.jpg); Image #8 (https://68.media.tumblr.com/1965d5568194029ea9d4e26a04d1b9ea/tumblr_nudrm2mX441txtr1vo1_500.png); Image #9 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fc/ff/28/fcff280e8e1130b3177f55a2676b65c4--female-elf-call-of-cthulhu.jpg); Image #10 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/eb/ce/41/ebce41225a8562b5a6220ecf1a959682--character-concept-character-art.jpg); Image #11 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/2f/bb/3b/2fbb3b4980a773eb6a1dc60f52139a39--paladin-dark-fantasy.jpg); Image #12 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/15/f3/02/15f302725e37d1e898f99ba3d2eb0029--pedro-garcia-female-characters.jpg); Image #13 (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-C2UsksaP9p4/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAA4/C4I6BhY5wf8/photo.jpg); Image #14 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/01/d6/50/01d65011958812d10b27b8d8a74ec4dd--fantasy-characters-female-characters.jpg); Image #15 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/52/04/da/5204da87111a616bc252705f54177fc5--character-concept-art-character-design.jpg); Image #16 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/04/db/a1/04dba15c6f60975e00ea0130274b9e34--character-ideas-character-design.jpg); Image #17 (http://oi43.tinypic.com/voslkz.jpg); Image #18 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/33/d0/79/33d0796e21516a443b7bd26606c0c970.jpg); Image #19 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ec/c0/24/ecc02488d0319dda06a489b7338890ed--elf-cosplay-cosplay-costumes.jpg); Image #20 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/18/a0/42/18a042eaf9429e6dd5625e5a0ac8ba79--elf-art-realm.jpg); Image #21 (http://www.gibberlings3.net/images/npcportraits/portrait_iwd2_peony.png); Image #22 (http://i1040.photobucket.com/albums/b409/chris_crowe1/Catlord.jpg); Image #23 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4c/eb/4d/4ceb4d45af80221fce68cbeb28f380c8--fantasy-rpg-medieval-fantasy.jpg); Image #24 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/90/8c/b0/908cb0e909a32e6dfff962df01a53219.jpg); Image #25 (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1776931&d=1368700411); Image #26 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e3/4e/b5/e34eb5837e21c6f1e4d38f0580cbd101--elves-fantasy-fantasy-wizard.jpg); Image #27 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/78/bc/2d/78bc2da391fb4050618698eddd125593--desolation-of-smaug-medieval-fantasy.jpg); Image #28 (http://i1345.photobucket.com/albums/p662/crowsontheskulls/World%20of%20Sion/Demihumans/elf_cosmetic_beauty.jpg~original); Image #29 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/35/db/b7/35dbb7d179cfaf72728ac635d77e04bf--female-warriors-fantasy-characters.jpg); Image #30 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/52/1b/19/521b19b9b92ce6d7bcd2add120e76bef.jpg); Image #31 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/47/4c/7c/474c7c11613eb4e7e0ee19c60f5d7fb6.jpg); Image #32 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4b/5b/61/4b5b6141b7c35f053494553e5c09bece.jpg); Image #33 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/77/c7/6f/77c76fd7ff8452ccd62e782ab10d1348--art-of-women-dark-elf.jpg); Image #34 (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/5415329342_34171195ef.jpg); Image #35 (https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/covers/images/000/995/786/large/cassio-yoshiyaki-dante.jpg?1437787676); Image #36 (http://img03.deviantart.net/01f3/i/2011/246/1/c/dark_elf_by_butjok-d48sq6u.jpg); Image #37 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/18/38/78/183878bedf192c670a7625ba6913960c.jpg); Image #38 (https://i1.wp.com/www.nonzerosumgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/dc7908e6a765430e.jpg); Image #39 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2f/71/ec/2f71ecabf428e6dbe98c1388812175fa.jpg); Image #40 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/56/31/15/5631154f7e1d91d343896ee8149e3f35--fantasy-characters-female-characters.jpg); Image #41 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3b/2b/8d/3b2b8dc62afe8248cf586b9bafba7beb--dark-fantasy-makeup-dark-fantasy-art.jpg); Image #42 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/95/85/d2/9585d24346c15b843b7e8e51b90f715e.png); Image #43 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/3e/b9/f4/3eb9f486dc99bfbd96030146af6bfbc0.jpg); Image #44 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c1/74/b0/c174b063c394f41bde715eb2d91afc08.jpg); Image #45 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6a/4a/d0/6a4ad03e6d81e0b6c7bd74ac37adb255--character-portraits-character-art.jpg); Image #46 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e9/e2/b5/e9e2b526cddaf9539a0a534bfead79ed--warrior-angel-fantasy-armor.jpg); Image #47 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e0/5d/27/e05d2751ef09aaf0504eb47d0c131ee0--fantasy-girl-dark-fantasy.jpg); Image #48 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/69/4c/5a/694c5ab6358b97ff0751792170c80fc8.jpg); Image #49 (http://www.wallpaperup.com/uploads/wallpapers/2015/07/26/763437/big_thumb_65d90f9a780e5aa24b9e8ef04a23b68f.jpg); Image #50 (http://pre04.deviantart.net/2ad7/th/pre/f/2011/346/3/b/hunter___03_by_aditya777-d4iz0qs.jpg)

Man, I could post these all day and never scratch the surface. I included more than the others 'cause a bunch of nice warrior pieces popped up while searching as well. Phew...going to take a break now. I've only peered down the rabbit hole but I'm rather happy with the overall results. I hope someone at least enjoys filling up their browser tabs with all these links. :smallamused:

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 09:17 AM

So I have to wonder just what it is that they find so attractive about these characters (almost always women) who are very likely to end up dead soon.
As dead as Captain Jack Sparrow, Aragorn, Legolas, Lidda the Rogue, Hennet the Sorcerer, Gimble the Illusionist, Mialee the Wizard, anybody dressed for traveling instead of outright warfare (perhaps I'm the only person who wears lighter armor while traveling unless undead, a construct, or possessing the Endurance feat).

But yeah, pretty much everyone that doesn't wear armor is soon to be dead. We understand. It's either armor or snuff porn. Mmmhmm. :smallamused:

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 09:22 AM

This thread has turned into 13 pages of in depth examination of how one person's line of willing suspension of disbelief lies in a different place from another person's. I'm impressed, really.

It's one thing to suspend your disbelief... it's another thing entirely to hang it by the heck until dead.

Suspension of disbelief is a finite resource, better spent on deliberate "what if?" elements and conscious worldbuilding decisions, rather than "Oh wow this looks cool / sexy!"

Actana

2017-07-24, 09:37 AM

It's one thing to suspend your disbelief... it's another thing entirely to hang it by the heck until dead.

Suspension of disbelief is a finite resource, better spent on deliberate "what if?" elements and conscious worldbuilding decisions, rather than "Oh wow this looks cool / sexy!"

Why yes, I do think we've established that your line is in a different place from someone else's. That doesn't make their line any worse. No amount of snappy quotes will change that.

You're coming off as trying to enforce your view on armor as the One True Way of seeing things. It is, quite frankly, a bit condescending.

Keltest

2017-07-24, 10:13 AM

As dead as Captain Jack Sparrow, Aragorn, Legolas, Lidda the Rogue, Hennet the Sorcerer, Gimble the Illusionist, Mialee the Wizard, anybody dressed for traveling instead of outright warfare (perhaps I'm the only person who wears lighter armor while traveling unless undead, a construct, or possessing the Endurance feat).

But yeah, pretty much everyone that doesn't wear armor is soon to be dead. We understand. It's either armor or snuff porn. Mmmhmm. :smallamused:

Legolas is an elf and defies the laws of physics. Jack Sparrow is a sailor, and there are numerous good reasons why wearing armor would drastically increase his chances of ship-related death. Aragorn is a ranger and, on top of being poor as dirt, isn't generally regarded kindly in the towns he frequents. You will note that he wears armor whenever the opportunity for him to actually get some presents itself. Wizards don't count because magic replaces armor. And as Lidda's title suggests, she is a rogue, not a fighter, and therefore is generally trying to actively avoid confrontation where she is likely to be struck.

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 10:34 AM

In honor of "stupid" "idiot" adventurers everywhere, I give you a rogues snuff gallery of soon to be dead adventurers who are immersion breaking and ruin everyone's rightgoodfun. :smallbiggrin:

Both people here are already dead (http://th04.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2011/046/2/b/swashbuckling_duellists_by_jonhodgson-d39mbc6.jpg).

The mask won't save him from the gut-spilling. (http://funnypictures4.fjcdn.com/pictures/Character+art+season+3+rogues_19c870_5837154.jpg)

She's actually undead. She died three times on the way to the ATM (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/92/2f/be/922fbe172f3a0fef721f02d6621e574c.jpg).

A leather jacket with a boob window. That's the last drink he'll ever have (http://adventuresintherealms.wdfiles.com/local--files/neverwinter-pcs/Osborne.jpg).

Silly drinking lady, padded armor is only 5% better than flesh, but you were 110% dead with flesh (http://i.imgur.com/jrjTQMo.jpg).

It's a cool picture until you realize she's been cut in half and is just a torso (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d1/91/bd/d191bd2131915fd92203daeb389b87c2--female-pirates-girl-pirates.jpg).

Cool cathedral, in the city, sword duelist. Totally dead (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/16/54/12/1654126da7b7249f9514b36de8265ba4--shadow-warrior-fantasy-illustration.jpg).

She's mentally preparing herself for her death by being stabbed like a turnip (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ef/5d/51/ef5d51de7a67b7485ca5fdfdfc48f584--game-of-thrones-art-iron-throne.jpg).

Did I mention she died? She was stabbed in the inner thigh and bled to death because it hit an artery. Pants aren't armor (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/97/f3/50/97f35046d3d0956241373553dc1f2441.jpg).

She died. I don't know from what. I heard it might have been some accident with space pirate airlocks but armor would have helped (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/72/a8/10/72a810475c2a3086ad59d27b26b50862--warhammer-games-warhammer-.jpg).

Death by falling, actually. But the pidgeon pooped on his corpse through the boob window (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/10/8e/d6/108ed61a10b3ffe128bcfd3fa25a651f.jpg).

She actually didn't die. She spent all of her time training falcons and looking fabulous doing it (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/52/b3/31/52b3317d541c648ec17a449f351169d8.jpg).

He totally died. He tripped and fell on a nail in a tavern. It got infected (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/56/57/e1/5657e1ca617f56cd1509ac7f425c3c3b.jpg).

This is laughing jack. He's miraculously still alive, and always laughing. Why laughing? Because they've hit him everywhere except his boob window (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1a/82/4f/1a824f2ec4e04df59a0b2facd52a9c34--pirate-pictures-pirate-images.jpg).

Yeah he's dead. Got shot in the chest with a hammer. Didn't you that could happen (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/90/a5/d2/90a5d2697a1e17e57a5745899c89a4d7--dungeons-and-dragons-character-portraits.jpg)?

He's not even mad about his hand. He's more upset about his liver (http://pre11.deviantart.net/5edd/th/pre/i/2014/207/3/5/pirate_by_danangelone-d7sbwzk.jpg).

I think the knowledge of their impending doom leads lots of dying adventurers to the drink (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f2/be/f0/f2bef0a5555fd47081b34ba15650be08--famous-pirates-calico-jack.jpg).

He never actually made it to be his future badass swordsman self. He wasn't wearing armor and died of plague and doctors trying to bleed the evil out of him to cure him. That's verisimilitude for ya (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e4/20/70/e42070e622494dea33427cbd43949224--fantasy-art-men-character-ideas.jpg).

Part of the building stabbed him in the back when it fell down. This is his last pose before he died without armor (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/44/90/cc/4490cc1416730d71973eb665c4692e99--character-ideas-character-art.jpg).

She or he just wants to remind you that all of this art is bad (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/31/4c/83/314c8364a138b50c7d1ae9fdcbe6341f--rogues.jpg).

I'm coming to join you Elizabeth, that's why I got this armorless low plunge blouse shirt (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/40/dd/08/40dd087c75bb532148b6aebe3b35af8c--medieval-fantasy-character-art.jpg).

It's okay, I'm a vampire and I look freaking amazing being one. But I died because I looked amazing not being one too (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/03/cf/6d/03cf6dd739c9b743f076750f84496a42--character-portraits-character-art.jpg).

I wanted to be the best alchemist ever, but wasn't wearing plate mail. I died (http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy2/images/3/37/Cid_FFFCD.png/revision/latest?cb=20130403143359&path-prefix=de).

I'm not a red mage, this is just the color of my blood. Goodbye cruel world (https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/7/7a/BDPB_Adventurer_close-up.png/revision/latest?cb=20170129154633).

My hand can be on fire and that's okay for realism, but I died a minute later because I had boobs (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LPWuy5Ud0ko/VDI3qiRKBTI/AAAAAAAAE-A/XVPpjCXgU10/s1600/Kyra.jpg).

"Alright, who wants some!?" were the last words of the adventurer when his enemies unanimously shouted "ME!" (http://orig05.deviantart.net/81c8/f/2015/364/b/3/cmyk_by_emuson-d9m19la.jpg)

I had this boob window installed for my funeral party (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c9/3b/1c/c93b1c8a33134df57e884cac28d3a994--pnp-fantasy-rpg.jpg).

I secretly had elven chain armor installed under these robes. Then got shot in the crotch with a goblin bolt covered in feces. Died horribly to infection (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/06/93/76/069376dce9c594961778d0097691efbd--character-portraits-character-ideas.jpg).

A magic sword and elvish blade dancing. Well tough cookies, full plate or GTFO noob (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ea/3d/e7/ea3de7bf57c20ef69c7c669835a72859--character-portraits-character-ideas.jpg)!

Yeah, glowing eyes, horns, and a death wish (https://68.media.tumblr.com/ac22eb08a9fd44003e2e0a4f884e1641/tumblr_o1llmtXcyd1sjxgryo1_r2_500.jpg).

Remember men, dead men don't spend gold, so we might as well leave it here (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6c/0d/83/6c0d83e9154da3100473fd1541525139--fantasy-male-fantasy-warrior.jpg).

No, I'm not Captain Jack Sparrow but I am equally as dead as he is (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6c/fc/47/6cfc47438b012f9a410b22affd2cd667--fantasy-male-fantasy-characters.jpg).

Look, I'm just dead, trust me on it. I promise (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/73/21/ab/7321ab6d01d1e9c58fb2d1fa0b2af7b6.jpg).

Silly lad forgot his helmet. It's actually the armored guy who's dead because he didn't protect his noggin' with realistic rightgoodfun (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/86/97/43/86974393bfab30d0dc8cad3dcfbb76c5.jpg).

I see dead people. Lots of them (http://pre00.deviantart.net/8506/th/pre/i/2008/155/9/5/untitled_10___the_adventurers__by_jonhodgson.jpg).

The dwarf is the least dead person here and he's right f***ed too (http://www.llts.org/Images/Art/Lich_art.jpg).

They were buried together (http://globe-views.com/dcim/dreams/adventurer/adventurer-01.jpg).

Nope, the poncho didn't provide more AC. Still dead (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d5/32/64/d5326438a1f7c4c267c3dde88c5524a9.png).

Adventuring...to the grave! (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c7/87/d1/c787d1c40bade809eab58647b52c1b37.jpg)

I reached this age by having magic nipples. That's why I'm not dead. Behold their glory. (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bf/9f/aa/bf9faacff5c88c3ab002ec6c79919495--character-concept-character-art.jpg)

Yeah, I died too. Took my helmet off after I thought the fight was over. It wasn't (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/df/d4/bd/dfd4bd25b46bab794abb0a0f3cf6de71--female-knight-lady-knight.jpg).

Remember, all this art is bad and nobody should like it, use it in their games, base characters around it, and for the love of God don't speak of it like your playing D&D has any bearing on what trite trash this art is.

Notice: This entire post is satire. All mentioning of adventurers dying is hyperbolic. All suggestions, implications, or vague semblances of telling anyone what art they're allowed to enjoy, use, and produce is purely fiction. That would be wrong.

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 10:39 AM

Legolas is an elf and defies the laws of physics.
Yeah but it's his poor armor choices that make it unbearable and not realistic enough, you know?

Jack Sparrow is a sailor, and there are numerous good reasons why wearing armor would drastically increase his chances of ship-related death.
While increasing his chance for sword and pistol related death. :smallbiggrin:

Aragorn is a ranger and, on top of being poor as dirt, isn't generally regarded kindly in the towns he frequents. You will note that he wears armor whenever the opportunity for him to actually get some presents itself.
Yeah but he fights a horde of orcs, a wraith, and lots of other stuff before the battle of helms deep. Clearly he's disqualified from heroic fantasy adventuring.

Wizards don't count because magic replaces armor.
Yeah, Gandalf definitely just soaked hits like a boss. What with his getting hit a lot and his magic protecting him from those blows. Just like that time that troll's club bounced off Gimli's armor...wait a second... :smalleek:

And as Lidda's title suggests, she is a rogue, not a fighter, and therefore is generally trying to actively avoid confrontation where she is likely to be struck.
You mean actively avoiding confrontation by flanking enemies with Tordek?

:smalltongue:

Note: I'm just teasing with you. It's all in good fun. :smallsmile:

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 10:46 AM

Why yes, I do think we've established that your line is in a different place from someone else's. That doesn't make their line any worse.

Or rather, they don't appear to have a line at all.

You're coming off as trying to enforce your view on armor as the One True Way of seeing things. It is, quite frankly, a bit condescending.

Perhaps this is in response to someone claiming that standards of functionality, practicality, and utility of armor aren't just "subjective" in artwork, but purely subjective in actual history/reality as well.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 10:51 AM

Legolas is an elf and defies the laws of physics. Jack Sparrow is a sailor, and there are numerous good reasons why wearing armor would drastically increase his chances of ship-related death. Aragorn is a ranger and, on top of being poor as dirt, isn't generally regarded kindly in the towns he frequents. You will note that he wears armor whenever the opportunity for him to actually get some presents itself. Wizards don't count because magic replaces armor. And as Lidda's title suggests, she is a rogue, not a fighter, and therefore is generally trying to actively avoid confrontation where she is likely to be struck.

1) As you note, there are mitigating reasons those characters do not or sometimes do not wear armor.
2) As characters in fiction, they have plot armor... RPGs are not fiction. And there are times when their plot armor becomes aggravatingly blatant.
3) You're responding to someone who repeatedly makes self-convenient apples-to-lugnuts comparisons as if they invalidate specific issues, and in general makes a habit of twisting other people's arguments to suit ease of "rebuttal".

Keltest

2017-07-24, 10:52 AM

While increasing his chance for sword and pistol related death. :smallbiggrin: Indeed, but, meta logic of "hes in a pirate movie, of course there will be swordfights" aside, he spends rather more time on a ship than in a swordfight (and there is considerable overlap).

Plus, you know, being a pirate kind of sucked no matter what you did.

Yeah but he fights a horde of orcs, a wraith, and lots of other stuff before the battle of helms deep. Clearly he's disqualified from heroic fantasy adventuring. All of which he was actively going out of his way to avoid. Aragorn only fights before helms deep when he's backed into a corner and cant get out. In general the plans are always 'Avoid enemies as much as possible, don't get in fights, don't take risks."

Yeah, Gandalf definitely just soaked hits like a boss. What with his getting hit a lot and his magic protecting him from those blows. Just like that time that troll's club bounced off Gimli's armor...wait a second... :smalleek:

Well he did win the fight with the Balrog. Anyway, in spite of the title, Gandalf is more like an angel than a human wizard. I'm also not sure where youre going with the gimli thing, since he was probably the most heavily armored of the group with his chain hauberk.

You mean actively avoiding confrontation by flanking enemies with Tordek? Well yes. Until she meets an enemy that farts out swords and arrows, that's a fairly good idea for somebody who doesn't want to be struck. Also, she does appear to be wearing armor, if not exactly super high protective armor.

:smalltongue:

Note: I'm just teasing with you. It's all in good fun. :smallsmile:

Of course. I greatly enjoy debating this stuff. If I actually get offended, i'll simply stop responding.

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 10:58 AM

Perhaps this is in response to someone claiming that standards of functionality, practicality, and utility of armor aren't just "subjective" in artwork, but purely subjective in actual history/reality as well.
In what way?

1) As you note, there are mitigating reasons those characters do not or sometimes do not wear armor.
2) As characters in fiction, they have plot armor... RPGs are not fiction. And there are times when their plot armor becomes aggravatingly blatant.
I'd like to note that Max earlier lamented that he wasn't talking about games when I noted there are actually legitimate pros to wearing less in RPGs. He's now also saying that RPGs aren't fiction and that RPG characters shouldn't wear what appeals to them because they don't have plot armor.

Notice that these two things contradict one another, since is former rebuttal was that the fact it's an RPG was irrelevant to the discussion, and now he uses the fact it's an RPG as a reason why depictions in fantasy are irrelevant. So when there were mechanical advantages, he dismissed the RPG part, but then dives back to it being an RPG when insisting there are no mechanical advantages.

Kind of shady that.

3) You're responding to someone who repeatedly makes self-convenient apples-to-lugnuts comparisons as if they invalidate specific issues, and in general makes a habit of twisting other people's arguments to suit ease of "rebuttal".
I don't have to twist anything. In fact, the more I can quote and comment on, the better. This is why I love quoting in forum discussions. Because there's no he said she said going on. We can respond to whatever each other says and everyone can see it for what it is.

It's a wonderful thing. :smallsmile:

Actana

2017-07-24, 11:03 AM

Or rather, they don't appear to have a line at all.

Perhaps this is in response to someone claiming that standards of functionality, practicality, and utility of armor aren't just "subjective" in artwork, but purely subjective in actual history/reality as well.

Are you seriously saying that because some people do not necessarily mind certain forms of unrealistic armor they have no line at all when it comes to suspension of disbelief and, if I understand you correctly, are willing to accept anything? There have been a vast variety of people within this thread who have proclaimed preferences in one way or the other, with just as varied levels of what they accept.

And here you are saying that people don't have a line at all? How does that even work?

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 11:04 AM

Well he did win the fight with the Balrog. Anyway, in spite of the title, Gandalf is more like an angel than a human wizard. I'm also not sure where youre going with the gimli thing, since he was probably the most heavily armored of the group with his chain hauberk.
That's actually the point. I can't remember a single time where anyone other than Frodo just happened to get clobbered and shrugged it off like a boss 'cause they were wearing armor. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli participate in just about every battle together, and Gimli's armor doesn't ever seem to really do much to help out. He's all slow and trudgy while Aragon and Legolas are slaughtering everything at range or in melee. Realistic? No. But then again neither is fighting a bajillion super-human orcs without suffering wounds just from accidents.

Perhaps we should talk about what badwrongfun and wrong messages that Lord of the Rings was sending. I mean, it's not like it's just a for fun thing that people can enjoy, because they enjoy it, and like the aesthetics, style, and story of it without worrying about the details. :smallwink:

Of course. I greatly enjoy debating this stuff. If I actually get offended, i'll simply stop responding.
I like you. :smallamused:

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 11:06 AM

Are you seriously saying that because some people do not necessarily mind certain forms of unrealistic armor they have no line at all when it comes to suspension of disbelief and, if I understand you correctly, are willing to accept anything? There have been a vast variety of people within this thread who have proclaimed preferences in one way or the other, with just as varied levels of what they accept.

And here you are saying that people don't have a line at all? How does that even work?

If it matters, I couldn't make it through three episodes of Queen's Blade before I turned it off due to being unable to bear it any longer. Never watched anymore of it. I can attest that having a flexible line is not the same as no line at all.

Note: Lots of people like Queen's Blade. That's cool. It's not my bag baby, but they do they, y'know? :smallsmile:

Keltest

2017-07-24, 11:08 AM

That's actually the point. I can't remember a single time where anyone other than Frodo just happened to get clobbered and shrugged it off like a boss 'cause they were wearing armor. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli participate in just about every battle together, and Gimli's armor doesn't ever seem to really do much to help out. He's all slow and trudgy while Aragon and Legolas are slaughtering everything at range or in melee. Realistic? No. But then again neither is fighting a bajillion super-human orcs without suffering wounds just from accidents.

Perhaps we should talk about what badwrongfun and wrong messages that Lord of the Rings was sending. I mean, it's not like it's just a for fun thing that people can enjoy, because they enjoy it, and like the aesthetics, style, and story of it without worrying about the details. :smallwink:

I like you. :smallamused:

Part of that is their opponents. Armor aside, size and reach matter, a lot, and Aragorn in particular is an exceptionally large person with an equally large sword. Dwarf sized goblins and orcs are unlikely to even get within his reach. When he fights opponents who can get within actual righting range, like the troll, he gets the heck out of dodge.

And Gimli killed more than Legolas (who, by the way, also put on armor at the Battle of Helm's Deep).

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 11:14 AM

Part of that is their opponents. Armor aside, size and reach matter, a lot, and Aragorn in particular is an exceptionally large person with an equally large sword. Dwarf sized goblins and orcs are unlikely to even get within his reach. When he fights opponents who can get within actual righting range, like the troll, he gets the heck out of dodge.
Yeah about that (https://youtu.be/FzO1f1s4Bs8?t=112)...

And Gimli killed more than Legolas (who, by the way, also put on armor at the Battle of Helm's Deep).
I was happy with the extended versions finally giving Gimli some love.
And yeah, Aragon and Legolas did wear armor during the battle. A battle that they were going to be mostly stationary for, and fighting waves after waves of orcs Zap Branigan style. And then...back to adventuring as snuff bait. :smalltongue:

Actana

2017-07-24, 11:16 AM

If it matters, I couldn't make it through three episodes of Queen's Blade before I turned it off due to being unable to bear it any longer. Never watched anymore of it. I can attest that having a flexible line is not the same as no line at all.

Note: Lots of people like Queen's Blade. That's cool. It's not my bag baby, but they do they, y'know? :smallsmile:

(emphasis mine)

Exactly. And beyond that, I don't think anyone watching, say, Queen's Blade is going to say that the armor they're wearing in it is practical or reasonable to any degree. I will, however, wager that the ones who like it simply do not care about the armor being impractical and unreasonable for any forms of combat. They are willing and completely able to suspend their disbelief and not focus on the realism of the armor, because they aren't looking for realism in that particular piece of fiction.

At the same time, those same people might watch something else which has a more prominent relationship with reality and in the constraints of that fiction they will care about whether or not the armor the characters are wearing is practical. Because that show provides something different entirely to them in terms of engagement.

CharonsHelper

2017-07-24, 11:31 AM

At the same time, those same people might watch something else which has a more prominent relationship with reality and in the constraints of that fiction they will care about whether or not the armor the characters are wearing is practical. Because that show provides something different entirely to them in terms of engagement.

I'll definitely agree with this.

As an example for me - it's how I enjoyed A Knight's Tale (not my favorite - but fun in a popcorn flick sort of way) despite obviously being nowhere near historically accurate, because it obviously didn't try or pretend to be. As a bit of a history buff, it's the movies which try to be historically accurate and fail horribly which make me cringe.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 11:33 AM

Are you seriously saying that because some people do not necessarily mind certain forms of unrealistic armor they have no line at all when it comes to suspension of disbelief and, if I understand you correctly, are willing to accept anything? There have been a vast variety of people within this thread who have proclaimed preferences in one way or the other, with just as varied levels of what they accept.

And here you are saying that people don't have a line at all? How does that even work?

I'm saying that they don't appear, from here, to have a line, beyond "reaction of the moment" or "very flexible depending on how entertained I am".

2D8HP

2017-07-24, 11:52 AM

In honor of "stupid" "idiot" adventurers everywhere, I give you a rogues snuff gallery of soon to be dead adventurers who are immersion breaking and ruin everyone's rightgoodfun. :smallbiggrin:....

By the Crom and Lolth wrestling tag team that was epic!

So I was wondering, over the few editions of D&D, how did armor look for female characters?

I'd imagine it got a bit more modest as the years went by, considering D&D's audience in the early years...

Does it?

1970's D&D just didn't have that many images of Player Character (as opposed to monsters) women at all (I already posted some of the images from "ye auld days"), some have mentioned "windows" in Pathfinder art, the Go Make Me a Sandwich | (how not to sell games to women) (https://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/) blog says 5e art is "an improvement"

Since most of the D&D stuff I've bought was before 1982 and after 2012, I've missed a lot.

When was the "Epoch of the Chainmail bikini"?

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 11:56 AM

I'm saying that they don't appear, from here, to have a line, beyond "reaction of the moment" or "very flexible depending on how entertained I am".
Pots and kettles. Apparently fighting some orc barbarians using swords without armor is definitely suicide snuff bait. Fighting some pirates with swords is somehow suddenly not snuff bait. The difference? Theme.

People seem to be fine with folks in Star Wars running around in some robes, a flight vest, and fur, despite the fact armor is alive and well, and often not even all that expensive. It's fine though, 'cause that's the themes.

Doesn't matter if they're wearing full plate with a boob window, it's somehow suddenly less acceptable than padded armor even if 90% of your body is protected otherwise. Usually while being fine that the armored folks aren't wearing helmets.

Nobody complains about the snuff bait that is D&D breastplate armor, which happens to be among the most mechanically superior of armors in the game, but offers little protection beyond the torso. No complaining about that. Yet if you see something like this lady here (http://orig14.deviantart.net/9edd/f/2010/114/6/f/female_knight_by_aditya777.jpg) is "snuff bait".

I'm just pointing out to the audience certain...patterns. :smallamused:

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 12:00 PM

So evidently there are posts still being put forth with images or links of characters making bad armor choices, as if repeating the same false argument over and over will eventually make it true.

These posts will never prove anything other than one of the two following:

1) That the characters are in a setting that is supposed to show, or be derived from, a time and place in real history where characters didn't wear armor or much armor for entirely practical considerations, having nothing to do with the laughable notion that "it wasn't fashionable".

Pointing to these examples and asserting "this character in setting A who doesn't wear armor is proof that it's not silly for that character in setting B to wear dysfunctional armor" ignores all context and attempts to establish a false equivalency.

"This person in a pirate setting with widespread firearms, and rigging to climb, and drowning risk all around, isn't wearing armor, therefore it's OK for that person in a 'medieval' setting to wear armor that randomly exposes vital organs, and complaining about it is just trying to assert your subjective aesthetics as an objective standard". :smallconfused:

2) That characters in fiction make bad apparent armor choices and don't end up dead because of plot armor... and/or ignorance on the part of the authors, writers, directors, artists, costume designers, etc, regarding arms and armor of the time and place that is depicted or forms the basis of the setting.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 12:10 PM

The irony is, there are those who will push their position regarding "but it's entertaining!" as if that's an objective measure, or "it's sexy!" as if that's an objective measure, and those things are universal. "Don't you want to be entertained? Don't you like sexy things?" If anyone is asserting that there's something wrong with those who disagree... looking at the "boring bland realistic" crowd might be looking in the wrong direction.

My point in making some rather snarky and direct statements (see, "snuff") is to firmly push back against that notion. Characters who would in the context of their setting and situation die without their plot armor are not universally entertaining. Character who are going to get themselves killed because they wear useless "armor" and fight like circus clowns aren't universally "cool" or "sexy".

Talakeal

2017-07-24, 12:14 PM

Sure, let's do that.
And for me his message is "hey, don't take any of this even remotely serious. We are here for cool badass monster fights, not for the scenery. Wordbuilding and charcter background are unimportant, let's just forget about all this and jump into the ECXITING ADVENTURES"

That is far less focus on realism than in every real D&D game i have played. And those tended to be far less realistic than the games i play in other systems.

Never worked for me, sorry. Putting a warrior in unrealistic armor betrayes only one thing : The author/artist does not take the scene serious. There is no actual danger involved, only a fun, pulpy action scene and the character is not really a character but probably a two dimensional carricature fitting the genre.

Do you feel that way about monks as well?

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 12:15 PM

So evidently there are posts still being put forth with images or links of characters making bad armor choices, as if repeating the same false argument over and over will eventually make it true.
Ironically, the vast majority of armored folks in the images I linked are making pretty solid armor choices. But this is what you get when you put yourself in an echo chamber and then try to fight the whispers of phantoms.

These posts will never prove anything other than one of the two following:
1) That the characters are in a setting that is supposed to show, or be derived from, a time and place in real history where characters didn't wear armor or much armor for entirely practical considerations, having nothing to do with the laughable notion that "it wasn't fashionable".
I hope he learns what the word fashion means soon. I tried to tell him, but he still seems to be having trouble understanding that "fell out of fashion" means that by the large it declined in use, rather than "it was no longer considered sexy and good looking".

Pointing to these examples and asserting "this character in setting A who doesn't wear armor is proof that it's not silly for that character in setting B to wear dysfunctional armor" ignores all context and attempts to establish a false equivalency.
Fortunately, I have to assert nothing. Merely point out that if the reason is "you will be dead / snuff material", that would be universally true. Yet it's apparently A-OK elsewhere and those characters aren't assuredly dead pieces of snuff bait, so we can clearly see that the former wasn't true. And if the former wasn't true, then the real reason is aesthetic appeal. Someone simply doesn't like it in the fantasy they envision and then condemns anyone who does.

After a while you learn to cleave through the auroch paddies. :smallsmile:

2) That characters in fiction make bad apparent armor choices and don't end up dead because of plot armor... and/or ignorance on the part of the authors, writers, directors, artists, costume designers, etc, regarding arms and armor of the time and place that is depicted or forms the basis of the setting.
Characters in RPGs make bad apparent armor choices and don't end up dead because they're characters in RPGs. It was a problem and I was supposedly arguing wrong when I pointed out that there are mechanical benefits for wearing less armor in RPGs. That was dismissed because we were supposed to be talking about fantasy at large (despite the OP mentioning armor in D&D specifically), but then suddenly when we talk about fantasy at large it's a problem because we're talking about RPGs where the protagonists can die.

Does anyone else find this as amusing as I do? :smallamused:

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 12:23 PM

Do you feel that way about monks as well?
I feel compelled to note that the best monk I ever made was a barbarian/fighter/monk multiclass that wore the heavy armor and used a shield. This was in a Paizo forums thread about monks. It generated huge amounts of rage because I wasn't building the monk correctly and by wearing armor she wasn't a monk anymore, etc, etc.

It was hilarious. Also born from the fact that the monk's class AC bonus and Wisdom bonus is so bad by comparison to just having good physical stats and wearing armor that I completely ignored the class feature entirely and beat the stuffing out of people with her armored body, a shield, and being nigh untouchable in melee combat. The fact she had great saves (and a truly baller Fortitude) was icing on the cake. :smallamused:

Mike_G

2017-07-24, 12:49 PM

I think we have a bit of disconnect or comparing different things here.

As I see it, there a re a few useful categories that will help keep us on the same page.

1. Practical armor. Includes plate, mail, heavy leather or gambeson. Stuff that is designed and intended to protect you from weapons in combat. Generally covers at least the important bits, was often heavy or tiring or uncomfortable, so was usually not worn to dinner, the tavern, out shopping, on the march unless you really really expected to fight. Nobody thinks this is silly, but it might not be "attractive," and often a helmet hinders artistic intent to show the character.

2. Practical clothing. Stuff that would be easy to get around/do your job in, but would protect you from the sun, the cold, thorns, brush, etc, depending on what exactly you are doing. Less protective than armor, but a lot easier to move, climb, swim, etc in.

This would include the outfits of Aragorn or Legolas or Lidda the rogue or Jack Sparrow.

3. Impractical Clothing. Clothing that would interfere with travel or doing your job. It might look sexy or fancy, but it's the kind of thing you wear to be seen in, not to do manual labor in. Generally no or inadequate protection from elements, incidental hazards like thornbushes, and definitely no protection from arrows.

This is the sexy sorceress outfit or the over the top ceremonial garb that would get in the way if you fought in it. It can work for court situations where you want to look good and don't expect to dig any ditches or dodge any arrows. It also works for mages who don't want to wear heavy armor and can be assumed to use magic for protection from cold, heat and stabby devices. Some people consider it silly, but it's easy to explain silly.

4. Impractical armor. Stuff that clearly intends to be armor. Usually made of metal and leather. But it has huge areas of unprotected skin, usually over the heart, the abdominal organs, etc, or has big, awkward pauldrons that would whack you in the head when you moved or that would deflect blows toward your important bits, not away from them.

This is what people think is really silly/would get you killed because while it may not be less protection that the traveling clothes, it's clearly intended for wearing into battle. It would be lousy at keeping swords out of your organs, and lousy for preventing hypothermia/heatstroke/drowning, and would be awkward for sneaking/climbing/etc.

5. Impractical Nudity. The Frazetta style of art where you can wade into the arctic tundra or a rain or arrows wearing furry boots, a leather jockstrap and maybe a steel skullcap.

It is silly, but it's a well established, iconic silly. When the men are all in category 1 and the women in category 5, then it's hard not to admit it's a bit sexist

So I think that's the "apples to lugnuts" disconnect. Max hates the impractical armor but not the practical clothing in Ashiel's example. Because Robin Hood doesn't look silly in a green tunic and hood while hiding in the forest, even if it won't save him from the Sheriff's sword, because it's a practical outfit for hiding in the bushes and sniping Normans.

If he wore a furry speedo and two huge, spiked pauldrons that would be silly. The bushes would scratch his bare skin, the spikes would catch on everything and he wouldn't blend into the woods.

2D8HP

2017-07-24, 12:58 PM

...Because Robin Hood doesn't look silly in a green tunic and hood while hiding in the forest, even if it won't save him from the Sheriff's sword, because it's a practical outfit for hiding in the bushes and sniping Normans.

If he wore a furry speedo and two huge, spiked pauldrons that would be silly. The bushes would scratch his bare skin, the spikes would catch on everything and he wouldn't blend into the woods.

Was that the Russell Crowe version (I didn't see it)?

Now I want to see Ah-nold as Hood almost as much as his Lear.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-24, 12:59 PM

Given the number of women I've played with over the years, I can definitely say it's not merely a side effect of playing while female. It might be a side effect of playing while you.

I might guess that context matters a bit here. I'm under the impression you started playing RPGs with a group of only girls, or a group of mostly girls while Recherche entered the hobby in a group of mostly boys/men. That seems like it makes a fairly big difference to how you're going to perceive the tone of a sexy RPG book cover.

Now, it seems obvious to me that this thread has people who simply think realistic armor is pleasing and unrealistic armor is not pleasing.

We have someone who seems to think this because he thinks fantasy RPG book covers need to be educational:

The "agenda" is to avoid bad information getting confused for good information out of some artist or publisher's desire to pander to the lowest common denominator, or work their own kink.

But I see stuff like this written at the same time:

Sure, let's do that.
And for me his message is "hey, don't take any of this even remotely serious. We are here for cool badass monster fights, not for the scenery. Wordbuilding and charcter background are unimportant, let's just forget about all this and jump into the ECXITING ADVENTURES"

That is far less focus on realism than in every real D&D game i have played. And those tended to be far less realistic than the games i play in other systems.

Never worked for me, sorry. Putting a warrior in unrealistic armor betrayes only one thing : The author/artist does not take the scene serious. There is no actual danger involved, only a fun, pulpy action scene and the character is not really a character but probably a two dimensional carricature fitting the genre.

Suspension of disbelief is a finite resource, better spent on deliberate "what if?" elements and conscious worldbuilding decisions, rather than "Oh wow this looks cool / sexy!"

So it's clear to me that there are just people who are so wrapped up in liking the realistic tone in art and so lack the understanding of why an artist or an audience would not want to employ the tone of realism when they know what realistic is, and they so hate the idea that anything is presented in the tone of wanting to be cool and exciting... that there is no use to talking to these people.

It's like trying to have a discussion about how to use your color palette with people who are totally color blind.

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-24, 01:02 PM

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 01:03 PM

So I think that's the "apples to lugnuts" disconnect. Max hates the impractical armor but not the practical clothing in Ashiel's example. Because Robin Hood doesn't look silly in a green tunic and hood while hiding in the forest, even if it won't save him from the Sheriff's sword, because it's a practical outfit for hiding in the bushes and sniping Normans.

If he wore a furry speedo and two huge, spiked pauldrons that would be silly. The bushes would scratch his bare skin, the spikes would catch on everything and he wouldn't blend into the woods.

I'm totally inclined to agree with that. I would like to note however that "I think this looks impractical" is a much better rationale (at least to me) than "clearly going to die". Because the latter applies equally well to anyone who's wearing similar amounts of armor to whatever is being criticized. The former is an aesthetic thing that I can agree with.

Incidentally, Aragorn's actor in the LotR actually made suggestions concerning the costume in the films, adding small details like a skinning knife in the sheath of the sword, etc. Really cool stuff to kind of drive home the practical nature of the gear as well, which improves the aesthetics for some people (myself included).

Mind you, I tend to play characters who do things like have a mule for traveling, carry spare clothes, like camping in the woods, are good at cooking, have spices and seasonings and forage off the land. Here's a doodle I did last year (https://gyazo.com/5afc721c7d8ffbdf572c5fc566dc70a6) of an adventurer ready for some casual traveling. Just a laced tunic, some pants, and a hat to keep the sun off.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 01:20 PM

Some people here are spending time attacking whimsical armour choices. But, why haven't people made the obvious jump from attacking whimsical armour, to attacking the concept that war, battle, injury and death are somehow "fun"?

Doesn't it seem the more important problem to address, the notion that combat is fun? All these images of "cool" looking soldiers with "cool" weapons perfectly ready to enter battle, to kill, to die, to be injured, to defecate themselves in fear, to run away screaming and be stabbed in the back by their pursuers in chariots, there are countless games and countless people dedicated to making all this seem palatable and fun and cool and happy.

Why should anyone care about armour being too fun, when screaming in pain is being whitewashed by bogus models of heroic combat?

Just as context, not as argument either way, it's quite common for RPG and fiction characters in those sorts of pre-modern settings, who do get into fights, even potentially lethal fights, to never be involved in pitched mass battles, or only have such involvement as part of their backstory.

In one of my long-standing fiction WIPs, one of the protagonists is a sort of "professional troubleshooter" and "well-intentioned ne'er-do-well" who sticks her nose into all sorts of trouble rather nonchalantly, because she's pretty much immune to personal consequences in a small fight. The entire middle act of the book is her getting involved in a real war and the effect that has on her in terms of increased risk, mass suffering and death, loss of people and things she cares about, etc.

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-24, 01:28 PM

Just as context, not as argument either way, it's quite common for RPG and fiction characters in those sorts of pre-modern settings, who do get into fights, even potentially lethal fights, to never be involved in pitched mass battles, or only have such involvement as part of their backstory.

In one of my long-standing fiction WIPs, one of the protagonists is a sort of "professional troubleshooter" and "well-intentioned ne'er-do-well" who sticks her nose into all sorts of trouble rather nonchalantly, because she's pretty much immune to personal consequences in a small fight. The entire middle act of the book is her getting involved in a real war and the effect that has on her in terms of increased risk, mass suffering and death, loss of people and things she cares about, etc.

And you find this fun?

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 01:30 PM

I might guess that context matters a bit here. I'm under the impression you started playing RPGs with a group of only girls, or a group of mostly girls while Recherche entered the hobby in a group of mostly boys/men. That seems like it makes a fairly big difference to how you're going to perceive the tone of a sexy RPG book cover.
Yeah. Memory lane time.

So I got roped into D&D when my cousins (both male) introduced me to it in 2000 while they were visiting from out of state. Instantly fell in love with it. They left, I went and bought the books and stuff, and then had to teach anyone I was going to play with (small town, bible belt, etc). Ended up with a more or less all female group for a good while. Despite that being the case, the group tended to hit all the usual stereotypical tropes, and there was plenty of skin shown on quite a few of their characters despite the fact these were girls that when not playing D&D spent their time at ballet classes, shopping at Aeropostle, and watching Lizzie McGuire. Nobody was forcing any pre-conventions upon them, they were picking them up on their own.

However, I also GMed for other groups of people I taught. Including a pair of male cousins, and their friends and girlfriends. So when I wasn't GMing for the first group, I was GMing for five or six guys and occasionally one of their girlfriends. Then an old family friend got out of the airforce and came and joined in occasionally (he's the one that complicated the first group most heavily at a later date).

These groups ended up mixing and cycling pretty regularly. Some of them dated each other. I got into online gaming via PbP stuff at nexuscity.net, then OpenRPG. I had friends, GMs, and players from all walks of life. For a while, one of the most common groups I played with included a sixty year old lady who was married to a thirty year old guy. She was as nice as could be, had a bit of a dirty mind, really loved this D&D thing, and was exceedingly amused by this new anime stuff that she was being introduced to such as Tenchi Muyo (whom of which Ryoko was her favorite by far).

Later, after highschool, many of my former tabletop groups split up and went their own ways. So more gaming was to be done, which moved into my current circle of tabletop friends, brother, their friends, girlfriends, wives, whatever. While there were some sausage fest groups from time to time, I've had more groups that at least occasionally had women in them. When my friend Artorious had an accident and was homebound with a nurse, we shot the **** and rolled dice with his nurse too. Apparently the adult black nurse (who's a preacher's wife) hadn't ever played any of those geeky white boy games (her description, not mine) and was curious about it when we were playing, so we threw together a character and she went adventuring with us too. And she had a blast. Ironically, as soon as she got comfortable she led the conversations into realms unfit for polite society (getting our opinions on whether or not it was okay to let your girlfriend peg you with a dildo, 'cause she had been pitching the idea to her husband). Being the mature and responsible adults (pfft :smalltongue:) we were appalled by such sexual talk at the holy gaming table passed the pizza and proceeded to talk about the pros and cons of heterosexual buttsecks for a half hour.

I've played in quite a few online persistent worlds of varying qualities. Lots of them with female players and MtF transexuals (because this hobby is like a flame to those moths it seems). Out of the many, many women or near enough women that I've played with, the "don't feel safe" or "put off by" sorts have been a rare sight. Perhaps coincidentally, each one I did see like that also identified as feminists, while the rest of them were just as silly as the men. Not to say all the feminist gamers I've played with were all like that. I mean one of my favorite friends considered herself a diehard feminist, was a ballet dancer who became a stripper, and often was the lewdest individual at the table between her orations about the virtues of David Bowie (and everyone wished she would roll their dice). So I'm gonna chalk it up to a gray elephants thing on that one.

So I'm not saying that it can't happen. Merely I'm skeptical that feeling unsafe and out of the loop is a function of simply having ovaries, rather than a function of the circumstances encircling the individual. :smallwink:

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 01:33 PM

And you find this fun?

What, the war? Fun would be the wrong word for it, I think.

But I also don't think "fun" is the most applicable metric in all cases.

Ashiel

2017-07-24, 02:32 PM

What, the war? Fun would be the wrong word for it, I think.

But I also don't think "fun" is the most applicable metric in all cases.

I might be showing my age but fun has always been a good metric for games played with friends for entertainment, to me.

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-24, 04:14 PM

What, the war? Fun would be the wrong word for it, I think.

But I also don't think "fun" is the most applicable metric in all cases.

Do you find violent entertainment fun?

Lord Raziere

2017-07-24, 05:33 PM

Do you find violent entertainment fun?

YES! BLOOD FOR THE LEEROY WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!!!!!!

*grabs a choppa made to be ekstra rippy and charges like a lunatic*

I also find sexiness fun. I also find swashbuckling fun. I also find wuxia fun, and warhammer 40,000, Dragon Ball Z, and pokemon as well as shows like Avatar the Last Airbender, Steven Universe and games like Undertale, I can enjoy the mindless fun of fighting games and beat em ups, I can enjoy the strategical elements of Stellaris and Age of Empires, I like Watchmen but that doesn't stop me from liking the idealistic stories where the hero saves the day and everything lives happily ever after. I enjoy soft sci-fi like Doctor Who, but doesn't stop me from appreciating hard sci-fi like Eclipse Phase. I love being a Khornate Berserker, but that doesn't stop me from being Slaaneshi when I want to.

I can have fun with mindless abandon of all logic and sense embrace the craziness of things like impractical armor, even more impractical weapons and crazy superpowers because why not? but I can also think things through, make sense of things, and construct something awesome from a good set of rules and sensible assumptions to create something that has weight to it, that has and authentic down to earth feeling that you don't get from embracing the craziness, and much of the time I like combining the down to earthiness with the craziness to get the comedy inherent in combining the two.

Because I'm a multi-faceted individual of imagination and passion! I enjoy many things and am beyond simple labels. I can be as nonsensically abandoning of all practicality and devotion to historical realism, but that doesn't mean I cast the knowledge and the use of such realism aside entirely, for it is there for a reason it is there and can be useful when the need arises. These are all tools, and sometimes you get so much more mileage out of doing more with less than doing the less with more.

I guess there might someday be a use for a scantily clad heroine- I am planning on making a succubus spy who betrayed hell to become an agent of heaven at some point- but there is also a use for the practically dressed heroine who like any sane person, carries around a round shield and a sword for self-defense in her travels, because that was the go-to self defense weaponry in the historical medieval ages when you weren't expecting a big battle. I can play both, I can have them meet and discuss this entire thing in character and make it funny, and so on.

but as with all things, it needs proper execution. if your going to do something, do it right. if the story calls for something to be sensible down to earth, I make it so. if the story calls for something completely out there and fun and insane, I also do that. Why constrain myself only to making everyone scantily clad for the sake of fun, when I can make and do so much more?

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-24, 05:37 PM

And that about nailed it.

People can like many things. Insisting they not like a thing because you don't like it is being a turdburglar.

1337 b4k4

2017-07-24, 07:00 PM

Woa this thread took on a heck of a life since the last time I checked in. Not going to get to much, but wanted to hit highlights. First though, can I ask that we stop equating sexy in fantasy art to softcore porn? While I am in agreement that some of it can get very close, the intentions of the two forms of media are completely separate from each other. No one now, or in the past was buying D&D books to get their jollies off. Not saying the occasional horny teen didn't give in to the siren's lure of boobs on a book cover from time to time, but even in the dark ages before the internet, there were bigger and better venues for the young and dumb to find their smut than the scribblings of Gary Gygax and Co.

Have to wonder how many people arguing for Red Sonya would be upset if Conan got replaced with a more conventionally attractive male lead however...

If they replaced Conan for the same reason people are arguing to replace the sexy fantasy women, I absolutely would be. Someone suggesting that we should remove Conan because his armor is unrealistic, or that teenage boys will be made uncomfortable by the presence of sexy men, or that somehow Conan is sending a terrible message to young men around the world would be met with the same arguments from me about keeping the art.

OTOH, you want to replace Conan because you have a more awesome picture than "scowling steroid abuser #357" great, just like I have no problem if you want to replace "suggestively posed sorceress with teasing clothing lines #872" for a more badass (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e5/cf/c0/e5cfc0f4eba1d6e96b710037d4d37158--fantasy-female-warrior-warrior-girl.jpg) go for it. But replace it because the other picture is more awesome, and more badass, or just because it better fits the aesthetic you're going for in the artwork. But replacing it because exposed skin and sex might corrupt or make uncomfortable or send bad messages to the youth strikes me as the 80's "satanic panic" dressed in different clothes but with the same message.

Fun anecdotes.

...

I've seen women quit the game. Never because of boobs. Always because some jerk made the game unfun for everyone. Incidentally, that's the same reason I've seen men quit the game too. Go figure. :smallannoyed:

Again, this pretty much echoes my own experiences with the game. Our most over sexed and over sexualized women characters were always played by the women players. The few women characters I saw men play were almost always reserved and "modest".

Anyways one of my things about stripperriffic armor in art is that it makes me feel a lot less welcome and safe in the community. When supposedly heroic women are depicted with a focus on sexual attributes and none on practical armor while their male equivalents are depicted in outfits that either are power fantasies or cool looking but non-revealing armors, well it leads me to the conclusion that the women are valued for their sexual attributes while men are valued for what they actually do. This is not a comforting thought. Maybe its possible that the guys at the table won't treat a flesh and blood woman that way but I have no evidence that such is the case and a lot of art suggesting that they won't think of me as a whole person. And maybe this won't lead to violence. Maybe it won't lead to uncomfortable rape jokes or attempts at groping. But gods be damned if it doesn't make me that much more wary. That much less enthused. That much more defensive.

Who knows maybe its a good and accurate warning system that should be preserved?

I truly am sorry that this seems to be your experience with TTRPGs. I consider myself fortunate that I've never encountered games where none (or even half) of the women were depicted as anything other than sex objects, while the men were all power objects. And even more fortunate that I've never been in a situation where I had to question the basic human decency of the people around me based on their possible reactions to the artwork present in the rule books for the game we've sat down to play. All of that said, I would suggest that if sitting down to play a TTRPG with a group finds you defensive and afraid of violence or sexual assault due to the artwork, might I suggest that the issue is less the artwork (and indeed changing it wouldn't solve anything) and more that we've allowed the standards of behavior in our community to devolve to that of a super-max prison. Because the reality is, you should be able to sit down at a table littered with playboy mags and never have to questions once in your head whether the men at that table are going to be inappropriate with you and more than I would fear the same of women sitting down at a table littered with playgirl. If the men you're playing with are predators, that's the problem that needs to be addressed first.

This is why I really don't like art where the men are all fully armored up and the women are mostly naked. It feels like women need to be naked to be interesting.
and

The "sexy = empowerment" argument makes less sense when all the female characters in the game (depending on the game, this may mean 'all three of them' in a cast of 20 characters) is wearing some kind of stripperiffic armor, one of them uses sexiness as a 'distraction technique', another one is a really shy and child-like 18 year old girl with little agency plot-wise or otherwise, and the last one appears for all of 5 seconds to be on the recieving end of a sex joke before disappearing forever more.

Could someone please point me to some examples of games where this is true? I fully admit that my experiences tend towards pre-2e D&D, 4e D&D and later and games like Traveller and GURPS and Dungeon World, so I could be missing swaths of terrible gaming artwork depictions from say White Wolf, but I sincerely can't recall games where this is the case. I'm aware of some of the 3pp d20 crap that went out during the d20 glut, but most of that as I recall was rightly panned. And if we don't have specific examples, can we please stop using this concept of "all powerful men and all sex object women" games, because it does nothing to help the conversation and frankly hurts our industry by treating it as something it isn't.

The implication here is that (young) men's tastes in TRPG fantasy art alienate women from TRPGs. My question is, what would the reverse situation look like?--supposing the TRPG participant world were dominated by (young) women, would their tastes in fantasy art alienate young men?

By extension, if fantasy cheesecake alienates women by indicating a sort of hostile or unfriendly or just icky environment on the part of the men participants, what would the reverse situation look like where [art women like that is {something analogous to what women dislike in fantasy cheesecake}] indicates an analogously hostile, unfriendly, or icky environment on the part of the women participants? Has any man here been repelled by an all-girl group?

There have probably been men repelled from "girl targeted" games or sessions (I'm thinking something like a My Little Pony TTRPG), but honestly I'd expect to find that was mostly a highschool age thing, and certainly the whole "Brony" phenomenon suggests that even things that are heavily women-oriented are not necessarily going to drive all (or even most) men away. I would guess that the closest you could get to fantasy artwork that makes men as a whole uncomfortable and feels hostile to them, it might be lots of pretty-boy / androgyny with yaoi overtones. And even then, I think most of the discomfort would be less about how the artwork treats the men in question so much as the discomfort heterosexual men might feel with the homosexual nature and even that is changing rapidly, to the point where it might only drive heterosexual men away if it required them to be homosexual in the game (much as I would expect a game that required you to act heterosexual to drive away homosexual players).

In fact to be completely honest (and not to get into a completely different topic of depictions of characters) short of actually strongly anti-male art (literally women decapitating or torturing men, for all of the art in the entire game, and even then it may just be an objection to the gore itself not the target), I doubt there's many artistic ways you could depict a man that would make men feel uncomfortable. As a whole we're pretty used to seeing men used as everything from sex symbols to faceless monsters to be killed, to bumbling idiots and fat slobs. It would take a lot to phase me or most of the men I know.

Or rather, they don't appear to have a line at all.

You would be hard pressed to be more condescending to every person who disagrees with you than you are right now.

When was the "Epoch of the Chainmail bikini"?

Yes, this is basically my question from above. I think we've done a bit of disservice to this discussion though lumping everything from midriff baring armor to "boob windows" to neglige armor to chainmail underwear into the same bucket.

I think we have a bit of disconnect or comparing different things here.

As I see it, there a re a few useful categories that will help keep us on the same page.

1. Practical armor. Includes plate, mail, heavy leather or gambeson. Stuff that is designed and intended to protect you from weapons in combat. Generally covers at least the important bits, was often heavy or tiring or uncomfortable, so was usually not worn to dinner, the tavern, out shopping, on the march unless you really really expected to fight. Nobody thinks this is silly, but it might not be "attractive," and often a helmet hinders artistic intent to show the character.

2. Practical clothing. Stuff that would be easy to get around/do your job in, but would protect you from the sun, the cold, thorns, brush, etc, depending on what exactly you are doing. Less protective than armor, but a lot easier to move, climb, swim, etc in.

This would include the outfits of Aragorn or Legolas or Lidda the rogue or Jack Sparrow.

3. Impractical Clothing. Clothing that would interfere with travel or doing your job. It might look sexy or fancy, but it's the kind of thing you wear to be seen in, not to do manual labor in. Generally no or inadequate protection from elements, incidental hazards like thornbushes, and definitely no protection from arrows.

This is the sexy sorceress outfit or the over the top ceremonial garb that would get in the way if you fought in it. It can work for court situations where you want to look good and don't expect to dig any ditches or dodge any arrows. It also works for mages who don't want to wear heavy armor and can be assumed to use magic for protection from cold, heat and stabby devices. Some people consider it silly, but it's easy to explain silly.

4. Impractical armor. Stuff that clearly intends to be armor. Usually made of metal and leather. But it has huge areas of unprotected skin, usually over the heart, the abdominal organs, etc, or has big, awkward pauldrons that would whack you in the head when you moved or that would deflect blows toward your important bits, not away from them.

This is what people think is really silly/would get you killed because while it may not be less protection that the traveling clothes, it's clearly intended for wearing into battle. It would be lousy at keeping swords out of your organs, and lousy for preventing hypothermia/heatstroke/drowning, and would be awkward for sneaking/climbing/etc.

5. Impractical Nudity. The Frazetta style of art where you can wade into the arctic tundra or a rain or arrows wearing furry boots, a leather jockstrap and maybe a steel skullcap.

It is silly, but it's a well established, iconic silly. When the men are all in category 1 and the women in category 5, then it's hard not to admit it's a bit sexist

I would generally agree with your categories, but again, what games actually fall into the "all or most men in category 1 and all or most women in category 5". There must be some out there because people keep complaining about them. But we've already established it wasn't 1980's ish D&D and while I recall some bared midiffs in the 4e art, I don't recall any "impractical nudity" at all, and if 5e is an improvement from there, then it's not those either. GURPS 3e didn't fit the bill (I don't have by 4e book handy to check that). And the early traveller editions I'm familiar with were lucky to have any artwork at all, and certainly not the women in bikinis that is implied to be rampant.

Yeah. Memory lane time.

...

So I'm not saying that it can't happen. Merely I'm skeptical that feeling unsafe and out of the loop is a function of simply having ovaries, rather than a function of the circumstances encircling the individual. :smallwink:

Again this largely mirrors my own experiences and the experiences of the women I've played with. That said, to be completely fair, IF fantasy artwork was driving off whole swaths of women, from gaming, the fact that you haven't encountered any in your gaming experiences would likely be a form of survivor bias rather than evidence that women aren't being driven off. That said, of the women I've known that don't play and have no interest in TTRPGs, I don't think I've ever heard any mention artwork as their turnoff. Again, possible survivor bias still, but without hard data, the best I can go on is my own experiences and those of people I know.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 07:01 PM

YES! BLOOD FOR THE LEEROY WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!!!!!!

*grabs a choppa made to be ekstra rippy and charges like a lunatic*

I also find sexiness fun. I also find swashbuckling fun. I also find wuxia fun, and warhammer 40,000, Dragon Ball Z, and pokemon as well as shows like Avatar the Last Airbender, Steven Universe and games like Undertale, I can enjoy the mindless fun of fighting games and beat em ups, I can enjoy the strategical elements of Stellaris and Age of Empires, I like Watchmen but that doesn't stop me from liking the idealistic stories where the hero saves the day and everything lives happily ever after. I enjoy soft sci-fi like Doctor Who, but doesn't stop me from appreciating hard sci-fi like Eclipse Phase. I love being a Khornate Berserker, but that doesn't stop me from being Slaaneshi when I want to.

I can have fun with mindless abandon of all logic and sense embrace the craziness of things like impractical armor, even more impractical weapons and crazy superpowers because why not? but I can also think things through, make sense of things, and construct something awesome from a good set of rules and sensible assumptions to create something that has weight to it, that has and authentic down to earth feeling that you don't get from embracing the craziness, and much of the time I like combining the down to earthiness with the craziness to get the comedy inherent in combining the two.

Because I'm a multi-faceted individual of imagination and passion! I enjoy many things and am beyond simple labels. I can be as nonsensically abandoning of all practicality and devotion to historical realism, but that doesn't mean I cast the knowledge and the use of such realism aside entirely, for it is there for a reason it is there and can be useful when the need arises. These are all tools, and sometimes you get so much more mileage out of doing more with less than doing the less with more.

I guess there might someday be a use for a scantily clad heroine- I am planning on making a succubus spy who betrayed hell to become an agent of heaven at some point- but there is also a use for the practically dressed heroine who like any sane person, carries around a round shield and a sword for self-defense in her travels, because that was the go-to self defense weaponry in the historical medieval ages when you weren't expecting a big battle. I can play both, I can have them meet and discuss this entire thing in character and make it funny, and so on.

but as with all things, it needs proper execution. if your going to do something, do it right. if the story calls for something to be sensible down to earth, I make it so. if the story calls for something completely out there and fun and insane, I also do that. Why constrain myself only to making everyone scantily clad for the sake of fun, when I can make and do so much more?

Emphasis added.

If you're going to do something, do it right.

If a character is scantily clad, or wearing crazy or useless armor, or doing one of thousands of other "wait a minute..." things... then have an in-setting reason. Make sense of it. Put some thought into it.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 07:46 PM

You would be hard pressed to be more condescending to every person who disagrees with you than you are right now.

Good.

Perhaps I'll care once the "arguments" in favor of useless armor and situationally-impractical getups and the like... aren't so rife with personal attacks, belittlement, attempts to invalidate other people's experiences, false equivalences, irrelevant comparisons stripped of context, etc.

Yes, this is basically my question from above. I think we've done a bit of disservice to this discussion though lumping everything from midriff baring armor to "boob windows" to neglige armor to chainmail underwear into the same bucket.

No, I'd say those all go in exactly the same bucket.

Nupo

2017-07-24, 08:16 PM

She actually didn't die. She spent all of her time training falcons and looking fabulous doing it (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/52/b3/31/52b3317d541c648ec17a449f351169d8.jpg).
She obviously didn't spend much time training falcons, otherwise she would know how to properly carry one on her fist.:smallamused:

scalyfreak

2017-07-24, 08:27 PM

All of that said, I would suggest that if sitting down to play a TTRPG with a group finds you defensive and afraid of violence or sexual assault due to the artwork, might I suggest that the issue is less the artwork (and indeed changing it wouldn't solve anything) and more that we've allowed the standards of behavior in our community to devolve to that of a super-max prison. Because the reality is, you should be able to sit down at a table littered with playboy mags and never have to questions once in your head whether the men at that table are going to be inappropriate with you and more than I would fear the same of women sitting down at a table littered with playgirl. If the men you're playing with are predators, that's the problem that needs to be addressed first.

Alternatively. If the men you are playing with are insensitive idiots who fail to understand not only that rape jokes really aren't funny, but that men who find them funny trigger every single creep-alert in a woman's mind, that is also a problem that needs to be addressed. It's less of a problem, since your personal safety isn't at stake, but it's still incredibly unpleasant and creepy, and beyond uncomfortable to sit there and listen to that kind of talk.

Don't stay in that kind of environment. Spell out in great detail why you are leaving, and then leave, and stay gone. You have better things to do with your time.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 08:35 PM

She obviously didn't spend much time training falcons, otherwise she would know how to properly carry one on her fist.:smallamused:

Never mind that she's not even an example of:

a character wearing useless armor
a character wearing clothing that's impractical for her apparent situation or potential/likely settings.
a character who is inexplicably sexualized in attire, pose, etc.

And we don't know what she'd wear into actual combat, or if she's even someone who would go into combat at all -- the sword could be a badge of station, or her people could have a tradition of unarmored duels and that's what she's trained for, not as a battlefield soldier.

But somehow, posts spamming random context-stripped images of tangentially-related characters who happen to not be wearing armor is somehow supposed to "refute" points made about characters wearing useless armor and impractical clothing.

scalyfreak

2017-07-24, 08:42 PM

But somehow, posts spamming random context-stripped images of tangentially-related characters who happen to not be wearing armor is somehow supposed to "refute" points made about characters wearing useless armor and impractical clothing.

We don't know what kind of situation she is in, planning to get into, or is coming from. Since we don't know that, her clothing could be utterly impractical and wrong in every way, and the fact you don't see it that way doesn't change that fact. Do you have no understanding of context at all?! :smallamused:

1337 b4k4

2017-07-24, 08:47 PM

No, I'd say those all go in exactly the same bucket.

Yes, because your line for art that belongs in a good TTRPG book begins and ends at 100% realistic and no anachronisms as you've said time and again. In addition to those things, you would lump anyone not wearing a helmet in battle, anything with something that could be grabbed by an opponent (horns for example) and Conan the Barbarian and Kitiara (http://dragonlancenexus.com/wp-content/uploads/Kitiara-riding-skie.jpg) into that bucket. For the rest of us whose line's fall somewhere south of "historical textbook accuracy" but somewhere north of "anything as long as there's a sword or wand somewhere", those who aren't interested in holding their fantasy elf games art to the exacting standards that you do, lumping all of those things into the same bucket doesn't do the discussion any good. Again, you're welcome to your opinion, and more power to you, but you're like the person in a performance mod section of a car forum insisting that anything less than a fully rebuilt racing engine is a waste of money. It's a valid opinion, and one that's even true in certain circumstances, but it doesn't do the people wanting to talk turbos and superchargers any good.

Alternatively. If the men you are playing with are insensitive idiots who fail to understand not only that rape jokes really aren't funny, but that men who find them funny trigger every single creep-alert in a woman's mind, that is also a problem that needs to be addressed. It's less of a problem, since your personal safety isn't at stake, but it's still incredibly unpleasant and creepy, and beyond uncomfortable to sit there and listen to that kind of talk.

Don't stay in that kind of environment. Spell out in great detail why you are leaving, and then leave, and stay gone. You have better things to do with your time.

Yes, this too. Don't play with *******s, whether they're being jerks or being creepy or being belittling and condescending. These are things we do in our free time for fun, and it's not worth doing that with people who are ruining your enjoyment of the game.

Edit:
------------

Never mind that she's not even an example of:

a character wearing useless armor
a character wearing clothing that's impractical for her apparent situation or potential/likely settings.
a character who is inexplicably sexualized in attire, pose, etc.

1) She's not wearing any armor, with that sword, in the close combat that implies, she won't last long
2) She's wearing her falconry glove on her sword hand opening her up for death in any circumstance where she will need her sword.
3) Are you not seeing the boob window?

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 08:52 PM

We don't know what kind of situation she is in, planning to get into, or is coming from. Since we don't know that, her clothing could be utterly impractical and wrong in every way, and the fact you don't see it that way doesn't change that fact. Do you have no understanding of context at all?! :smallamused:

I'm sure you think you're making a point there... but it's been lost in your rush to be smug and insulting.

scalyfreak

2017-07-24, 08:58 PM

I'm sure you think you're making a point there... but it's been lost in your rush to be smug and insulting.

It was actually meant as a joke. The fact you immediately jumped to a smug insult without even considering any other possibility probably isn't a good sign for the rest of this thread, so I'll bow out of your part of it. I leave you to enjoy your corner of the conversation in peace.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 09:00 PM

Yes, because your line for art that belongs in a good TTRPG book begins and ends at 100% realistic and no anachronisms as you've said time and again. In addition to those things, you would lump anyone not wearing a helmet in battle, anything with something that could be grabbed by an opponent (horns for example) and Conan the Barbarian and Kitiara (http://dragonlancenexus.com/wp-content/uploads/Kitiara-riding-skie.jpg) into that bucket. For the rest of us whose line's fall somewhere south of "historical textbook accuracy" but somewhere north of "anything as long as there's a sword or wand somewhere", those who aren't interested in holding their fantasy elf games art to the exacting standards that you do, lumping all of those things into the same bucket doesn't do the discussion any good. Again, you're welcome to your opinion, and more power to you, but you're like the person in a performance mod section of a car forum insisting that anything less than a fully rebuilt racing engine is a waste of money. It's a valid opinion, and one that's even true in certain circumstances, but it doesn't do the people wanting to talk turbos and superchargers any good.

Not really what I've said, but a pretty interesting caricature.

1) She's not wearing any armor, with that sword, in the close combat that implies, she won't last long
2) She's wearing her falconry glove on her sword hand opening her up for death in any circumstance where she will need her sword.
3) Are you not seeing the boob window?

Asked and answered, but we'll go again:

1) The sword doesn't imply anything other than that she's wearing a sword, and some alternatives to "she's about to go into a pitched battle" were even offered.
2) If this glove is a problem, wouldn't it just make this art an example of an artist who didn't do their homework, and thus invalid as a (supposed, even) counter-example to my points?
3) It's not armor, it's clothing, with some claim to basis-period authenticity in that respect. Not being armor, and thus not having the requirement to protect her most vital spots first, it really doesn't serve as a counter to any of my points.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 09:05 PM

It was actually meant as a joke. The fact you immediately jumped to a smug insult without even considering any other possibility probably isn't a good sign for the rest of this thread, so I'll bow out of your part of it. I leave you to enjoy your corner of the conversation in peace.

How did you expect it to be taken, given what's going on and that this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?530423-Armor-designs-for-females&p=22225201&viewfull=1#post22225201) already happened?

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 09:31 PM

Here's a good one:

http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/78944172315/female-armor-rhetoric-bingo#_=_

I think some of these squares have been filled more than once in this thread...
https://68.media.tumblr.com/5277f3c00e82c33d6b5202e643c61dd9/tumblr_n24cl90wWa1s755fuo1_500.png

They probably got most of those in response to their example images for playing the earlier game...

https://68.media.tumblr.com/096b8e80d04dd27a2efaf48e898c9132/tumblr_n1s2pjSXYN1s755fuo1_r1_500.png

1337 b4k4

2017-07-24, 09:31 PM

Not really what I've said, but a pretty interesting caricature.

If you're not saying your line is realism, and that anything not real is silly and useless and shouldn't be, then you're doing a terrible job of conveying that point. Maybe instead of engaging in a weapons grade condescension war with everyone who doesn't agree with you, you might focus on trying to make your points more clearly and leave the hyperbolic "snuff bait" out of it.

3) It's not armor, it's clothing, with some claim to basis-period authenticity in that respect. Not being armor, and thus not having the requirement to protect her most vital spots first, it really doesn't serve as a counter to any of my points.

Your third point was about sexualization. She has a boob window, with no reason for there to be a boob window. By your own definitions, she's being sexualized.

But, that's an aside, notice how you're coming up with all sorts of possible reasons why she might be dressed the way she is? That's what other people do with other fantasy art too. You can't argue on the one hand that the images have to be consumed in the vacuum of exactly what's pictured for imagery that doesn't fit your personal preferences while at the same time give context or excuses to images that do. For example, let's take the image from really early in the thread:

http://blogofholding.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/belly.png

Now, why is her midriff exposed on the left side? Well it's possible that this is a completely terrible image by your standard, impractical armor, and it's just sexualized for the geeks that want to get their good times without punching "porn" into google. Or, looking at the armor design, it's clear that the right side of the armor goes on and is then strapped across, so maybe the left side of the armor was damaged beyond simple repair in a previous battle and she hasn't had a chance to get back to town. Certainly that left shoulder armor doesn't go with the rest of the pieces, so maybe she scrounged it up so that at least she had something, which is better than absolutely nothing. Or maybe she was in the middle of donning or doffing her armor in the first place, after all she's clearly surprised just drawing her sword now, and her better armored companion (in the larger image) lies dead with a massive hole in his chest. Maybe she normally wields a shield in that arm, and she chose to wear less armor because it afforded her better range of movement for getting the shield into position.

The point is, all the things we don't know about the image you're defending, we don't know about this image either. The only additional thing we know is that in this image, she's already under attack, and in the one you're defending, the trap hasn't been sprung yet. But put the gal from the image you're defending into this exact scene and she's just as under armored and un prepared and sexualized.

Edit
------

Yeah crap like what you just posted is why you're not getting the respect you want in this thread. Snarky memes are no substitution for actual conversation.

Mike_G

2017-07-24, 09:36 PM

I would generally agree with your categories, but again, what games actually fall into the "all or most men in category 1 and all or most women in category 5".

The original AD&D DM's Guide had an armored male fighter in realistic armor seen from the back, a male mage in a floor length robe seen from the back and a basically naked, smokin' hot, blonde female thief(?) being grabbed by an Efreet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master%27s_Guide

That's a wee bit sexist.

That's the first example I can come up with, but it's the cover of one of the core books of the first edition of AD&D, so it's pretty prominent.

A lot of the 3rd party supplements are worse, overall. And the category of "impractical nudity" includes pretty much all the Frank Frazetta or Boris Vallejo art.

No reason Conan couldn't be pictured in armor, dented and scarred from battle. He could still be as big and physically imposing. Put him in a breastplate and still show bulging biceps. Conan wore armor in the books. And I'm sure he wasn't fighting the Frost Giants in his boxers knee deep in the snow when Howard wrote it.

So, yeah it's iconic and badass and that image has replaced Howard's words on the page as the image that comes into mind when we hear "Conan the Barbarian," but it's damn silly to think a warrior would go out for a swordfight in the dead of winter in the mountains in his underwear.

I'm not saying you can't like that. I like Frazetta's work because it's dynamic and bold and visceral.

But I still think it's a bit silly when you think about it.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 09:49 PM

If you're not saying your line is realism, and that anything not real is silly and useless and shouldn't be, then you're doing a terrible job of conveying that point.

See that stuff in my signature about verisimilitude versus realism? It's there for a reason.

Whenever I see or participate in a discussion that gets into this territory, there's always at least one person who attacks the "this doesn't seem like it could be real" position as if it were a demand for literal realism.

If you go back and read my comments, they're about practicality, functionality, utility... or lack thereof. They're about comparing the armor (and other outfits in some cases) to the times and places that they art is clearly meant to emulate or clearly drawing inspiration from. About looking to those times and places for the real reasons they wore the armor and used the weapons they did, to have something that worked and was designed as it was for real utilitarian reasons, to compare with the thing in the artwork from a fictional world that still at least superficially faces the same needs, challenges, and restraints. Using reality as an example is not a demand for pure unfettered absolute devotion to reality.

Your third point was about sexualization. She has a boob window, with no reason for there to be a boob window. By your own definitions, she's being sexualized.

Not even remotely resembling what I said.

Plus a low cut or "peasant blouse" isn't a "boob window".

And it's not armor, so the exposed chest isn't grossly compromising the function of the garment.

The point is, all the things we don't know about the image you're defending, we don't know about this image either.

I wasn't "defending the image". I was pointing out all the ways in which it wasn't anything even close to a rebuttal of what I'd previously said.

Maybe the problem isn't in how I'm conveying the points...

Yeah crap like what you just posted is why you're not getting the respect you want in this thread. Snarky memes are no substitution for actual conversation.

And never mind the fact that at least half those squares have been filled in this thread... just like they always end up filled in these "discussions".

Talakeal

2017-07-24, 09:51 PM

Funny stuff.

That was the most I have laughed to a forum post in a long time, good on you.

However, do be pedantic, I am pretty sure a boob window is something like Power Girl (https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/77/986688-e71e931a447c208007dd1191f4e8d4c0.jpg)wears where there is actually a square window cut out of the front of an otherwise wholly concealing top, most of the examples you call boob windows are just good old fashioned low cuts.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 09:54 PM

That was the most I have laughed to a forum post in a long time, good on you.

However, do be pedantic, I am pretty sure a boob window is something like Power Girl (https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/77/986688-e71e931a447c208007dd1191f4e8d4c0.jpg)wears where there is actually a square window cut out of the front of an otherwise wholly concealing top, most of the examples you call boob windows are just good old fashioned low cuts.

But if they can't count low cuts as "boob windows", how will they "prove" their point?

scalyfreak

2017-07-24, 09:54 PM

How did you expect it to be taken, given what's going on and that this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?530423-Armor-designs-for-females&p=22225201&viewfull=1#post22225201) already happened?

I hope you do realize that when you are pointing to a post that you made, due to an over-reaction to a joke, in an attempt to prove someone else wrong, then it's time to consider taking a break from the thread.

1337 b4k4

2017-07-24, 09:55 PM

The original AD&D DM's Guide had an armored male fighter in realistic armor seen from the back, a male mage in a floor length robe seen from the back and a basically naked, smokin' hot, blonde female thief(?) being grabbed by an Efreet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master%27s_Guide

That's a wee bit sexist.

That's the first example I can come up with, but it's the cover of one of the core books of the first edition of AD&D, so it's pretty prominent.

OTOH, someone else linked the interior images from the AD&D (PHB maybe?) books, and the women were fully clothed. And IIRC, doesn't the DMG have a handful and vignettes of a party in various battles, and while the woman of the party is a sorceress in a dress, it is a fully clothed one to the best of my recollection. And I already went through the BECMI and B/X artwork from the same time period, showing that the majority of the women were fully clothed and in practical armor. So while yes, I can see calling this cover sexist, this doesn't meet the standard of a whole game where the balance is towards women portrayed as sexualized objects. In fact, you'd have a better argument that the artwork was sexist less for its portrayal of the women in it and more for how few women adventurers were portrayed at all.

No reason Conan couldn't be pictured in armor, dented and scarred from battle. He could still be as big and physically imposing. Put him in a breastplate and still show bulging biceps. Conan wore armor in the books. And I'm sure he wasn't fighting the Frost Giants in his boxers knee deep in the snow when Howard wrote it.

So, yeah it's iconic and badass and that image has replaced Howard's words on the page as the image that comes into mind when we hear "Conan the Barbarian," but it's damn silly to think a warrior would go out for a swordfight in the dead of winter in the mountains in his underwear.

I'm not saying you can't like that. I like Frazetta's work because it's dynamic and bold and visceral.

But I still think it's a bit silly when you think about it.

Sure, but silly doesn't make it bad. And when you're aiming for single still images to convey a sense of adventure and excitement, "dynamic and bold and visceral" seem like good ideas compared to "historical and referential accuracy"

See that stuff in my signature about verisimilitude versus realism? It's there for a reason.
...
Not even remotely resembling what I said.
...
Maybe the problem isn't in how I'm conveying the points...

Donkeys and saddles my friend. You're even getting into fights in this thread with people who are generally on your side of the discussion.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 09:58 PM

I hope you do realize that when you are pointing to a post that you made, due to an over-reaction to a joke, in an attempt to prove someone else wrong, then it's time to consider taking a break from the thread.

So in other words, you didn't bother reading it or looking at the quotes it contained, you just saw it was something I posted and thought "here's how I can win".

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-24, 09:59 PM

scalyfreak

2017-07-24, 10:01 PM

I'm not saying you can't like that. I like Frazetta's work because it's dynamic and bold and visceral.

But I still think it's a bit silly when you think about it.

I agree on the latter part. I also agree that the dynamic viscera and boldness more than compensate for, and make up for, the silliness. Those black and white Conan comics were brutal, in the best artistic sense of the word. Then they started coloring them, and suddenly the blood wasn't as red, the darkness wasn't as black, and evil wasn't as frightening, because the artwork suddenly looked like a cartoon.

scalyfreak

2017-07-24, 10:02 PM

So in other words, you didn't bother reading it or looking at the quotes it contained, you just saw it was something I posted and thought "here's how I can win".

Why on earth would I have any interest at all in "winning"??? Are there points involved? Do we get grades from someone?

What exactly do you think it is we are doing here? Competing?

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 10:05 PM

Why on earth would I have any interest at all in "winning"??? Are there points involved? Do we get grades from someone?

What exactly do you think it is we are doing here? Competing?

When people don't even read past the first "gotcha" they think they can find, I have to conclude they're more interested in "winning" than discussing.

Zale

2017-07-24, 10:10 PM

She might be a princess captured and placed in a harem, for all you know. What more basic plot is there than men defending their women from "monsters"? It's hardly inapropos for a fantasy game dealing with archetypal monsters and magic to feature a damsel in distress.

I wasn't certain if I wanted to take part in this discussion, but I just wanted to highlight this post. Just to let it sink in that this is in fact a statement made by someone on this forum.

I may comb through the thread and make one of those bingo tables for "Women's Fantasy Armor Debates". That seems like a constructive use of my time.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 10:13 PM

Sure, but silly doesn't make it bad. And when you're aiming for single still images to convey a sense of adventure and excitement, "dynamic and bold and visceral" seem like good ideas compared to "historical and referential accuracy"

That's part of the problem.

Don't try to "convey" something, show me what the character is supposed to look like. Especially for written fiction -- show me who and what I'm supposed to be picturing in my imagination as I read about the character.

Seriously, to hell with symbolism.

Donkeys and saddles my friend. You're even getting into fights in this thread with people who are generally on your side of the discussion.

Which really doesn't have anything to do with how badly you've misrepresented what I actually said.

She might be a princess captured and placed in a harem, for all you know. What more basic plot is there than men defending their women from "monsters"? It's hardly inapropos for a fantasy game dealing with archetypal monsters and magic to feature a damsel in distress.

I wasn't certain if I wanted to take part in this discussion, but I just wanted to highlight this post. Just to let it sink in that this is in fact a statement made by someone on this forum.

Indeed. Pretty ironic, given the context.

So here's a rather egregious example of "armor" worn by a female character. Setting aside the basic flaws in the anatomy... why would anyone ever wear that into combat?

http://www.totallylegitpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/boobwindow.png

(To be clear, there's nothing I've found in the context of this character or getup that justifies or lampshades the horrible design.)

1337 b4k4

2017-07-24, 10:41 PM

That's part of the problem.

Don't try to "convey" something, show me what the character is supposed to look like. Especially for written fiction -- show me who and what I'm supposed to be picturing in my imagination as I read about the character.

Seriously, to hell with symbolism.

We're discussing art, and specifically art within the context of a TTRPG rule book. Why are you talking about written fiction?

Which really doesn't have anything to do with how badly you've misrepresented what I actually said.

Again, donkeys and saddles.

1337 b4k4

2017-07-24, 10:47 PM

I wasn't certain if I wanted to take part in this discussion, but I just wanted to highlight this post. Just to let it sink in that this is in fact a statement made by someone on this forum.

I may comb through the thread and make one of those bingo tables for "Women's Fantasy Armor Debates". That seems like a constructive use of my time.

Within the initial confines of the discussion (that is, female adventurer armor in fantasy artwork) it's actually a valid defense. It's the equivalent of pointing out that of course none of the slaughtered men at the foot of the BBEGs throne are wearing useful armor, they were peasants/slaves/prisoners, not adventurers.

But given that the discussion has expanded to generally be about sexist portrayals of women in fantasy artwork, it is indeed a terrible defense of the image.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-24, 10:51 PM

......I got a bingo on the rhetoric version. Entire Fourth row down.

what do I win? :smalltongue: I want my prize Max.

She might be a princess captured and placed in a harem, for all you know. What more basic plot is there than men defending their women from "monsters"? It's hardly inapropos for a fantasy game dealing with archetypal monsters and magic to feature a damsel in distress.

@ Donnadogsoth:
REALLY?

JUST.

REALLY.

1. "their" women? as if they own them?

2. princesses? the medieval title literally meant to do nothing but make babies?

3. damsels in distress, the very problematic trope that got this whole vast conversation way before this thread or the threads before it ever existed, started in the first place?

Just no.

No.

I'm just a little ABSOLUTELY LIVID right now.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 10:51 PM

We're discussing art, and specifically art within the context of a TTRPG rule book. Why are you talking about written fiction?

One, because there's a lot of overlap with these issues when it comes to cover art.

Two, because written fiction and RPGs are both largely works of written language, that is, books (despite some company's efforts to cram 1/3 of every page with full color artwork that the text has to wrap around strangely...)

Three, because one thing RPGs and written fiction actually do have in common is that the action takes place within the players' / readers' imagination. How they visualize what's going on is to some degree affected by the art. This is perhaps even more important in an RPG where the mental space has to in a way be shared and similar enough that there's not total disconnect between what the players are picturing.

If my GM shows me a picture of an NPC enemy and they have a big hole in their armor right over their chest or abdomen, where do you think I'm aiming/calling my shots? (Don't presume magic armor, here...)

Again, donkeys and saddles.

Purple monkey dishwater manatee north?

Zale

2017-07-24, 10:55 PM

We're discussing art, and specifically art within the context of a TTRPG rule book. Why are you talking about written fiction?

Side note: Intent is still important in visual art. When making choices about how to dress a character in something, it shows what the artist is trying to convey about them.

Part of the problem is that women get place disproportionately in outfits that are designed just so the artist can convey that they are, in fact, hot babes.

Within the initial confines of the discussion (that is, female adventurer armor in fantasy artwork) it's actually a valid defense. It's the equivalent of pointing out that of course none of the slaughtered men at the foot of the BBEGs throne are wearing useful armor, they were peasants/slaves/prisoners, not adventurers.

But given that the discussion has expanded to generally be about sexist portrayals of women in fantasy artwork, it is indeed a terrible defense of the image.

Yes, but the slaughtered men are unlikely to be wearing thongs and be twisted into poses that show off their shapely behinds and nice abs. Women tend to be put in weirdly sexual poses in fantasy art and comics in a way that men aren't.

(The rebuttal to my statement is to point out things like Conan, but there's a difference between the rugged, shirtless barbarian and the women dangling off him in bikinis. It's about portrayal, position and focus as much as level of undress. It's very possible to draw a man being sexualized in the same manner, but just taking his shirt off isn't enough.)

Mike_G

2017-07-24, 11:05 PM

OTOH, someone else linked the interior images from the AD&D (PHB maybe?) books, and the women were fully clothed. And IIRC, doesn't the DMG have a handful and vignettes of a party in various battles, and while the woman of the party is a sorceress in a dress, it is a fully clothed one to the best of my recollection. And I already went through the BECMI and B/X artwork from the same time period, showing that the majority of the women were fully clothed and in practical armor. So while yes, I can see calling this cover sexist, this doesn't meet the standard of a whole game where the balance is towards women portrayed as sexualized objects. In fact, you'd have a better argument that the artwork was sexist less for its portrayal of the women in it and more for how few women adventurers were portrayed at all.

I never said the whole game was defined by sexist art.

I pointed out an image that appears ON THE COVER of one of the most important core books --which is wicked sexist-- when you asked for examples of sexist art.

If I'm a woman thinking about playing D&D, and my first image on the cover of the books is two reasonably dressed male characters and a naked, captive, very sexually displayed woman, what do you think my first impression will be?

If you never get past the cover, the art inside really doesn't matter.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 11:08 PM

Side note: Intent is still important in visual art. When making choices about how to dress a character in something, it shows what the artist is trying to convey about them.

Part of the problem is that women get place disproportionately in outfits that are designed just so the artist can convey that they are, in fact, hot babes.

Yes, but the slaughtered men are unlikely to be wearing thongs and be twisted into poses that show off their shapely behinds and nice abs. Women tend to be put in weirdly sexual poses in fantasy art and comics in a way that men aren't.

(The rebuttal to my statement is to point out things like Conan, but there's a difference between the rugged, shirtless barbarian and the women dangling off him in bikinis. It's about portrayal, position and focus as much as level of undress. It's very possible to draw a man being sexualized in the same manner, but just taking his shirt off isn't enough.)

The funny thing about this is, my core objections are about
1) armor and clothing as functional items -- and the disconnect between that functionality and how they're often presented in artwork for RPGs and the related "overgenre" of speculative fiction.
2) how that disconnect can rob the artwork of its ability to show an accurate depiction of the character and setting

Issues of gender, sex, sexuality, etc, enter into it for me largely because one of the first defenses offered up for much of the artwork I'm taking issue with, is that "sexy" is more important, that people want to look at "sexy" characters, etc. So there's a bit of irony there, in that immediately calling on that defense brings in the issue of whether the characters are being presented simply as objects, which might even be a deeper hole.

1337 b4k4

2017-07-24, 11:39 PM

Side note: Intent is still important in visual art. When making choices about how to dress a character in something, it shows what the artist is trying to convey about them.

I'll be honest, I always figured the cover was aiming to be an homage to King Kong (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ef/Kong33promo.jpg/280px-Kong33promo.jpg), so I'm not sure there was much intent other than aping (pun partially intended) imagery that everyone would know.

Yes, but the slaughtered men are unlikely to be wearing thongs and be twisted into poses that show off their shapely behinds and nice abs. Women tend to be put in weirdly sexual poses in fantasy art and comics in a way that men aren't.

(The rebuttal to my statement is to point out things like Conan, but there's a difference between the rugged, shirtless barbarian and the women dangling off him in bikinis. It's about portrayal, position and focus as much as level of undress. It's very possible to draw a man being sexualized in the same manner, but just taking his shirt off isn't enough.)

Sure, I'm not arguing that there isn't artwork out there that has issues, just pointing out that in the narrow confines of the original thread topic, the defense is valid if the character isn't supposed to be an adventurer, than their lack of armor is not an issue of female adventurer armor. And in the context of this particular image, I think any awkward posing of her character is due to the artist clearly being an amateur at art. The perspectives are all wrong, the characters are all posed awkwardly (like someone took figurines, made a "still life" and then drew it), and frankly it took me years to realize the ifrit was supposed to be alive and not a statue like on the PHB (which just made the whole situation even that much more bizarre for me because why would she be caught by a statue?)

I never said the whole game was defined by sexist art.

I pointed out an image that appears ON THE COVER of one of the most important core books --which is wicked sexist-- when you asked for examples of sexist art.

I asked for examples of games where the balance of the art was mostly women as sex objects and men as power fantasies. I know there are individual art pieces that meet the definition, that much was established in the first handful of pages of this thread (by myself even). I was objecting to the idea I'd seen multiple times that the games as a whole are doing this. Although looking back now I admit that your post that I quoted does talk about art individually (I had mentally grouped you with another poster talking about whole games) and that my own post on the same subject was not sufficiently clear, so my apologies on that.

If I'm a woman thinking about playing D&D, and my first image on the cover of the books is two reasonably dressed male characters and a naked, captive, very sexually displayed woman, what do you think my first impression will be?

If you never get past the cover, the art inside really doesn't matter.

If you're my wife, or any of the women I've had the fortune of gaming with over the years, it's a shrug and moving on. The same reaction that men give when their gender are used for mindless slaughter in fantasy imagery. It's a trope, and maybe a trope you want to (and that should be) changed, but tropes in and of themselves are not threatening things, and when you're immersed in them, you're less likely to find them immediately off putting, so I would not have expected most women in the late 1970's to early 1980's, especially those in the geek / fantasy hobby to have found the imagery particularly offensive (look up 1970's cosplay, just don't do it on a work computer). 30 years on, and tastes and social norms have changed, and yes, were that cover published today, I would expect it to cause some consternation, which might be why the reprints edited it out (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/17004/Dungeon-Masters-Guide-1e?src=hottest_filtered&it=1&filters=0_0_45381_0_0_0_0_0). Of course it's not true for everyone, but nothing ever is (except possibly that we all die)

2D8HP

2017-07-25, 12:15 AM

(The rebuttal to my statement is to point out things like Conan, but there's a difference between the rugged, shirtless barbarian and the women dangling off him in bikinis. It's about portrayal, position and focus as much as level of undress. It's very possible to draw a man being sexualized in the same manner, but just taking his shirt off isn't enough.)

So, something like this?:
http://68.media.tumblr.com/20f509b3e7f0207fef7592e2b86417bc/tumblr_ot3kq44skg1qijcczo1_1280.png

Yes, because your line for art that belongs in a good TTRPG book begins and ends at 100% realistic and no anachronisms as you've said time and again. In addition to those things, you would lump anyone not wearing a helmet in battle, anything with something that could be grabbed by an opponent (horns for example)...

Ah yes, helmet horns.

*shudder*

I told myself that "I already have all the D&D rules I need", and "Unearthed Arcana was awful, I don't want more like that!", but really it was the mid 1980's and later art that I didn't like (too bad too, as a recent peak shows me that up until '99 the rules didn't change much, but did become more clearly written, my loss).

Stuff like this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b7/e5/a1/b7e5a1d86af6badd8e17c2cbeabcc272.jpg

The weird thing is I saw both Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer, and enjoyed them.

We all have lines.

Speaking of which, out of some art that @Ashiel posted:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/10/8e/d6/108ed61a10b3ffe128bcfd3fa25a651f.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/97/f3/50/97f35046d3d0956241373553dc1f2441.jpg

http://orig14.deviantart.net/9edd/f/2010/114/6/f/female_knight_by_aditya777.jpg

The first two show more skin, but really don't seem sillier than the third picture (despite that he is going to fall, and she's in heels), because they're not in armor, but the "Knight", has both the "window", and ridiculous shoulder metal, but still not as silly as helmet horns.

I would assume that it was ceremonial armor. History does have armor made as much for style as for protection (and they're certainly been military uniforms that don't look as if they were made for combat).

A lot depends on tone. Seeing images from the Osprey books alongside WarHammer stuff feels off, but disparate treatment is noticeable.

If a man is pictured in "armor" with giant oversize spiky pauldrons, and a plunging v-neck collar, or something like this:https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ff/e0/6f/ffe06f9f9b8ffe6b7a8ee031a1bbac99.jpg
(which seems more "gladiator" than "soldier")

http://rushist.com/images/rome/gladiators-mosaic.jpg

would make "armor" with bare midriffs worn by ladies less jarring.

But apparently for video games you need to go this far to balance:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/18246fc28f9d86a97ac7f06cafdd8bd4/tumblr_ore8p78lJG1vk662jo1_500.png.

Ashiel

2017-07-25, 01:28 AM

She obviously didn't spend much time training falcons, otherwise she would know how to properly carry one on her fist.:smallamused:

Touche salesman. :smallamused:

Satinavian

2017-07-25, 02:30 AM

Ok, let's discuss the examples. Comments in red :

In honor of "stupid" "idiot" adventurers everywhere, I give you a rogues snuff gallery of soon to be dead adventurers who are immersion breaking and ruin everyone's rightgoodfun. :smallbiggrin:

Both people here are already dead (http://th04.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2011/046/2/b/swashbuckling_duellists_by_jonhodgson-d39mbc6.jpg).
The women does not wear armor but clothing. The man wears an armored vest, a morion and gloves, which is not a bad light armor combination. That is also a cover of an inner city intrigue based adventure module and both outfits would be utterly appropriate for the fights in there.

The mask won't save him from the gut-spilling. (http://funnypictures4.fjcdn.com/pictures/Character+art+season+3+rogues_19c870_5837154.jpg)
padded coat over chain, greaves. That is pretty good armor even fit for a battlefield. You might want to add a helmet
She's actually undead. She died three times on the way to the ATM (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/92/2f/be/922fbe172f3a0fef721f02d6621e574c.jpg).
Yes, that is bad and doesn't offer protection. She should wear something else if any kind of fight is to be expected.
A leather jacket with a boob window. That's the last drink he'll ever have (http://adventuresintherealms.wdfiles.com/local--files/neverwinter-pcs/Osborne.jpg).
Looks like the boob window could actually be closed if the guy bothered to do so.

Silly drinking lady, padded armor is only 5% better than flesh, but you were 110% dead with flesh (http://i.imgur.com/jrjTQMo.jpg).
That is the reason why i actually bothered answering. Padded armor and other cloth based armor is actually pretty good armor It was used over millenia by the majority of fighters for a reason. Also that doesn't seem to be anywhere near a battle situation. Maybe some tavern brawl going out of hand.

It's a cool picture until you realize she's been cut in half and is just a torso (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d1/91/bd/d191bd2131915fd92203daeb389b87c2--female-pirates-girl-pirates.jpg).
Clothing, no armor
Cool cathedral, in the city, sword duelist. Totally dead (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/16/54/12/1654126da7b7249f9514b36de8265ba4--shadow-warrior-fantasy-illustration.jpg).
Hard to see, but clothing, not armor i think.

She's mentally preparing herself for her death by being stabbed like a turnip (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ef/5d/51/ef5d51de7a67b7485ca5fdfdfc48f584--game-of-thrones-art-iron-throne.jpg).
Clothing, no armor

Did I mention she died? She was stabbed in the inner thigh and bled to death because it hit an artery. Pants aren't armor (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/97/f3/50/97f35046d3d0956241373553dc1f2441.jpg).
Clothing, no armor. And yes, she looks to be at a disadvantage there because while her opponents aren't armored either, they seem to wear more protective clothing. Not that much of a difference in a saber fight though. If the lighting didn't suggest absurd protagonist plot armor i would assume whe would be dead a couple seconds later.

She died. I don't know from what. I heard it might have been some accident with space pirate airlocks but armor would have helped (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/72/a8/10/72a810475c2a3086ad59d27b26b50862--warhammer-games-warhammer-.jpg).
Anachronism stew. Hard to discuss the protection value without knowing the kind of weapons. But i would go for "clothing, not armor" here. If that thin leather pirate west does have a boob window or not would not really matter to space age rifles.

Death by falling, actually. But the pidgeon pooped on his corpse through the boob window (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/10/8e/d6/108ed61a10b3ffe128bcfd3fa25a651f.jpg).
Clothing, not armor. Also the jacket can be closed easily.

She actually didn't die. She spent all of her time training falcons and looking fabulous doing it (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/52/b3/31/52b3317d541c648ec17a449f351169d8.jpg).
Clothing, not armor
Bored now, i'll skp the rest.

Soo far that have all been cases of either reasonable armor or no armor at all.

I hate to brake it to you, but people not actually wearing any armor are not unrealistic. Neither does anyone here argue that skipping armor for more comfortable clothing in contexts outside of battlefields is somehow suicidal.

Seriously, why are you linking lots of pictures with people in everyday clothing in a thread about unrealistic armor ? What is that supposed to be a proof for ? That not everyone all the time wears armor including people who actually own some ?

Floret

2017-07-25, 05:16 AM

I truly am sorry that this seems to be your experience with TTRPGs. I consider myself fortunate that I've never encountered games where none (or even half) of the women were depicted as anything other than sex objects, while the men were all power objects. And even more fortunate that I've never been in a situation where I had to question the basic human decency of the people around me based on their possible reactions to the artwork present in the rule books for the game we've sat down to play. All of that said, I would suggest that if sitting down to play a TTRPG with a group finds you defensive and afraid of violence or sexual assault due to the artwork, might I suggest that the issue is less the artwork (and indeed changing it wouldn't solve anything) and more that we've allowed the standards of behavior in our community to devolve to that of a super-max prison. Because the reality is, you should be able to sit down at a table littered with playboy mags and never have to questions once in your head whether the men at that table are going to be inappropriate with you and more than I would fear the same of women sitting down at a table littered with playgirl. If the men you're playing with are predators, that's the problem that needs to be addressed first.

Alternatively. If the men you are playing with are insensitive idiots who fail to understand not only that rape jokes really aren't funny, but that men who find them funny trigger every single creep-alert in a woman's mind, that is also a problem that needs to be addressed. It's less of a problem, since your personal safety isn't at stake, but it's still incredibly unpleasant and creepy, and beyond uncomfortable to sit there and listen to that kind of talk.

Don't stay in that kind of environment. Spell out in great detail why you are leaving, and then leave, and stay gone. You have better things to do with your time.

All of this is incredibly true, and this is indeed a problem of the people, not the art... But. One thing I feel should be added to this is that if there is anything that might encourage these people to seek out roleplaying communities, and to make them think their views are in any way acceptable there, that is an issue that might deserve a look.
And if the art we use for our games does, in the eyes of those creeps and predators, reinforce their worldviews, by stating sexy as an important aspect of quite a lot of female characters, going so far as to impede on logic/versimilitude for a lot of people, in a way that the male counterparts don't do nearly so frequent - then changing the artwork won't make these guys any less creepy or predatorial (Nor keeping the artwork perfectly nice guys into creeps). But the change might just make it so that they don't feel like "this is the community for me".
Creeps getting the wrong message about their behaviour is a sideeffect of cheesecake pictures, not the main intention, obviously. Not a very strong one, probably. You can try to argue that the benefit of cheesecake pics is larger than the negative sideeffects (Probably would need studies that don't exist to corroborate either side. Or a way to weigh the two against each other). I will side-eye you if you do that, but that is rooted in the way I weigh these things.

And, yes, TTRPGs do have quite a lot of good counterexamples. The problem is not one exclusive to them, nor the most pronounced there - CRPGs, especially MMOs are often far worse offenders. But many women who game aren't just confronted exclusively with the ones from TRPG books.
Now imagine: For someone with the drive to play these games, it being stronger than the turnoff of the armor. The armor maybe slightly lessening the enjoyment, but hey, what can you do. Now turning to a medium of more freedom, more imagination - only to find in the examples, the ones supposed to stoke you imagination and to tell you how this, strange, different world is... have the same problems of design, if not as bad, still... not good.
Then I think a certain frustration might be acceptable. And they probably aren't gonna see this as an issue of TRPG art exclusively. Trying to argue that it is, seems... dishonest. All of this is part of the same culture, and of quite intervowen subcultures that grew from each other no less.

(Another thing is, a handful of examples of Armor more suited to a catwalk than a fight might just be enough to make a person that wants realistic armor roll their eyes, groan, and be turned off. A handful of examples of functional, realistic armor are, I think, very unlikely to have the same effect on people that enjoy the sexy ones.
With the forseeable result that, no, people who want functional armor do not have all of the opportunity to look at their stuff, when even the stuff that is generally good about these things insists on throwing in a handful of cheesecake pictures. RPG illustrations generally don't come in packs of one inside the books.)

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-25, 05:56 AM

This thread is an excellent example of the fallout caused by stating opinion as objective fact, especially when doing so condescendingly or rudely.

Turns out that people become defensive when you call their preference objectively bad and imply they are bad people for enjoying it. Shocker.

Turns out people respond to snark and condescension with snark and condescension. Shocker.

So maybe, maybe, state preferences as preferences and don't expect the reader to dig for your real meaning due to laziness. Just say you opinion is an opinion. There are many ways to do so. Allow me to demonstrate:
"I feel that...."
"In my opinion...."
"I think that...."
"In my personal experience, I have found that...."
"It seems to me...."

I swear, part of me want to stalk this discussion and translate opinions stated as truths back into opinions. But that would be maximum snark and I might get in trouble.

Long story short,
Responsibility lies with the SPEAKER/WRITER to communicate clearly, NOT on the LISTENER to interpret correctly.

2D8HP

2017-07-25, 06:18 AM

This thread is an excellent example of...
....So maybe, maybe, state preferences as preferences and don't expect the reader to dig for your real meaning due to laziness. Just say you opinion is an opinion. There are many ways to do so. Allow me to demonstrate:
"I feel that...."
"In my opinion...."
"I think that...."
"In my personal experience, I have found that...."
"It seems to me...."

Where's the sport in that?

:confused:

NEVER!

Doing what you suggest would lead to tolerance, mutual respect, courtesy, and common sense.

AND THAT WOULD BE WRONG!!!

(also takes longer to type).

:yuk::

Deophaun

2017-07-25, 07:44 AM

Lord Raziere

2017-07-25, 07:57 AM

Quick! To the fainting couch!

That is a serious concern and your not helping. :smallyuk: Not cool.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-25, 08:23 AM

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-25, 08:24 AM

Where's the sport in that?

:confused:

NEVER!

Doing what you suggest would lead to tolerance, mutual respect, courtesy, and common sense.

AND THAT WOULD BE WRONG!!!

(also takes longer to type).

:yuk::

And more seriously, it gives free reign to the reader, if they're so inclined, to deliberately or out of convenience to their argument, misread and misrepresent the writer's words, and then shift blame if called out on it.

CharonsHelper

2017-07-25, 08:25 AM

That is a serious concern and your not helping. :smallyuk: Not cool.

I'm sorry - but arguing about the artwork of armor in fantasy RPG games being too revealing and/or unrealistic on a forum based on a stick figure webcomic is a serious concern? I think you might be taking it TOO seriously.

Mike_G

2017-07-25, 09:41 AM

I'll be honest, I always figured the cover was aiming to be an homage to King Kong (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ef/Kong33promo.jpg/280px-Kong33promo.jpg), so I'm not sure there was much intent other than aping (pun partially intended) imagery that everyone would know.

Sure, I'm not arguing that there isn't artwork out there that has issues, just pointing out that in the narrow confines of the original thread topic, the defense is valid if the character isn't supposed to be an adventurer, than their lack of armor is not an issue of female adventurer armor. And in the context of this particular image, I think any awkward posing of her character is due to the artist clearly being an amateur at art. The perspectives are all wrong, the characters are all posed awkwardly (like someone took figurines, made a "still life" and then drew it), and frankly it took me years to realize the ifrit was supposed to be alive and not a statue like on the PHB (which just made the whole situation even that much more bizarre for me because why would she be caught by a statue?)

I asked for examples of games where the balance of the art was mostly women as sex objects and men as power fantasies. I know there are individual art pieces that meet the definition, that much was established in the first handful of pages of this thread (by myself even). I was objecting to the idea I'd seen multiple times that the games as a whole are doing this. Although looking back now I admit that your post that I quoted does talk about art individually (I had mentally grouped you with another poster talking about whole games) and that my own post on the same subject was not sufficiently clear, so my apologies on that.

If you're my wife, or any of the women I've had the fortune of gaming with over the years, it's a shrug and moving on. The same reaction that men give when their gender are used for mindless slaughter in fantasy imagery. It's a trope, and maybe a trope you want to (and that should be) changed, but tropes in and of themselves are not threatening things, and when you're immersed in them, you're less likely to find them immediately off putting, so I would not have expected most women in the late 1970's to early 1980's, especially those in the geek / fantasy hobby to have found the imagery particularly offensive (look up 1970's cosplay, just don't do it on a work computer). 30 years on, and tastes and social norms have changed, and yes, were that cover published today, I would expect it to cause some consternation, which might be why the reprints edited it out (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/17004/Dungeon-Masters-Guide-1e?src=hottest_filtered&it=1&filters=0_0_45381_0_0_0_0_0). Of course it's not true for everyone, but nothing ever is (except possibly that we all die)

OK, now I'm annoyed.

I think I've been a voice of moderation in this increasingly heated thread. My point has been "Art is subjective. Like what you want, but understand some people think the unrealistic armor is silly, breaks immersion and can be sexist."

So then I was asked, where, pray tell, is this sexist art? Like it was hard to find.

So I presented the COVER of the first edition CORE RULEBOOK of the MOST POULAR fantasy RPG. I didn't find a picture scribbled in the margin of a third party supplement for FATAL. I figured this was a prominent example which was both silly and impractical and sexist.

Now, I never said that means you shouldn't like it. Just that it's a good example of what I don't like, and what people seem to be denying exists.

Liking it is fine. That's a matter of preference. But the defense of it is ridiculous.

I don't care if you "like the picture." Art is subjective. But the whole. "OK, sure, it's the cover, but that's not all the art in the edition. Jeeze." or 'Maybe it's not an example of impractical adventuring gear. Maybe it's one of these much more sexist stereotypes" like that makes it OK, or "this woman I know is OK with it" which is the "I'm not a racist; some of my best friends are black" defense.

I will repeat:

Art is subjective. Like what you want. But impractical clothing or armor can look silly, break immersion and can be sexist.

And if you can't see that the freaking cover of the most important book of the most popular RPG of it's day did all those things, I don't think there's much I can say that would help.

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-25, 10:13 AM

And more seriously, it gives free reign to the reader, if they're so inclined, to deliberately or out of convenience to their argument, misread and misrepresent the writer's words, and then shift blame if called out on it.

That someone can twist/misunderstand words is no excuse to not speak clearly and divide between opinion and fact in your words.

In fact, I'm surprised that you're arguing that the possibility of someone misusing your words is reason to speak LESS clearly. This seems as obviously not helpful as using a flamethrower to put out a housefire.

Donnadogsoth

2017-07-25, 10:42 AM

@ Donnadogsoth:
REALLY?

JUST.

REALLY.

1. "their" women? as if they own them?

2. princesses? the medieval title literally meant to do nothing but make babies?

3. damsels in distress, the very problematic trope that got this whole vast conversation way before this thread or the threads before it ever existed, started in the first place?

Just no.

No.

I'm just a little ABSOLUTELY LIVID right now.

If I say “my father” does that mean I own my father? You're being too touchy.

Saying all princesses do is make babies is like saying all princes do is wage war. I know which I'd rather be doing.

I wish I could not believe that culture has degenerated this far, that the wonderful, perennial “damsels in distress” is a controversial, nigh taboo trope. It's like we want our women to be ravished by monsters now, unless they can defend themselves because they are Super Duper Warriors. My point is friendly male energy has from the beginning of time been dedicated towards defending women from hostile male energy. In our rush to make war seem fun and "equal" in our gaming lives we have lost sight of that basic truth. That we live in a time when it has been perverted in the name of equality is unfortunate, and, for gamers, all the worse that it has bled into gaming as well. It's a war on men and the male libido and aforementioned natural role is what it is.

A caveat: I'm happy to be inclusive of women players and women characters. I even mostly prefer women warriors dressed like they're serious rather than sex-pots (Frank Frazetta aside). Women in serious armour/uniforms can be just as sexy--in some cases moreso, because they convey an attitude of reality to them whereas most cheesecake fantasy art conveys a "Wha? What world does that make sense in?" And of course women (someone mentioned the Scythians a few threads back) have and can participate in war and fighting. So it's not women I take an issue with as such, it's the assumption that because we've reached the modern state of secular enlightenment, that all bets are off and women as a class (not as a tiny subset of women warriors) don't need protecting by men--even in anachronistic fantasy!

Deophaun

2017-07-25, 12:28 PM

That is a serious concern and your not helping. :smallyuk: Not cool.
Sorry. Next time I'll say it with my sunglasses on.

Dragonexx

2017-07-25, 12:29 PM

You are very terrible at arguing a point. To the point where I'm not really sure what it is your arguing.

For the record I'm on the side of doing whatever makes you and your play group have fun. If that involves realism or selective realism, whatever. (I prefer to go for a more JRPG feel in my games).

Also, for the record, sexualization ≠ objectification.

Ashiel

2017-07-25, 01:21 PM

Ok, let's discuss the examples. Comments in red :

Bored now, i'll skp the rest.

Soo far that have all been cases of either reasonable armor or no armor at all.

I hate to brake it to you, but people not actually wearing any armor are not unrealistic. Neither does anyone here argue that skipping armor for more comfortable clothing in contexts outside of battlefields is somehow suicidal.

Seriously, why are you linking lots of pictures with people in everyday clothing in a thread about unrealistic armor ? What is that supposed to be a proof for ? That not everyone all the time wears armor including people who actually own some ?
Point is, these look like typical adventuring, swashbuckling, D&D-appropriate pictures. They're either wearing little armor or no armor at all. By the large they are no more or no less likely to die than the woman in this picture right here (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/30/8a/f2/308af26521b731c6a1b152904db1bfa1--fantasy-artwork-female-art.jpg), or this woman right here (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4f/62/53/4f6253c109dd27e2d7d3fb904917dcaa.jpg).

Which simply put means what's good for the goose is good for the gander (or perhaps the other way around in this case). I'm just asking for some honesty through consistency. See, it all comes down to this right here...

Someone claimed that wearing little armor and/or impractical armor in a fantasy setting where they would be expected to do battle meant they were going to die, and that the artists and authors were ignorant, and those who liked it, stupid. However, if that were true, then these individuals would be more or less assumed to be dead as well, since we can clearly see in the images they are prepared for battle, some actively engaging in battle, or otherwise armed and wearing little else beyond a thick coat.

If these individuals aren't assured to be pushing up daisies, neither are those barbarian ladies I linked a couple paragraphs ago. If anything, slaughtering your enemies with little regard for your personal safety is a trope unto itself. This is especially true in the context of fantasy, where your flesh can withstand blades (to the point that there are even some game mechanics that specialize in this fact (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/paizo-barbarian-archetypes/invulnerable-rager/)).

Ashiel

2017-07-25, 01:36 PM

If I say “my father” does that mean I own my father? You're being too touchy.
Yeah, do you have any idea how fast it gets old referring to my siblings as "the brother who happens to be born to the same mother and father as I, and I sharing a similar kinship. Also the woman, who in sharing a mother and father with us both," as opposed to "my brother and sister"? Yeesh.

Frankly, if the damsel in distress trope ever goes the way of the dodo, it'll be a sad day indeed. It will be the moment when people no longer care. It won't matter if some lady was kidnapped by the dragon, the brigand, the troll. Nobody cares enough about her to go save her anymore. Maybe it'll just be the dude in distress trope from that point forward. The only characters worth saving will be male. Just Mario and Cloud Strife. Screw Princess Peach and the cloud she flew in on. :smalltongue:

Because when you get right down to it, the core of the damsel in distress trope is caring. Someone or something took someone you loved and you're driven to dive into the depths of hell itself to rescue them. You do not undertake the hero's journey because some orc kidnapped your mule. You do not fight off dragons and demons to protect your baseball card collection. You do not risk death itself because someone stole your favorite chocolate bar. No, you face the wrath of the satan by putting your life on the line for someone that means so much to you that they are irreplaceable. In other words, someone like your wife, daughter, etc.

"Hunt them down? Find them? Kill them? Pfft, heavens no. My daughter's a modern woman. She'd never want to perpetuate those tired old tropes," (http://www.menstylepower.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/taken-quad1.jpg) said no one ever.

SaurOps

2017-07-25, 01:41 PM

I wish I could not believe that culture has degenerated this far, that the wonderful, perennial “damsels in distress” is a controversial, nigh taboo trope.

The trope in question gets tired easily, and now occupies a space akin to 4chan.

As in, remember when 4chan was good? Trick question, it was never good. The benefits of hindsight. Centuries of hindsight.

It's like we want our women to be ravished by monsters now, unless they can defend themselves because they are Super Duper Warriors.

That doesn't even follow at all, unless you started from the assumption that they weren't capable of it on a wide scale, on the basis of sex and gender, and worked your way back from there.

My point is friendly male energy has from the beginning of time been dedicated towards defending women from hostile male energy.

You can imagine anything, unbound by history or bias, and you imagine more of the same?

In our rush to make war seem fun and "equal" in our gaming lives we have lost sight of that basic truth. That we live in a time when it has been perverted in the name of equality is unfortunate, and, for gamers, all the worse that it has bled into gaming as well. It's a war on men and the male libido and aforementioned natural role is what it is.

You're whining about not being on the top of the heap or having your wants systematically placed above others'. It's not particularly dignified.

A caveat: I'm happy to be inclusive of women players and women characters. I even mostly prefer women warriors dressed like they're serious rather than sex-pots (Frank Frazetta aside). Women in serious armour/uniforms can be just as sexy--in some cases moreso, because they convey an attitude of reality to them whereas most cheesecake fantasy art conveys a "Wha? What world does that make sense in?" And of course women (someone mentioned the Scythians a few threads back) have and can participate in war and fighting. So it's not women I take an issue with as such, it's the assumption that because we've reached the modern state of secular enlightenment, that all bets are off and women as a class (not as a tiny subset of women warriors) don't need protecting by men--even in anachronistic fantasy!

Why do other people have to deal with your baggage at the table, cluttering up where they could sit down?

Ashiel

2017-07-25, 03:53 PM

That doesn't even follow at all, unless you started from the assumption that they weren't capable of it on a wide scale, on the basis of sex and gender, and worked your way back from there.

Part of that's ingrained in our biology, because while there's no mechanical limitation to our games, there are certain facts concerning the physical strength and power of men and women on the average. In fantasy it largely doesn't matter since you can have female barbarians suplexing ogres, or throwing fireballs, and so forth. However, it's very ingrained in the collective consciousness of humanity that women are both worth protecting and more likely to need protecting.

And before anyone flips out, the same is true for men who are venturing further into feminine biology. Male to female transexuals regularly have to deal with the loss of muscle and physical strength (https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/362sgy/lets_talk_about_muscle_loss_on_mtf_hrt/) as the amount of testosterone in their bodies declines and estrogen escalates. EDIT: The reverse is also true. FtM transexuals who get more testosterone tend to have an easier time building physical strength as well.

So no, they weren't capable of it on a wide scale. Sometimes you find women who are really strong and are ready to kick all manner of ass and might not have gotten kidnapped to begin with, but not only are those women a minority among women but it's largely irrelevant to story telling since the characters in the stories are of some importance outside of being heroes. They're loved ones, or are of some higher purpose than the hero themselves (such as the classic saving the princess, since the princess is traditionally more important than the hero rescuing them, hence putting oneself into danger for the greater good).

EDIT: Also, have some art (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d1/6a/5e/d16a5e48dbb24cbb3b272c3eb79f594a.jpg).

Lord Raziere

2017-07-25, 05:54 PM

I'm sorry - but arguing about the artwork of armor in fantasy RPG games being too revealing and/or unrealistic on a forum based on a stick figure webcomic is a serious concern? I think you might be taking it TOO seriously.

Only if you have no sense of perspective. the pen is mightier than the sword. words hurt more than any stick.

If I say “my father” does that mean I own my father? You're being too touchy.

Saying all princesses do is make babies is like saying all princes do is wage war. I know which I'd rather be doing.

I wish I could not believe that culture has degenerated this far, that the wonderful, perennial “damsels in distress” is a controversial, nigh taboo trope. It's like we want our women to be ravished by monsters now, unless they can defend themselves because they are Super Duper Warriors. My point is friendly male energy has from the beginning of time been dedicated towards defending women from hostile male energy. In our rush to make war seem fun and "equal" in our gaming lives we have lost sight of that basic truth. That we live in a time when it has been perverted in the name of equality is unfortunate, and, for gamers, all the worse that it has bled into gaming as well. It's a war on men and the male libido and aforementioned natural role is what it is.

A caveat: I'm happy to be inclusive of women players and women characters. I even mostly prefer women warriors dressed like they're serious rather than sex-pots (Frank Frazetta aside). Women in serious armour/uniforms can be just as sexy--in some cases moreso, because they convey an attitude of reality to them whereas most cheesecake fantasy art conveys a "Wha? What world does that make sense in?" And of course women (someone mentioned the Scythians a few threads back) have and can participate in war and fighting. So it's not women I take an issue with as such, it's the assumption that because we've reached the modern state of secular enlightenment, that all bets are off and women as a class (not as a tiny subset of women warriors) don't need protecting by men--even in anachronistic fantasy!

your spewing bull on how we're making "war" on male stuff, yeah thats says more about you, that you hurl the accusation than it does about me. and as well as bull about "how we're saying women don't protecting." and men do not need protecting? that somehow all men are born warriors? do you know that its ok for men to not be strong all the time? that its ok that a man is not a warrior, that they don't fight? there are many men that don't ever fight anyone, and I imagine they live happy lives not being strong or a warrior. fighting is for the trained, not for people with penises. a penis does not inherently mean your fit for the training or for going into combat. there are men who are pacifists, who genuinely stand by their code to never harm another, are they denying their "rightful role"?

and what "monsters" do you speak of? other men? what separates one from the other? how can anyone tell what is "good" or "bad" "male energy"? everyone makes decisions, and the thing separating a good person from a bad person is their decisions not some imaginary energy. its more bull to cover up your own issues. get over it. there is more to your identity than how strong you are, more to men than what you romanticize them to be, and more to women than your worries for them.

Because men ain't all macho badasses who protect everyone ever.

Sorry. Next time I'll say it with my sunglasses on.

If you think that would solve anything your sadly mistaken.

Yeah, do you have any idea how fast it gets old referring to my siblings as "the brother who happens to be born to the same mother and father as I, and I sharing a similar kinship. Also the woman, who in sharing a mother and father with us both," as opposed to "my brother and sister"? Yeesh.

Frankly, if the damsel in distress trope ever goes the way of the dodo, it'll be a sad day indeed. It will be the moment when people no longer care. It won't matter if some lady was kidnapped by the dragon, the brigand, the troll. Nobody cares enough about her to go save her anymore. Maybe it'll just be the dude in distress trope from that point forward. The only characters worth saving will be male. Just Mario and Cloud Strife. Screw Princess Peach and the cloud she flew in on. :smalltongue:

Because when you get right down to it, the core of the damsel in distress trope is caring. Someone or something took someone you loved and you're driven to dive into the depths of hell itself to rescue them. You do not undertake the hero's journey because some orc kidnapped your mule. You do not fight off dragons and demons to protect your baseball card collection. You do not risk death itself because someone stole your favorite chocolate bar. No, you face the wrath of the satan by putting your life on the line for someone that means so much to you that they are irreplaceable. In other words, someone like your wife, daughter, etc.

"Hunt them down? Find them? Kill them? Pfft, heavens no. My daughter's a modern woman. She'd never want to perpetuate those tired old tropes," (http://www.menstylepower.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/taken-quad1.jpg) said no one ever.

If one's compassion stops at a pretty face intimacy and a flowing dress, one is not caring at all.

You seem to be fond of art, let me show you mine, the things that real heroes fight to save rather than some damsel:

The poor, the downtrodden (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjPkbiHtqXVAhVC3mMKHUjbBxYQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fidlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F03%2Fpoverty.html&psig=AFQjCNECwNNpii2cYSdAy7xZPhApyHwyKA&ust=1501106041095339 )

the sick (https://mcbertarelli.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/il-trionfo-della-morte.png)

the defenseless (http://img06.deviantart.net/1f35/i/2011/209/d/9/vikings_attack_by_targete-d41wrcs.jpg)

In these three pictures are things more worth caring for than all the scantily clad sexiness or princesses in the world: common people suffering at the hands of violent death and destruction or being worn down by the horrible environment around them, regardless of gender. regardless of age. the plague does not know your private parts. poverty does not care whether your voice sounds deeper. invaders only care as far as what entertainment they can get before you die. nor does any of this care if your ugly as sin or as pretty as an angel. suffering is suffering, and everyone is deserving of being saved- but everyone also has the potential to be the savior, and why limit your chances by arbitrarily cutting potential saviors in half? "only the women are in danger, men are safe to risk their lives!" said no one ever. "only the pretty women you know are worth protecting, forget everyone else!" said no one ever.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-25, 06:29 PM

If one's compassion stops at a pretty face intimacy and a flowing dress, one is not caring at all.

You seem to be fond of art, let me show you mine, the things that real heroes fight to save rather than some damsel:

The poor, the downtrodden (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjPkbiHtqXVAhVC3mMKHUjbBxYQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fidlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F03%2Fpoverty.html&psig=AFQjCNECwNNpii2cYSdAy7xZPhApyHwyKA&ust=1501106041095339)

the sick (https://mcbertarelli.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/il-trionfo-della-morte.png)

the defenseless (http://img06.deviantart.net/1f35/i/2011/209/d/9/vikings_attack_by_targete-d41wrcs.jpg)

In these three pictures are things more worth caring for than all the scantily clad sexiness or princesses in the world: common people suffering at the hands of violent death and destruction or being worn down by the horrible environment around them, regardless of gender. regardless of age. the plague does not know your private parts. poverty does not care whether your voice sounds deeper. invaders only care as far as what entertainment they can get before you die. nor does any of this care if your ugly as sin or as pretty as an angel. suffering is suffering, and everyone is deserving of being saved- but everyone also has the potential to be the savior, and why limit your chances by arbitrarily cutting potential saviors in half? "only the women are in danger, men are safe to risk their lives!" said no one ever. "only the pretty women you know are worth protecting, forget everyone else!" said no one ever.

To expand on this...

The problem isn't the "in distress" part, it's the "damsel" part. Sometimes a person is in distress, and another person can step up to help them.

When the stories almost always made the person in distress a young attractive helpless female, and the rescuer a virile assertive powerful competent male... one starts to get the impression that the story isn't really about the distress.

Ashiel

2017-07-25, 07:18 PM

If one's compassion stops at a pretty face intimacy and a flowing dress, one is not caring at all.
Why would it?

You seem to be fond of art, let me show you mine, the things that real heroes fight to save rather than some damsel:

The poor, the downtrodden (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjPkbiHtqXVAhVC3mMKHUjbBxYQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fidlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F03%2Fpoverty.html&psig=AFQjCNECwNNpii2cYSdAy7xZPhApyHwyKA&ust=1501106041095339 )

the sick (https://mcbertarelli.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/il-trionfo-della-morte.png)

the defenseless (http://img06.deviantart.net/1f35/i/2011/209/d/9/vikings_attack_by_targete-d41wrcs.jpg)

In these three pictures are things more worth caring for than all the scantily clad sexiness or princesses in the world: common people suffering at the hands of violent death and destruction or being worn down by the horrible environment around them, regardless of gender. regardless of age. the plague does not know your private parts. poverty does not care whether your voice sounds deeper. invaders only care as far as what entertainment they can get before you die.
Incidentally, most of these things aren't things heroes can go fight in the traditional sense. You do not fight a plague, you at best try to cure it. Similarly, poverty and disease are unlikely to spur people to action in the same way that the loss of an individual does, unless you can pin the cause on someone. While surely trying to put an end to these things is compassionate, it's not compassionate at the same raw level. It doesn't evoke the same emotions.

It's like watching a dog jump in to protect their human from a bear or some other beast much larger, much stronger. It's that raw passion and willingness to die for that person. It's the braveness in the face of danger. And it's not against some abstract ideal such as "put an end to sickness" or "end poverty".

I'm not really going to touch much on the roving invaders thing because that gets into the grim realities of what is likely to happen to captured prisoners of an invading force. If the force is malign, then they probably do treat women as property and spoils of conquest, but the males are probably murdered. Suffice to say that all this does is extend the trope out to a bigger threat.

nor does any of this care if your ugly as sin or as pretty as an angel. suffering is suffering, and everyone is deserving of being saved- but everyone also has the potential to be the savior, and why limit your chances by arbitrarily cutting potential saviors in half?
You're preaching to the choir. I never suggested otherwise. I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with the damsel in distress trope because it resonates with people for very real reasons. Nothing about it is diminishing. Nor does it specifically require a male protagonist. I'd even say that it doesn't require a female in the damsel role. This hatred of the trope is silly at best, IMO.

"only the women are in danger, men are safe to risk their lives!" said no one ever.
Well, unless lifeboats were involved. :smalltongue:

"only the pretty women you know are worth protecting, forget everyone else!" said no one ever.
Nothing about the trope requires it to be a pretty woman. That said, Cloud Strife is definitely pretty so I'm game.

Ashiel

2017-07-25, 07:25 PM

To expand on this...

The problem isn't the "in distress" part, it's the "damsel" part. Sometimes a person is in distress, and another person can step up to help them.

When the stories almost always made the person in distress a young attractive helpless female, and the rescuer a virile assertive powerful competent male... one starts to get the impression that the story isn't really about the distress.

Worth noting that the trope is heavily associated with chivalry and the desire to be worth something as a protagonist. There is a sort of personal and social value in bravery. Further, the idea of having someone willing to brave terrible hazards like a dragon for you is quite appealing. Most people aren't attracted to cowards.

I have to admit that I wouldn't mind being rescued by a fine young knight.

SaurOps

2017-07-25, 07:30 PM

Part of that's ingrained in our biology,

Son, don't try to sell that to me. I am a biologist.

because while there's no mechanical limitation to our games, there are certain facts concerning the physical strength and power of men and women on the average. In fantasy it largely doesn't matter since you can have female barbarians suplexing ogres, or throwing fireballs, and so forth. However, it's very ingrained in the collective consciousness of humanity that women are both worth protecting and more likely to need protecting.

It also doesn't matter on the scale of the game's granularity, or

And before anyone flips out, the same is true for men who are venturing further into feminine biology. Male to female transexuals regularly have to deal with the loss of muscle and physical strength (https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/362sgy/lets_talk_about_muscle_loss_on_mtf_hrt/) as the amount of testosterone in their bodies declines and estrogen escalates. EDIT: The reverse is also true. FtM transexuals who get more testosterone tend to have an easier time building physical strength as well.

This isn't the same thing as endogenous hormone production or response. I can't really talk for trans people, but I will note that taking thyroid pills every day doesn't seem to bring me very near where having an actual thyroid gland would. I can't really say, because I've never had a thyroid gland, but it was a total pain to deal with inflexible responses of physicians sticking to standard dose response curves of people with proper endocrine systems.

Ultimately, culture and individual activity plays a major part here, and the former often ends up substantially encouraging or discouraging the latter. You know what men who step up to physical training get? Nothing but enthusiastic encouragement; when you get swole and pass another threshold of maxing out, people are happy. Judging by what I've heard, it's the exact opposite when a woman does it, and no small number of people will look at a woman with the slightest extra bit of muscle mass and judge her to be "manlike". This is ridiculous; even if one sex has any advantage in hormones (variance says it's not often nearly so clear cut), adding extra muscle mass doesn't make a woman manlike. It makes her a woman with additional muscle mass.

So no, they weren't capable of it on a wide scale. Sometimes you find women who are really strong and are ready to kick all manner of ass and might not have gotten kidnapped to begin with, but not only are those women a minority among women but it's largely irrelevant to story telling since the characters in the stories are of some importance outside of being heroes. They're loved ones, or are of some higher purpose than the hero themselves (such as the classic saving the princess, since the princess is traditionally more important than the hero rescuing them, hence putting oneself into danger for the greater good).

EDIT: Also, have some art (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d1/6a/5e/d16a5e48dbb24cbb3b272c3eb79f594a.jpg).

You know what's more important than muscle mass as such? Being active and developing fighting skills and teamwork. Strong individuals, by and large, do not dissuade attacks. Earlier hunter-gatherers had much more capable individuals, but they lost out to large amounts of agrarian folk. Slings hit harder than swords, and don't care about plate armor, and you really only need practice to use them. You just need a coordinated line with spears, knives, and the willingness to stick anyone who gets near them, and eventually, firearms and explosives take self defense to a dimension way closer to fireballs and magic missiles. But the beliefs of some people that women shouldn't be in combat, justified by tautologies, hold back a lot of people who could probably fight back.

Deophaun

2017-07-25, 07:33 PM

If you think that would solve anything your sadly mistaken.
I actually thought you were a Poe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

scalyfreak

2017-07-25, 07:47 PM

Ultimately, culture and individual activity plays a major part here, and the former often ends up substantially encouraging or discouraging the latter. You know what men who step up to physical training get? Nothing but enthusiastic encouragement; when you get swole and pass another threshold of maxing out, people are happy. Judging by what I've heard, it's the exact opposite when a woman does it, and no small number of people will look at a woman with the slightest extra bit of muscle mass and judge her to be "manlike". This is ridiculous; even if one sex has any advantage in hormones (variance says it's not often nearly so clear cut), adding extra muscle mass doesn't make a woman manlike. It makes her a woman with additional muscle mass.

I know it's off topic to the thread, but I had to comment on this: It's a lot better than it was. At least if you talk to the guys who actually are there at the gym lifting along side with us, and who know the basics or more about fitness and the rudimentary science behind building muscle. The attitude you describe seems more and more confined to a certain type of opinionated man who often doesn't frequent the gym himself, and who knows nothing about lifting or how to build strength by building muscle.

But most of the guys at my gym, and the male friends and acquaintances of mine who lift regularly, are more than supportive of any woman who wants to learn about lifting, and will happily help her educate herself on the benefits, and help her get started. And we will all fist bump and congratulate her the first time she is increases the max weight on her squats. Every ability score bump is to be celebrated, after all.

Note that I'm speaking from my own personal experience and that the experiences of other female gym rats may very.

Back on topic.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-25, 07:58 PM

Worth noting that the trope is heavily associated with chivalry and the desire to be worth something as a protagonist. There is a sort of personal and social value in bravery. Further, the idea of having someone willing to brave terrible hazards like a dragon for you is quite appealing. Most people aren't attracted to cowards.

I have to admit that I wouldn't mind being rescued by a fine young knight.

First Chivalry actually just means "horsemanship". as in "I'm skilled a fighting on a horse." and the stratified codes of chivalry only came to be after knights were no longer a thing. when chivalry was actually bandied about as a social expectation, it changed completely depending on the situation and the person defining chivalry to the knight, and basically could be defined as "whatever my lord wants me to do so I don't get kicked out of the castle."

Second its not a valid trope. your personal preferences have nothing to do with this. personally I wouldn't care if I was rescued by an ugly rogue wielding a rusty sword and he found me unattractive as a donkey as long as he saves my life and fights evil for the right reasons. I wouldn't care if nothing came of it, because I don't expect soldiers or police men or firefighters to fall in love with people they rescue. I expect them to rescue people, to do their job, regardless of what it gets them.

Third, true compassion is not for the shallow. fights are more than just what you think them to be, and suffering is more than what you define it as. a dragon has no reason to kidnap anyone- it just burns and eats people alive. a princess is nothing but a morsel with shiny wrapping to them. if you only help because of a pretty face and not the mind underneath- thats not compassion.

Fourth, it resonates no more. Princess Peach, to my knowledge can participate in mario's adventures as a playable character in at least three games to my knowledge for years now, and kick just as much ass. there is no sign of her stopping this any time soon. Zelda is playable in Smash Bros, and was Sheik before then. if you have a character, they should do things. think of the world as a fairy tale, and all you get is Sansa Stark. there she waited in King's Landing, waiting for her knight save her from the evil Joffrey, from wicked Cersei, no knight came, her brother Robb died before he could get there because he was an idiot, then she was snatched away by Littlefinger. nothing but a pawn, a small thing holding onto internal power, to each existential victory against the surrounding events, for no strong knight is going to save her, so she must save herself from despair. there is nothing glamorous about nobility and knights, kings and queens. there is only power, and everyone's attempts to get it.

Ashiel

2017-07-25, 08:04 PM

Son, don't try to sell that to me. I am a biologist.
Then you should know that humans are a sexually dimorphic species where males and females have not only different appearances but different size and strength norms as well.

This isn't the same thing as endogenous hormone production or response. I can't really talk for trans people, but I will note that taking thyroid pills every day doesn't seem to bring me very near where having an actual thyroid gland would. I can't really say, because I've never had a thyroid gland, but it was a total pain to deal with inflexible responses of physicians sticking to standard dose response curves of people with proper endocrine systems.It's a pretty huge difference. :smallannoyed:

You know what's more important than muscle mass as such? Being active and developing fighting skills and teamwork. Strong individuals, by and large, do not dissuade attacks. Earlier hunter-gatherers had much more capable individuals, but they lost out to large amounts of agrarian folk. Slings hit harder than swords, and don't care about plate armor, and you really only need practice to use them. You just need a coordinated line with spears, knives, and the willingness to stick anyone who gets near them, and eventually, firearms and explosives take self defense to a dimension way closer to fireballs and magic missiles. But the beliefs of some people that women shouldn't be in combat, justified by tautologies, hold back a lot of people who could probably fight back.
Presumably those would be the protagonists. :smallamused:

Lord Raziere

2017-07-25, 08:15 PM

Then you should know that humans are a sexually dimorphic species where males and females have not only different appearances but different size and strength norms as well.

We also have different brains on mental spectrums and skin colors from various different environments and climates. Some of us like the same sex. So what? Still human above all. and thats more important than the dimorphism, just as how we're human is more important than whether or not we're light or dark skinned or whether we have blue veins, or this or that. what unites us is always more important than what divides.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-25, 08:17 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-25, 08:24 PM

We also have different brains on mental spectrums and skin colors from various different environments and climates. Some of us like the same sex. So what? Still human above all. and thats more important than the dimorphism, just as how we're human is more important than whether or not we're light or dark skinned or whether we have blue veins, or this or that. what unites us is always more important than what divides.

Agreed.

And... it's kinda interesting that we're starting to see some of the tropes of "traditional male and female roles" poke out from behind the curtain of "you prudish hypocrites, how dare you judge other people's tastes!" and "it's all subjective, how dare you pretend otherwise!"

Not surprising given past experience with these discussions... but interesting.

:frown:

Lord Raziere

2017-07-25, 08:25 PM

Much like the "Samurai ideal" (and the role of the ideal Japanese wife as housemaid and mother only) post-dates the era of Samurai seeing regular battlefield action. So much of what the Japanese of the 1800s believed to be true of those who came before them, was a pure fiction of the 1800s. (Simplifying the dates here a bit to avoid a long tangent.)

Yeah... the concept of "the knight in shining armor winning fair maiden's hand" has actually become a bit toxic in some ways, as well. You end up with some men who think that if they can just "save" a woman, they've "earned" her... and some women who expect to be "saved" and end up waiting forever or stuck with the first creep who "saves" them from something.

1. Aye. and guess what? cowboys follow a similar pattern. the cowboy ideal and the stories of the wild wild west probably only came about after it ended, with wild west films coming out decades after the wild west stopped being a thing. so Cowboys, knights and samurai are just three variants of the same romanticized masculine knight errant. they even all have their own version of iaijutsu (the cowboy equivalent is quick draw showdown at high noon) (jousting for the knight version) if you compare them.

2. Aye, there is a reason why there is a term called "white knighting." I've also heard of a tactic where a scumbag intentionally has their wingman be a "monster" so that the guy can "swoop in" and "save" the woman from the wingman, essentially the pick up artist version of a two man con.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-25, 08:37 PM

Ashiel

2017-07-25, 08:38 PM

First Chivalry actually just means "horsemanship". as in "I'm skilled a fighting on a horse." and the stratified codes of chivalry only came to be after knights were no longer a thing. when chivalry was actually bandied about as a social expectation, it changed completely depending on the situation and the person defining chivalry to the knight, and basically could be defined as "whatever my lord wants me to do so I don't get kicked out of the castle."
Am aware of the root of chivalry. However, you and everyone else knows that the common usage of the term describes a sort of character.

Second its not a valid trope.
What is an invalid trope? :smallamused:

your personal preferences have nothing to do with this.
I think it has everything to do with enjoying stories.

personally I wouldn't care if I was rescued by an ugly rogue wielding a rusty sword and he found me unattractive as a donkey as long as he saves my life and fights evil for the right reasons.
Nothing about being amused by the thought of being rescued by your knight in shining armor (of varying degrees of practicality) means that you can't appreciate good gestures in general. Being rescued because it's their job doesn't quite have the same romantic appeal as being rescued because you were the inspiration for their heroism.

I wouldn't care if nothing came of it, because I don't expect soldiers or police men or firefighters to fall in love with people they rescue. I expect them to rescue people, to do their job, regardless of what it gets them.
Maybe it's because I'm a bit of a romantic.

Third, true compassion is not for the shallow. fights are more than just what you think them to be, and suffering is more than what you define it as. a dragon has no reason to kidnap anyone- it just burns and eats people alive. a princess is nothing but a morsel with shiny wrapping to them. if you only help because of a pretty face and not the mind underneath- thats not compassion.
Depends on the dragon, I'd imagine. If the daughter of the king is more precious to him than all the gold in the land, a dragon might take her just for the sport of it, or perhaps to put that love to the test (which would suck for pretty much everybody in a kingdom). You're also very caught up on this pretty thing aren't you? I never mentioned anything ugly or pretty. :smallconfused:

Fourth, it resonates no more. Princess Peach, to my knowledge can participate in mario's adventures as a playable character in at least three games to my knowledge for years now, and kick just as much ass. there is no sign of her stopping this any time soon. Zelda is playable in Smash Bros, and was Sheik before then. if you have a character, they should do things.
What's your point? Mario's been the damsel before. Cloud Strife has been the damsel. Hal Emmerich has been the damsel. This idea that being rescued means you're not important is not only a stretch but it's actually pretty off the trope. Generally the folks who end up in a DiD situation are actually very important for one reason or another. Having everyone who is captured be a badass superhero isn't particularly appealing either.

Likewise, nothing about being the damsel implies you can't do things. That's adding to the base concept in a different direction.

think of the world as a fairy tale, and all you get is Sansa Stark. there she waited in King's Landing, waiting for her knight save her from the evil Joffrey, from wicked Cersei, no knight came, her brother Robb died before he could get there because he was an idiot, then she was snatched away by Littlefinger. nothing but a pawn, a small thing holding onto internal power, to each existential victory against the surrounding events, for no strong knight is going to save her, so she must save herself from despair. there is nothing glamorous about nobility and knights, kings and queens. there is only power, and everyone's attempts to get it.
I don't have HBO and I don't read a Song of Ice and Fire, so I've no frame of reference to address this.

That Aside: You asked some posts back what problem people had with you. I asked what you meant, you never responded, but I'm noticing a pattern to your posts. They're negative. Indignant. Outraged. Judgmental. Utterly humorless. I said that the notion of a handsome knight coming to rescue me was appealing. You try to ruin the good time by insisting that you would feel no amusement at the notion, better to be rescued by someone simply because it was their job or that they were inclined to do so. You aren't the judge, jury, and executioner of people's fun and fancies, but you do project the intention well enough.

I've no problem with you. I really don't. But I'm left wondering how often you smile. Your posts evoke an image of someone who rarely smiles. Who gets angry over things that don't matter. Maybe that's not you, but since you asked, I'm telling you what I see. Maybe it's just concern. In any case, here's some more topic art.

Image #1 (http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/utena/images/1/16/Utena.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110629191601)
Image #2 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/92/09/55/920955ff07fbdc6e32e3005d22ce5773--fantasy-heroes-fantasy-warrior.jpg)
Image #3 (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/87/2d/89872df101224a50ed4039b37b79d8dc--fantasy-heroes-fantasy-characters.jpg)

Ashiel

2017-07-25, 08:39 PM

Ashiel

2017-07-25, 08:47 PM

Agreed.

And... it's kinda interesting that we're starting to see some of the tropes of "traditional male and female roles" poke out from behind the curtain of "you prudish hypocrites, how dare you judge other people's tastes!" and "it's all subjective, how dare you pretend otherwise!"

Not surprising given past experience with these discussions... but interesting.

:frown:

It's all art. It would be more concerning if I stand up for one but not the other.

SaurOps

2017-07-25, 08:51 PM

Then you should know that humans are a sexually dimorphic species where males and females have not only different appearances but different size and strength norms as well.

Sexual dimorphism in humans is actually pretty low. There is a pronounced neoteny in humans that keeps us pretty close together in most respects, most notably in height and weight. So close that without environmental factors, there's not nearly so much of a difference, and much as with most purported in-born differences between populations, they are the true drivers, here.

It's a pretty huge difference. :smallannoyed:

I can attribute way more to cultural differences as a subsection of environmental influence on a complex trait. Specifically, women are often encouraged to eat less, stay thin, and, as noted, not engage in activity that would result in hypertrophy, coordination, or most forms of independent action. Moreover, in the past, women were also the first to be denied food and resources, and more likely to be victims of infanticide. The veneer that you take for granted as a "rule of nature" was manufactured by a long sequence of cultural drives, and you seem hell bent on not questioning it.

Presumably those would be the protagonists. :smallamused:

Nope. The inhabitants of Tatara/Iron Town and their like. Crowds of people could do this, without social pressures moving against them.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-25, 08:54 PM

Why do you think our dimorphism should divide us? :smallconfused:

I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. With this single post I'm highly doubting your honesty in this discussion. I made a post talking about the value of one thing and you ask why I believe that opposite when thats clearly not the case. That is not something some one does debating in good faith.

My emotional makeup has nothing to do with this discussion. Again you make me suspicious of whether or not your engaging me honestly with this discussion by attempting emotional manipulation. I do not appreciate this and I have seen someone try this on me in the past, mentioning various traits as if they are faults, trying to get me to focus on myself, perhaps react in a way they desire to be beneficial to their side of the argument, I am not falling for it.

I suggest you don't continue this line of discussion.

1337 b4k4

2017-07-25, 09:05 PM

OK, now I'm annoyed.

I think I've been a voice of moderation in this increasingly heated thread. My point has been "Art is subjective. Like what you want, but understand some people think the unrealistic armor is silly, breaks immersion and can be sexist."

I'll be honest I'm quite confused why you're annoyed at me, given that we're about 90-95% in agreement.

So then I was asked, where, pray tell, is this sexist art? Like it was hard to find.

So I presented the COVER of the first edition CORE RULEBOOK of the MOST POULAR fantasy RPG. I didn't find a picture scribbled in the margin of a third party supplement for FATAL. I figured this was a prominent example which was both silly and impractical and sexist.

And as I clarified, in the very post you quoted, my objection was never that bad fantasy art existed. My objection was this idea that has been floated that it comprised the majority of the artwork for a game. I also made it clear that our dispute over this point appeared to stem from my failure to separate your specific argument from the similar but broader arguments made by other posters, and apologized for that confusion and the lack of clarity in my own posts. So again, I'm not sure why you're annoyed at me.

To be clear, we agree on the following:

1) Art and the quality thereof is subjective
2) People can like different things, and that's ok
3) Bad fantasy art depictions of women does and did exist, both in early D&D and many other TTRPGs

What my point of contention is, and what I was originally arguing:

4) That when a minority of artwork in a product is bad with representing a group, that the product as a whole should be considered hostile to that group.

Or put simpler, I contend: TTRPGs with bad depictions of women in fantasy art exist. TTRPGs with a majority of bad depictions of women in fantasy art are either non existent or extremely rare and rightfully panned by the community at large. Acting as if our industry is (or was) dominated (either in volume or popularity) by TTRPGs with a majority of bad depictions of women in fantasy art is damaging not only to the valid discussions to be had about TTRPG art, but also to the entire hobby as a whole.

Now, I never said that means you shouldn't like it. Just that it's a good example of what I don't like, and what people seem to be denying exists.

If people are denying that art exists, it's people other than me. I have repeatedly acknowledged its existence since my very first post on the second page of this thread.

Liking it is fine. That's a matter of preference. But the defense of it is ridiculous.

Now here we disagree. If it is "fine" to like something, then by definition it is defensible. If something is not defensible then I can not think of any scenario where it would be "fine" to like it.

"this woman I know is OK with it" which is the "I'm not a racist; some of my best friends are black" defense.

You asked me how I would feel as a women viewing the AD&D 1e cover. As I am not a woman, I could not realistically give an answer, so I gave you the answers I got from the real women I game with, it seemed relevant. I also acknowledged that their experiences were not necessarily universal. If you didn't want actual women's experiences, that's fine, but then you shouldn't have asked the question.

Art is subjective. Like what you want. But impractical clothing or armor can look silly, break immersion and can be sexist.

I never disputed otherwise. Just that "silly", "immersion breaking" and "sexist" are also subjective to the viewer.

All of this is incredibly true, and this is indeed a problem of the people, not the art... But. One thing I feel should be added to this is that if there is anything that might encourage these people to seek out roleplaying communities, and to make them think their views are in any way acceptable there, that is an issue that might deserve a look.
And if the art we use for our games does, in the eyes of those creeps and predators, reinforce their worldviews, by stating sexy as an important aspect of quite a lot of female characters, going so far as to impede on logic/versimilitude for a lot of people, in a way that the male counterparts don't do nearly so frequent - then changing the artwork won't make these guys any less creepy or predatorial (Nor keeping the artwork perfectly nice guys into creeps). But the change might just make it so that they don't feel like "this is the community for me".
Creeps getting the wrong message about their behaviour is a sideeffect of cheesecake pictures, not the main intention, obviously. Not a very strong one, probably. You can try to argue that the benefit of cheesecake pics is larger than the negative sideeffects (Probably would need studies that don't exist to corroborate either side. Or a way to weigh the two against each other). I will side-eye you if you do that, but that is rooted in the way I weigh these things.

I'll be honest, this reads to me like "Satanic Panic" dressed up in new clothes and with a different target. And frankly making decisions about how your game will be put together because of the possibilities that some bad people might do bad things with that game is no way to make a game. If these creeps and predators are feeling that the TTRPG community is welcoming to them, that's a failure of the community to enforce basic human decency standards. And TTRPGs should not feel hamstrung in their artistic endeavors just because some terrible person might take it the wrong way.

(Another thing is, a handful of examples of Armor more suited to a catwalk than a fight might just be enough to make a person that wants realistic armor roll their eyes, groan, and be turned off. A handful of examples of functional, realistic armor are, I think, very unlikely to have the same effect on people that enjoy the sexy ones.
With the forseeable result that, no, people who want functional armor do not have all of the opportunity to look at their stuff, when even the stuff that is generally good about these things insists on throwing in a handful of cheesecake pictures. RPG illustrations generally don't come in packs of one inside the books.)

And this reads like an argument that the only viable option is to not have cheese/beefcake picture at all. Either everyone is welcome at the table of TTRPGs or no one is. Any individual game is of course free to make whatever decisions they want to make, and any individual gamer, group and table are free to make their own decisions about what they will or won't buy or tolerate. But the argument that we should reduce the range of artwork in TTRPGs because some people might not like it is a non-starter for me. Pick your favorite and least offensive fantasy artwork you can think of and I bet you you could find someone who takes issue with it. There is ALWAYS someone who can get more offended or turned off, and trying to avoid offending anyone is a road that leads to madness.

Which isn't to say we should be going out of our way to offend either. To quote myself from page 2: "Like most things in life, the key is moderation."