Mistwalker's page

It's likely the developers feel that most questions about Take 10 are sufficiently answered by the core rules themselves and therefore don't merit further attention.

I think it's less that they feel the rules are clear in every circumstance, and more that they like leaving some things somewhat vague so that each DM can tailor it to his game.

For nosig:

Time required to take 10:
Sean K Reynolds (Developer): "Taking 10 requires only as much time as making one check."

Is the action I'm performing a distraction?
Sean K Reynolds (Developer): "Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things."

Can I Take-10 on opposed rolls, like Stealth?
Sean K Reynolds (Developer): "It's really no different than being a lazy player with a +9 Stealth rogue who thinks he can take 10 on a Stealth check past a guard because he thinks the guard is just some +2 Spot loser... except he doesn't know the guard is actually an important NPC with a +10 Spot. You take 10 when you believe an average roll will succeed; if it turns out that belief is wrong, you'll suffer the consequences."

The issue of depictions of women (and sometimes men) is complicated because there is a big blurry line between what is against someone's personal aesthetic, and what most people with consciences can agree is exploitative and potentially hurtful.

I have seen images in fantasy books and comic books where my initial, gut reaction is, "AUGH, that is AWFUL and DEGRADING." Usually it is because a woman is posed unrealistically so as to show off her breasts or crotch in a way she could not possibly be doing (comic books are notorious for this) and/or because she is being depicted as weak. A lot of early fantasy game art was criticized not because it depicted sexy women, but because it consistently depicted sexy women tied up with their erogenous zones on display--with no "heroic women" images to counteract this image of the sexed up victim. Women were objectified, NOT because they were showing some curves, but because they were being depicted consistently as objects of desire and domination and absolutely nothing else.

Now, the first picture that Darwinism linked to, of Seoni? My initial, gut reaction to THAT was, "Wow, that is gorgeous." I saw a beautiful woman with a serene look on her face, in a reasonable, realistic, humanistic pose. And yes, she has nice boobies too. (So do I, actually, even if I lack Seoni's figure, and I've got no problem showing them off on occasion.)

So for me, I know there is a line somewhere between where I say, "Oooh, pretty," and "WTF were they thinking?" or even, "If I ever meet the artist that drew this, I'm kicking him in the balls." But the "Ooh pretty" part, for me personally, goes well into the area where we can see some decolletage and skin on the women and rippling pecs on the men. Some folks just don't enjoy that kind of artwork, but "doesn't enjoy" doesn't necessarily mean "bad for everybody."

Where the line between "pretty" and "offensive" is drawn, I think is in context and respect for the subject matter.

There is some artwork I've seen in Paizo's books where I've gone, "Really? I think that's indecent." But it's very, very infrequent (I think they learned their lesson that one time). WotC's D&D books more frequently had something I found objectionable (I remember in Cityscape (I think) a very busty woman being strangled by a goblin, and the way the scene was laid out, her cleavage was the focal center of the artwork. THAT was in poor taste for multiple reasons).

For the most part, most of the artwork in Paizo's books I'm fine with. I do think the "witch" looks more like a hooker at a Renaissance festival than an actual practitioner of arcane hexes, but I don't actually find her offensive. She's at least standing tall and confident, and it's a nice drawing that clearly took a lot of work to produce.

Most importantly, I am certain all of Paizo's iconic women, by the way they are described and depicted, are capable of whupping ass and taking names and are NOT victims. I am certain they are indeed examples of heroes, and this is SO very important. And I absolutely am glad that we have Ameiko and Sheelah and other depictions of women who aren't scantily clad and hope that also keeps up--it shows a diversity of women all being kick ass. If all the iconic women were dressed like exotic dancers and all the iconic men were clad head to toe in fur, I'd be screaming out "double standard!" for all to hear.

Come to think of it, for the men, we've only got Seltyiel showing a lot of skin, and I DO think Paizo needs to change that. Who's with me for petitioning Paizo for Shirtless Valeros?

(Women can be horny sex-driven consumers too. And as I swing both ways, I'd be hypocrite if I didn't say I found some of Paizo's depictions of women very appealing.)

TL;DR: There is a difference between celebrating human(oid) beauty and depicting people as objects. Showing off boobies does not necessarily mean someone is an object. It CAN, but it doesn't have to. Context and respectfulness are something to bear in mind. Sometimes Paizo could do better, but they usually do a great job keeping this balance, in my personal opinion.