"This is all very interesting stuff... but I still think there should be more scantily clad females :)"


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

201 to 250 of 564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

krissbeth wrote:
You must understand that a lot of my ire is also because the "zomg hot chicks!" reaction is SO in line with the mouth-breathing-basement-dwelling-troglodyte gamer stereotype that many try to defy. *shudder*

It was mentioned upthread that this sort of thing could end up marginalizing Paizo's sales, and you claim that it makes gamers look like troglodytes, despite the fact that the male-attraction-to-females thing is being used to market car races (the various 'NASCAR babes' that jump up and down and greet the drivers), football teams (via scantily-clad bouncing cheerleaders), wrestling (see NASCAR, only even less sensibly-dressed and more silicon-enhanced), Fox Business Network (check out the lack of plain women, or any men!), fashion (no plain girls, sensibly dressed, on the catwalk, either), music / rap videos (do they really make that slapping noise in the studio by having girls in short shorts smack their bums? I suspect not.).

In short, it's not gamer that are 'mouth-breathing-basement-dwelling-troglodytes,' it's men in general. And it sure hasn't hurt the financial juggernaut that is Superbowl Sunday that the cheerleaders wear skirts and show off, or the ticket sales of Entrapment that Sean Connery was obscured on the poster by the sight of Caterina Zeta-Jones derriere.

The problem you describe isn't Paizo, or gamers, or even gamers-who--happen-to-also-be-troglodytes. It's the half the planet that are men, men who, for the most part, aren't patriarchal overlords, demanding that women behave or dress in a certain way (barring the middle east, where women are dressed up, hidden from sight, denied rights and, occasionally, beaten to death for dressing or acting in a way that the local menfolk don't approve of). As a non-practitioner of shaira law, I don't feel personally responsible for any sort of oppression that has happened to the female gender, just as I, despite my white coloration, don't feel particularly guilty about the whole slavery thing, because I had nothing to do with it. Raised in a household as the only male, surrounded by opinionated and passionate women, all of whom worked to support themselves without any big, strong man to 'help them' (and still are, for that matter) I wouldn't have made it past childhood if I had the sort of anachronistic misogynistic views you seem to be projecting upon the 'men in this thread.'

I don't need to be judged or punished because some guys where once jerks (and some still are), just as I don't blame you, krissbeth, for what the Byzantine Empress Irene did to her son, just because you and she happen to both be female. I don't bear the cross of every sin ever committed by a man against a woman, and throwing that in our faces, as if any of us are responsible for some overbearing patriarchy, is kinda silly.

You'd never have to worry about women being depicted in a sexual fashion, if we lived in an oppressive backwards patriarchy, since the sight of a woman's skin would be forbidden, and *pictures* of women would be similarly forbidden (as they are in Saudi Arabia).

I strongly doubt that this is the sort of world that you are wanting to turn us into, or the sorts of men that you want your fellow gamers to become, and yet it is *exactly* where your line of reasoning has led, time after time, throughout history. Treat women as invisible, as objects to neither be seen, nor heard, instead of recognizing them as fellow human beings, as free to show their faces (and speak their minds) as anyone else, and the world becomes an uglier place, in every sense of the word 'ugly.'

In Europe, nudity is far more acceptable, with some countries not even having a designation for 'nude beach,' since nudity on the beach is the norm, not the exception. And population rates are *down* across the continent. Seems that all that exposed flesh isn't driving all those troglodyte men insane with uncontrollable lust. In fact, the opposite occurs. We aren't tantalized by what we see everyday. The sight of a woman's body isn't forbidden or dirty or sinful, and trying to make it so only encourages people to fantasize about what they aren't seeing.

Skip the mystery. Girl parts, boy parts, they're all just parts, none naughtier than what God gave us, what we were born with. You say that it is juvenile to appreciate the female form, and yet the very definition of juvenile is someone who is sexually immature and *bloody well wouldn't appreciate the female form* because he's probably five and thinks that 'girls have cooties.'

IMO, *that* is the gamer stereotype we should move away from, that all gamers are sexually-repressed 40-year-old virgins, hiding in their mamma's basements, instead of being sexually-mature human beings like everyone else.

If football players can have pom-pom-shaking cheerleaders and concertgoers can have gyrating 'backup singers' and genre TV fans can have Caprica Six/Seven of Nine/Dark Angel/Faith the Vampire Slayer, why is it male gamers that are 'troglodytes' for having the same healthy adult sexual interests as *everyone else?*

Dark Archive

There needs to be more hot dragon cheesecake. }; )
The cover of the gazetteer is a step in the right direction.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Set wrote:
krissbeth wrote:
You must understand that a lot of my ire is also because the "zomg hot chicks!" reaction is SO in line with the mouth-breathing-basement-dwelling-troglodyte gamer stereotype that many try to defy. *shudder*

... the male-attraction-to-females thing is being used to market car races (the various 'NASCAR babes' that jump up and down and greet the drivers), football teams (via scantily-clad bouncing cheerleaders), wrestling (see NASCAR, only even less sensibly-dressed and more silicon-enhanced), Fox Business Network (check out the lack of plain women, or any men!), fashion (no plain girls, sensibly dressed, on the catwalk, either), music / rap videos (do they really make that slapping noise in the studio by having girls in short shorts smack their bums? I suspect not.).

<snip>

The problem you describe isn't Paizo, or gamers, or even gamers-who--happen-to-also-be-troglodytes. It's the half the planet that are men, men who, ...

Only the men? My wife's fashion magazines and cosmetics are marketed in the same way. ... Oh, I know, that's because these women have learnt to see themselves through the patriarchal gaze. Poor them. They've been duped by patriarchy and need more intelligent and critical women to show them why. ... Dirty little secret about the second wave feminists -- they thought most women weren't as bright as them.


Chris Mortika wrote:
And, for wat it's worth, I have a lot fewer issues with the cover of Pathfinder 2 --Seoni as a competent sorceress, just walking-- than I have with some of the interior art for Seoni. Take a look at Alpha 3, page 65, for gosh sakes.

I'll be the first to admit that Seoni is a bit out there in general. I also am not suggesting that Paizo should try and sex up their product to market primarily to the baser elements. I agree page 65 of the Alpha is OTT.

Keep in mind that Paizo has a set of stock artwork which they've been developing, when they first started Pathfinder they had no iconics. Their early artwork was based on the iconics they had at the time, as a result there is much more artwork with Seoni and Valeros than any of the other iconics. Their newer artwork has a bigger "cast" of iconics to choose from so you will see more of Meriseini(sp?), Lini, and the rest of the crew.

The Beta has no art budget so expect it to be much the same as the Alphas but the final product I understand is budgeted to have quite a bit of original artwork.


Glad things are calming down and we can have a civil debate.

I think if you polled the gaming community at large many male gamers would agree that the buxom, scantily clad female adventurer isn't a realistic one. (Lyddia is a great example of one who is.) That being said it wouldn't change their tastes or desire to see more.

And if every male subject looked like Conan things would get boring. (The whole too much bulk to fit in the hallway thing.)

Aside from the gaming community the comic book industry (closely tied to RPG) has an overabundance of buxom heroines/villains. Again, realistic - no, gravity defying - yes. They aren't making much of an attempt to change, but Paizo has already. They should be applauded for that.

Shout out the positives about what you like seeing and any smart company will sell you more. However expect that other people will be doing the same, and their tastes may be different.

Scarab Sages

Please also recall that the argument of the sexualization of a woman's body as denigrating is not actually a closed topic in the academic world of women's studies.

Showing women as 'damsels in distress' or the object of desire/reward/moral uplift/corruption is fairly conclusively, seen as denigrating.

But, it is not such a clean call saying that sexualizing women when they are also shown as actors in the drama and power players in the milieu is sexually denigrating. Consider carefully the historical proof that women have used sexual power for the entire history of the species as a means of compensating for having less physical power. In prehistory, entire societies were matriarchal primarily because men couldn't understand that their sexuality was just as necessary to reproduction of the species as women's sexuality.

Viewed with that in mind, is it truly ridiculous for a female drow to use her sexuality as a method of maintaining control over the weaker, less favored males of her species (who somehow also drew the further weakness of still being as sex-driven as males of other humanoid races)? Is Seoni really that foolish for dressing herself in a way that maximizes the likelihood that her male companions will sacrifice themselves to protect her survival because they believe her provocative dress indicates interest in mating with them? Especially when you consider that her ability to cast spells would be retarded by wearing something more practical (like full plate armor)?

I concur that the depiction of women warriors in impractical garb fails to succeed logically in a society where the sexes are evaluated solely on their ability to deliver their primary product (for warriors--the ability to kill another being with force of arms). In that hypothetical society, a woman warrior with the same genetics as a modern human is at a huge disadvantage from the get-go because she has approximately 25% less muscle mass and 20% less bone density as well as being approximately 10% smaller. Her only real advantage biologically is not apparent in a medieval setting (greater blood volume producing reduced risk of lost consciousness at high-G maneuvers). Worst of all, her secondary sexual characteristic (breasts) interfere with the use of most melee and ranged weapons (why Amazons performed mastectomies to support archery in myth) and her reproductive organs render her vulnerable to scent-based predation one week every 28 days for her entire physical prime. For that reason, women warriors can not be plausibly evaluated solely on their ability to deliver their primary product.

This is demonstrated in fantasy gaming by three adjustments to reality:
1) Removal of sex-based difference in game mechanics. It only exists for flavor (height/weight/beard, etc.) but has no impact on the playability of the character.
2) Emphasis of feminine sexuality in marketing depictions and miniature designs to encourage role-playing that provides the advantage sexuality provides women in the power game with men in our human society.
3) Determined relegation of the sexual component of human relations to the side-line of the game or complete exile altogether, thereby confirming female sexual power as a 'secret magic' to be used, as desired by those playing female characters. When my female halfling rogue needs to get out of a tough scrape, she can flirt her way out of it with a ton more credibility than a male character. (BTW, thats part of what makes Sean Connery's James Bond so fascinating to academia--he's the first male protagonist to get his way primarily through deploying his sexual power and not his competence at his primary purpose.)

I would highly recommend we try and consider, as modern feminism does, the power that sex offers women and recognize just how much we have feminized all of our society, in part, by being selective about the biological realities we emphasize and which realities we suppress.

As a final example, I would offer the portrayal of Guinevere in the recent movie King Arthur. In that movie, a thin, pretty Guinevere arches arrows with equal strength as her burly Celt warriors and, when hard pressed by a Saxon warrior in hand-to-hand combat, holds her own despite giving up more than 100 pounds in weight and a ton of muscle mass. That was popularly accepted, not viewed as sexist, and hailed as a fine depiction of a woman warrior.

How sexist was it to insult the male warrior with this ridiculous presentation?

While many argue that Lara Croft is a 'fanboy fantasy' she is also a totally unrealistic depiction of the degree to which a female of her age and physique could engage in hand-to-hand combat with steroid-enhanced martial artists who spend their entire lives focusing on combat in the most desperate straights without becoming a smear on the wall. This is a way of society as a whole endorsing the idea that male power is matched and superceded by female power; after all Lara Croft wins in these battles while also retaining her sexual power and feminine beauty.

In the end, there is a lot more to this than a simple 'chain mail bikinis are cool' or 'Red Sonja is a fanboy fantasy' can depict.


As a gamer who plays both male and female characters, I've found that the interesting part of a PC is the personality rather than the naughty bits. Whether it's Seoni's slinky gowns or Kyra's practical mail and robes, the interesting part is Seoni bickering with Valeros, or Kyra confronting the tragedies of her past. Story and character trump T&A every time, IMHO. There comes a point where sexuality and gender has to become a part of the game rather than an offense or an obsession.

It's just as prejudiced to shun a product for scantily-clad art as it is to buy a product for scantily-clad art. Roleplaying is the theater of the mind's eye...so why use pictures as a basis for judging a game's worth? I think we need to concentrate less on what we want fantasy to look like, and more on what we want it to embody.


Set wrote:


In short, it's not gamer that are 'mouth-breathing-basement-dwelling-troglodytes,' it's men in general. And it sure hasn't hurt the financial juggernaut that is Superbowl Sunday that the cheerleaders wear skirts and show off,

The problem you describe isn't Paizo, or gamers, or even gamers-who--happen-to-also-be-troglodytes. It's the half the planet that are men, men who, for the most part, aren't patriarchal overlords, demanding that women behave or dress in a certain way (barring the middle east, where women are dressed up, hidden from sight, denied rights and, occasionally, beaten to death for dressing or acting in a way that the local menfolk don't approve of).

Actually it is also a pretty common cliché that football players and jocks are mouth breathing troglodytes. Then again, I remember my girlfriend quite enjoying herself with copies of Playgirl, maybe she is a mouth breathing troglodyte too? Fortunately for me she normally uses a stuffed animal when she clubs me...

Even though it is perhaps not done as blatantly as in the case of women, men are often set up as sex symbols, too. Witness the number of times William Shatner had his shirt ripped in Star Trek. Or David Boreanaz was shown shirtless in Buffy. Or how Leonardo diCapprio has been used in practically everything he has participated in since The Quick and the Dead. The media is not blind to what it has to gain from titillating women as well.

In my own biased, grumpy, antiquated and misanthropic opinion, the biggest problem isn't women or men being used as sex objects but 1) the imbalances between them and 2) that so much of what you see is tasteless and overly sleazy pap. It is possible to create attractive and sexy images even with fully dressed men and women, it is just a common copout to try to achieve a titillating effect with unrealistically proportioned monstrosities in thongs armed with supersized weaponry. I strongly dislike these last as I do not find them in the least attractive and in most cases actively insulting.

Scarab Sages

Sutekh the Destroyer wrote:

As a final example, I would offer the portrayal of Guinevere in the recent movie King Arthur. In that movie, a thin, pretty Guinevere arches arrows with equal strength as her burly Celt warriors and, when hard pressed by a Saxon warrior in hand-to-hand combat, holds her own despite giving up more than 100 pounds in weight and a ton of muscle mass. That was popularly accepted, not viewed as sexist, and hailed as a fine depiction of a woman warrior.

Sutekh, I really enjoyed reading your post, you make a lot of insightful comments.

So I feel bad for focusing on something so innane.

I did not accept Guinevere in King Arthur at all. (Sort of along the lines of Legolas outdrinking Gimli in Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Not in my fantasy!) It was ridiculous to the point of laughter, and was so obviously an attempt to make her a more "powerful" character through physical ability that it came off to me as sexist (for exactly the reason you describe). If they had shown her as more agile due to size, taking advantage of males center of gravity, and using archery more fitting to her obvious physical ability, I would have bought it.

But Guinevere, in a way, has always been a prime example of the historic "power of female sexuality". In the legend, she brings down an entire kingdom because of a liason with another man, and Arthur's inability to deal with it.


Tarren Dei wrote:
Set wrote:
krissbeth wrote:
You must understand that a lot of my ire is also because the "zomg hot chicks!" reaction is SO in line with the mouth-breathing-basement-dwelling-troglodyte gamer stereotype that many try to defy. *shudder*

... the male-attraction-to-females thing is being used to market car races (the various 'NASCAR babes' that jump up and down and greet the drivers), football teams (via scantily-clad bouncing cheerleaders), wrestling (see NASCAR, only even less sensibly-dressed and more silicon-enhanced), Fox Business Network (check out the lack of plain women, or any men!), fashion (no plain girls, sensibly dressed, on the catwalk, either), music / rap videos (do they really make that slapping noise in the studio by having girls in short shorts smack their bums? I suspect not.).

<snip>

The problem you describe isn't Paizo, or gamers, or even gamers-who--happen-to-also-be-troglodytes. It's the half the planet that are men, men who, ...

Only the men? My wife's fashion magazines and cosmetics are marketed in the same way. ... Oh, I know, that's because these women have learnt to see themselves through the patriarchal gaze. Poor them. They've been duped by patriarchy and need more intelligent and critical women to show them why. ... Dirty little secret about the second wave feminists -- they thought most women weren't as bright as them.

Funny. People said the same thing about the First Wave and Women's Suffrage.


Chris Mortika wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Hmm... Whether I buy a product or not I really could care less about what that says about the communities "image".

Hi, Dennis. I'd like to raise a quick point.

As I mentioned on the "Monte Cook on Sexism" thread, I used to be the supervisor for a junior-high gaming club, 2/3rds of which were girls (who'd been introduced into the hobby through DragonLance novels, by the way.) and what was their favorite game?

Shadowrun. When I asked them why, they couldn't articulate their reasons, but I paid attention, and they felt welcomed by the Shadowrun artwork, which showed competent women in sensible outfits.

Now, some of them were sexy, competent women, in tight, sensible outfits. But they weren't "cheesecake". Closer to home, Amiri's a beasutiful woman showing skin, but she's not posing on tiptoe, arching her back.

From a sheer profit stand-point, pin-up PC portraits were a disincentive for the girls. The more that Paizo uses sexy-qua-sexy art, the fewer sales they'll make among that demographic.

If you want more women in the RPG hobby, if we want more people buying Pathfinder product, then let's not throw art at them that they'd rather not see.

And, for wat it's worth, I have a lot fewer issues with the cover of Pathfinder 2 --Seoni as a competent sorceress, just walking-- than I have with some of the interior art for Seoni. Take a look at Alpha 3, page 65, for gosh sakes.

God, THANK YOU, for this post.

Why would a company or community want to alienate a whole, young demographic of potential gamers and consumers?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

krissbeth wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
Dirty little secret about the second wave feminists -- they thought most women weren't as bright as them.[/ooc]
Funny. People said the same thing about the First Wave and Women's Suffrage.

People said that first wave feminist's insulted the intelligence of the women they claimed to be struggling for? I'm asking. It wouldn't surprise me. A lot of politically active individuals assume that the people who they are trying to lead would see things their way if they weren't suffering under a 'false consciousness'.

Hopefully we're beyond that.

Now, Krissbeth, my question is do you believe that Paizo should not publish sexualized pictures of women or should publish more diverse images of women?


krissbeth wrote:
Why would a company or community want to alienate a whole, young demographic of potential gamers and consumers?

If you have a proven marketing model which works are you going to risk that model for altruism and the possibility of getting into a theoretical market?

I guess it depends on where you draw the line, personally I think it's entirely possible to make a product that is appealing to both audiences. For example, the cover of Pathfinder 3 is appealing to nearly everyone. She is cute and looks like she's down to business.

Have you looked are more recent offerings by Paizo?


"" wrote:
the biggest problem isn't women or men being used as sex objects but 1) the imbalances between them

If you look at the Chinese/Taoist philosophical concept of Yin/Yang,

EVERYTHING is balanced, there's no way around it. So it's not so much imbalance, as 'highly assymetric' balance, with side-effects that you might not like. 'Completely symmetric' balance would be rather boring anyways (see 1984, as mentioned).

The trick is being able to use the assymetrical features of the 'terrain' to find maximum freedom and novelty. Regimes (and potential ones) which claim to effect 'complete justice/equality' or somesuch, only perpetuate their own power (to control the frame(s) of reference.) Same with attempts to construct unitary identities... Look at the Mormon church. (Though such forces might be inevitable, they're not the whole story.)

The entire progress of "Women's Rights", having taken place over the past century or so, has of course occurred under the backdrop of every category of society more-and-more being organized under one paradigm, "the individual"/capital accumulation (as opposed to distinct sub-systems with their own internal logic) - Thus why the Eugenecists in the 20's felt "Market Forces" would eventually achieve their ends. Certainly modern capitalist society couldn't exist without the increased participation of women, though obviously neither could it without the continuation of the worst conditions of servitude (see in impoverished former colonies)

(anyhow, that's getting a bit off the topic from Pathfinder covers :-)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Tarren Dei wrote:
Now, Krissbeth, my question is do you believe that Paizo should not publish sexualized pictures of women or should publish more diverse images of women?

Are they not already doing this though? Kyra, Merisiel, Seelah, or even Lini epitomize different "looks" for female characters then do Seoni or Amiri (or even Queen Ileosa Arabasti).

Dark Archive

Sutekh the Destroyer wrote:
As a final example, I would offer the portrayal of Guinevere in the recent movie King Arthur. In that movie, a thin, pretty Guinevere arches arrows with equal strength as her burly Celt warriors and, when hard pressed by a Saxon warrior in hand-to-hand combat, holds her own despite giving up more than 100 pounds in weight and a ton of muscle mass. That was popularly accepted, not viewed as sexist, and hailed as a fine depiction of a woman warrior.

Somewhat ironically, recent research by Geoffrey Ashe, IIRC (it's been awhile, I might be making that name up...) suggests that 'Arthur' was a Romanized Briton, with minimal, if any, combat training, and 'Guinevere' / Gwynhamara was the daughter of a Celtic King, expected to be able to kill with a spear from an early age, regardless of gender, and quite possibly a far more combative person than her husband. Celtic royalty also slept around, regardless of marital status, and were *expected* to have multiple lovers, and it is thought that later Christian Monks, scandalized by her behavior, transformed her into the 'faithess fallen woman who destroyed Camelot' rather than portray her as a sexually-liberated woman who could probably kick 'King Arthurs' butt in an armed fight...

But yeah, the movie sucked, and would have sucked had it been 100% historically accurate.

Random thoughts;
1) It would be an interesting Woman's Studies thesis to pick some multicultural source (say Time magazine, which has editions in multiple countries and languages, or CNN broadcasts) and measure / rate the amount of female sexuality on display, both in the articles and in the advertisements, and then compare and contrast that to the countries in which that media source is published / viewed, to see if there is any correlation at all between sexualized content and the state of women's rights in the respective countries. Obviously I can point to Saudi Arabia as an example of a country where women's bodies are never to be depicted, and women are property, and Denmark as a counter-example, where nudity is unobjectionable and women can vote, work, choose who they marry, choose to divorce, own property, etc., but those examples don't prove any sort of causal relationship between a culture that accepts the viewing of women and a culture that accepts the *rights* of women.

2) Seoni's dress is horribly impractical. Lini, Kyra, Seelah and Merisiel look much more practical, and, IMO, both the Cleric and Paladin look better than Seoni (Meri just looks unhealthily thin, but since she's not human, I guess that's an elf thing). I'm not a big fan of the Pamela Anderson look, even if Seoni doesn't look quite *that* fake...

And Amiri needs to wear some chest armor. What the heck is up with that? Seoni *can't* wear armor, so she's got a pass for at least choosing to dress with style, but Amiri has no excuse not to be wearing some sort of chest piece! (Sajan also went for the exposed midriff look, but he's a darn Monk, so he can't wear armor either.)

3) The fantasy / sci-fi genre is the one that has brought us Xena, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Aeryn Sun, Seven of Nine, Lt. Ellen Ripley, etc. all strong, powerful, (and occasionally enticingly-clad females) who have regularly saved the butts of hapless *men,* sometimes even male characters who have similar super-powers (such as Buffy saving one of her vampire boyfriends) or male characters who are supposedly more capable (Ripley saving various macho marines in Aliens) or males who are their peers (Aeryn saving John Crichton, often from his own harebrained plans) or even males who are very clearly their inferiors in all ways (Buffy saving Xander). Male gamers tend to come from this same pool of geekdom, and are, in general, *vastly* more accepting of strong female characters than the other 95% of men on this planet.

There is a tree to be barked up here, but I think this is one of the least likely ones to be barked up at. Strip clubs and porn might be a better venue to vent one's spleen for capitalizing on degrading or dehumanizing treatment of women that is, in many cases, little more than soul-destroying sh*t for both the 'performers' and the viewers.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Lord Fyre wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
Now, Krissbeth, my question is do you believe that Paizo should not publish sexualized pictures of women or should publish more diverse images of women?

Are they not already doing this though? Kyra, Merisiel, Seelah, or even Lini epitomize different "looks" for female characters then do Seoni or Amiri (or even Queen Ileosa Arabasti).

I think they do. I'm trying to get a grasp on Krissbeth's opinion.

She seems to be saying different things--some that I can get behind and one I'd rather object to.

She's said that there should be warrior women portrayed as warrior women. Great. I agree with that. I want pictures in Pathfinder that this little dragonslayer can model her character after.*

She also seems to be saying that her money won't be spent on magazines that have sexualized images of women. Go Krissbeth. People should make thoughtful decisions about where they spend their money.

She also seems to be saying that Paizo shouldn't publish these sexualized images of women and implying that I'm a troglodyte if I enjoy them. To that I say, 'hey, mind your own desires; these are mine.'

You want more warrior women in sensible footwear? Cool. I want the occasional picture like this. Is there room for both of us?

I appreciate that Paizo has continually said that they would like to see diverse representations -- diverse racially, diverse genderings, diverse sexual orientations. I like that they believe their fanbase intelligent and respectful enough to enjoy and allow both. Go Paizo.

*CUTE KID STORY SPOILERED:

Spoiler:

So, I'm putting the three-year-old to bed last night. She says to me "Daddy. Shut the door." So I shut it. Then she says "Oh no! The door dissappeared!! Now we are trapped!! Get your birthday hat and sword Princess Daddy. We have to go kill the dragon now." ... She's going to make a great DM.

Sovereign Court

I made my mind known on the original thread from which this one was derived, and I'll reiterate: I like scantily clad females, and sensibly clad ones as well. And I've no problem with "damsels in distress," nor with a little role reversal (girls saving the guys).

Give me a little cheesecake, and put some beefcake in the illustrations as well for those that want it. And I wouldn't mind seeing some plus-sized females in the illustrations - variety is the spice of life, after all. Hasslefree put out a great miniature of a plus-sized warrior woman, Liberty, aka Libby. She's very sensibly attired, and armed with a battleaxe that means business. The armored version rocks as well, and there's a version of her as a barbarian (scantily clad, yet!) on the back of a saber-tooth tiger.

I'm all for females in powerful roles, whether in movies, fiction, real life, or RPGs. But don't be offended if I like 'em to show a little skin. Heck, if Conan and Tarzan can go around in leather loincloths, so can the women!

:D

Liberty's Edge

I'd like to say a little about myself.

I'm 29. I'm married. I have a 1 year-old daughter. I do not live in my mother's basement. I have my own place over 1000 miles from my parents and my wife's parents. We have our own basement, and that is where we usually meet for D&D. It is clean, it is usually well-lit, and it works very well for our needs. My wife does not think of me as a barbarian, or a troglodyte, or as someone disrespectful to women, or as a misogynst. Of course, my wife also enjoys 'chesecake' more than 'beefcake' - she likes pictures of attractive women at least as much as I do.

I like depictions of women (and men) that are appropriate for their purpose. Let me share a little more:

http://angband.oook.cz/gfx/artwork/Mistress.jpg

This is a picture by Keith Parkinson, and this is something of an 'ideal' for me. I wish that I could see more art like this. Maybe she could do without any heel, but more or less, I think that this character 'makes sense' in the setting. I think it is obvious that she is attractive. She is showing some skin, but she is also wearing enough clothing. Essentially, she's a human figure that we happen to catch at a moment where her outfit falls in a particular way, and she isn't worried about it.

Now, I know that the artist is male. I know that I am male. I know that there are some women who are offended that art like this exists and are offended that I enjoy art like this. That is what I refuse to apologize for. I do not think that this particular painting is a depiction of a woman as an object.

Hopefully this link works:
Link

This is a picture of a woman that I think is one of the most attractive that I've seen in fantasy art. She isn't showing any skin. I just like the way she looks.

If I have a point, it is that characters should dress in a manner that is appropriate for that character. Paizo should neither shy away from the human form, nor pander with it. Seoni isn't what I want in my fantasy art, but attractive women are. I also want fearsome dragons, and horrifying undead monstrosities, and probably more than I can really explain.

I want fantasy.

I want to see things that are exciting and inspiring and that make we want to be involved with the world.

Women (whether scantily clad or not), and particularly attractive women are one such draw.


Sidebar - I've been discussing this thread with my wife, and though she hasn't gamed in my recent groups I asked her how much artwork impacted her experience as a gamer, a woman, and eventually a mother of a teenage girl. Simple answer - none. Now that's her opinion and she doesn't speak for anyone but herself.

To be more specific she said gratuitous images are everywhere in our world. For her gaming was more about the people we were with and the fun we had. The pictures had very little to do with the game itself.

Interesting that she sees this discussion as two separate items, with only a little overlap.

Now maybe she'll let me out of the basement. I didn't know we had a teenage daughter. ;-) (don't get mad at the last, just chuckle or ignore as you prefer)

The Exchange

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I think the point is made above, but the posters on this thread have not actually created the art in question, they are giving their reaction to seeing it. Attacking them/us for liking hot-looking women (albeit imaginary - but then, a lot of them are) is slightly pointless. Your ire might be better aimed at the people commissioning or publishing said images.
krissbeth wrote:

You must understand that a lot of my ire is also because the "zomg hot chicks!" reaction is SO in line with the mouth-breathing-basement-dwelling-troglodyte gamer stereotype that many try to defy. *shudder*

It's like, "Way to make us all look like desperate, sex-starved nerds. a~*@@%#s."

At least, that's how it comes across to this female. And her sisters. And most of her female friends...

It really doesn't help the gaming community's image. At all.

Yeah, but...

If you play D&D, you are a nerd. Sorry, it is a nerdy passtime. Nothing anybody in this thread is writing changes that - anybody who knows anything vaguely about D&D knows how nerdy it is. And many of us quite like playing to the stereotype, and some of us genuinely are troglodytic types as you say. And if they are happy with it, who the hell are you to criticise? This isn't a dating webiste. If you want to find guys who are cool, you are looking on the wrong website. If you want a cool hobby, try windsurfing.

And this is a thread specifically about the art of Pathfinder, with a view to extolling the virtues (jokingly) of the female characters depicted. If you want a more balanced discussion of sexual politics, you might want to start a new one.

I also notice you didn't bother to engage with my comments re the marketing of Pathfinder. Presumably discussing the issue in its context, rather than denigrating men for being what we are (except Chris - but then he's smoother than the rest of us) would have deflected you from your somewhat puritanical rant.

Don't get me wrong - I think that some of the ways the female characters are depicted (especially spell casters, since they don't wear all of that annoying armour that covers their breasts) is stupid, as it is just impractical if you are fighting and killing things - a nice, practical boilersuit would be a better idea. But I can't get excercised about it as being sexist - yeah, it probably is, but sexual advertising is everywhere. This is a broader societal issue, not one about what dweebs male roleplayers are. And roleplaying is an overwhelmingly male passtime. That might be the marketing, but I doubt it, somehow. So Paizo needs to think - do they go for the established market, or do they try and blaze a trail in the untapped female roleplaying market? One is much riskier that the other.

Frankly, there are more semi-naked, beautiful women in Cosmo than there are in Pathfinder (considering the alleged impact that has on women's notions of body dismorphia and its connection with eating disorders) so I can't really beat myself up about it. In this instance, it is probably less harmful as it is aimed at men, by and large. Frankly, I'm not planning on giving up eating because Seoni has nice knockers.


Krissbeth - I find it odd that your only posts are in this thread. If you're new to the forum so be it, but you're missing out on a whole lot more. Especially as a gaming consumer.

Just curious because there are those that troll the boards under aliases, conducting social exercises in frown reactions and the like.

Hopefully it's just my conspiracy theory side working overtime. If I'm off base I'm sorry that your first interactions on this forum are not very friendly. There's so much more that is good out there.


Emperor7 wrote:

Krissbeth - I find it odd that your only posts are in this thread. If you're new to the forum so be it, but you're missing out on a whole lot more. Especially as a gaming consumer.

Just curious because there are those that troll the boards under aliases, conducting social exercises in frown reactions and the like.

Hopefully it's just my conspiracy theory side working overtime. If I'm off base I'm sorry that your first interactions on this forum are not very friendly. There's so much more that is good out there.

EN World refugee. I can positively say that this thread has immediately turned me off to these forums as well.


krissbeth wrote:
EN World refugee. I can positively say that this thread has immediately turned me off to these forums as well.

I would hope you wouldn't judge an entire messageboard based on one thread - this is a particularly sticky subject no matter what website you happen to be on.


Chris Gunter wrote:
True asexuallism in adults is radically rare and all but a birth defect or mental illness.

Considering the otherwise benign tone of your post, I'll chock this comment up to naivete.

Asexuality is more common than most people realize. "The new gay", I've heard. I know this is rather (completely) off topic, but it's something I think could use more recognition.

Which is to say, not everyone is interested in "getting laid". Most, yes. But not all.

http://www.asexuality.org/home/


Lilith wrote:
krissbeth wrote:
EN World refugee. I can positively say that this thread has immediately turned me off to these forums as well.
I would hope you wouldn't judge an entire messageboard based on one thread - this is a particularly sticky subject no matter what website you happen to be on.

WoTC refugee here. Lilith is right on, and I agree with her wholeheartedly. There is so much more positive on these forums, and this is a touchy subject. I hope you can see past this threads and enjoy the other debates/brainstorming sessions. Some of them can be truly constructive.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
krissbeth wrote:


EN World refugee. I can positively say that this thread has immediately turned me off to these forums as well.

Wow. I've halfheartedly followed this thread without bothering to post, but this comment is just interesting. Have you even read any other threads on this board; I ask since you've only posted here. If this one thread, that morphed into an issue that goes well beyond mere gaming, can you turn you off of a whole forum I just have to say good luck finding another gaming forum that won't turn you off. You'll need it.


Generic Villain wrote:
Chris Gunter wrote:
True asexuallism in adults is radically rare and all but a birth defect or mental illness.

Considering the otherwise benign tone of your post, I'll chock this comment up to naivete.

Asexuality is more common than most people realize. "The new gay", I've heard. I know this is rather (completely) off topic, but it's something I think could use more recognition.

Which is to say, not everyone is interested in "getting laid". Most, yes. But not all.

http://www.asexuality.org/home/

Thankyou for the link. I enjoyed exploring the site.

I am not naive.

Looking at my post now I can see where I may have put a bad tone to it, which was not my intention. If I offended anybody at all I humbly apologize and ask forgiveness. The point I was trying to make is that the vast majority of human adults are sexual. (That emphasis was intentional.)

As for asexuality, there are three types of people who identify themselves as such. First, there are those who are sexual, but choose to be celibate (usually after a bad experience) and have pychological blockers that help with said identification. Second, there are those that, due to low levels of testosterone or leutonizing hormone, find themselves with little to no sex drive. (This seems to be the majorty of people who define themselves as asexual as a social movement, such as the users of the website you provided the address to.) And third, there are those with a complete inability to achieve sexual arousal. This is sometimes called true asexuality (and is what I was referring to).

True asexuality is a birth defect and presents itself through, not only complete disinterest in sexual behavior, but also a complete inability of the body to respond to stimulus. Others who refer to themselves as asexual still respond to physical stimulus, even if they have no interest or take nothing from the experience.

Also, I hope the term "birth defect" is not offensive to anyone. I use the term in a completely medical context, infereing no judgement or value. It says nothing about a person's functionality or value to society, any more than someone with dwarfism, albinoism or deafness. It also only applies to the last example of asexuality.

True asexuality is very rare. It found in less than one percent of the population. Unlike "normal asexuality", which is more common and is not a birth defect (although it can result as a delevelopmental problem of the pituitary gland).

I hope I've made myself a little more clear and I apologize again for any misunderstanding or miscommunuication.

Liberty's Edge

krissbeth wrote:

Some people's idea of "fantasy" is not being objectified.

I love the men in the thread being defensive and telling women that they shouldn't be offended. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

Representations of my sex are reduced to decorative trinkets in much of "fantasy" gaming. f%!@ yeah, that makes it less fun and less enjoyable to this consumer. Women have every right to be angry about it. Become a historically shat on demographic and maybe you'll understand. Educate yourself in women's studies and maybe you'll understand. Clearly, few of you do.

I can see how this thread would turn you off. You obviously have a strong opinion about the subject, and aren't even willing to engage the community with that point of view.

The above doesn't directly reference anything other than the men in this thread. It lumps them all into a group that is undifferentiated and fails to address why they are, as a group, wrong.

To help us troglodytes, perhaps you should clarify your position. I'll try to help.

Is it possible to depict a woman without objectifying her?

Is a depiction of an attractive woman always a sexual image?

Styles of dress and sexuality as well as objectification of women vary from culture to culture. In Hindu religion, the worship of both the male and female form is common, and depictions of both in sexual acts is commonplace. Should Paizo emphasize what is culturally acceptable for the character depicted or what is considered acceptable in the US?

Is it possible to strike a balance of 'cheese' and 'beef', os is any cheese too much?

If you refer to the url listed in my last post, how do you feel about this image? It is not overtly sexual; it is not portraying a woman in an overtly submissive position? Would you like to see more art like this in Pathfinder? Or less?

Some of these questions might help make the debate more productive. But if you're not interested in educating us or engaging us I'm quite happy to see your posts restricted to only the one thread.


Generic Villain wrote:

Which is to say, not everyone is interested in "getting laid". Most, yes. But not all.

http://www.asexuality.org/home/

For the record, I am not intersted in "getting laid". (Don't worry, I didn't take offense.) I'm a 31 year old virgin. Some men really are interested in falling in love and marriage. I'm one of them. And I'm interested in having sex... eventually. But the idea of "getting laid" has always been abhorent to me personally and I want no part of it.

(This carries no judgement towards others. How others live their lives is their own business and none of mine. The choices that work for me may not work, or even be right, for others. My life choices are my life choices and no one elses. Few things mean as much to me as respect for other people and I stand in judgement of no one.)

Liberty's Edge

Dear krissbeth,

I'm sorry to hear that you find the paizo forums, and male gamers in general, so disturbing. In my own personal experience, the gaming community is one of the most progressive, open minded and accepting of white male dominated hobby groups. It's also my experience that people into sci-fi and fantasy are, as a general rule, ahead of the general curve.

While its certainly true that there are sexist men in gaming, there are sexist men everywhere, and few other male-dominated hobby communities have the sort of expectations of egalitarianism that gaming does. The model rail-road builders and muscle car rebuilders don't fret that their hobbies are skewed towards a male demographic. Gamers are the only hobbyists I know of who seem to commonly think they are morally obligated to make the hobby more accommodating to women.

What you demand is, I think, ultimately unreasonable. You wish for the gaming community to not just be ahead of the curve, but to be perfect -- and a very specific idea of perfect that many people don't agree with. I'm afraid that you will be disappointed, but at the same time I don't think anyone in this forum or the gaming community in general is well served by attempting to cater to someone with unreasonable expectations who presumes to assume the absolute worst of anyone who does not share her perspective.

You are, apparently, entirely willing to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and that is an attitude I just can't empathize with. Frankly, it's not an attitude I want to cater to, nor one I want to see the industry cater to. I think it's great that Blue Rose exists. I also think it's great that Conan exists. Ultimately, I'd like to see Pathfinder remain true to its heritage (D&D) and be broad enough to encompass both ideas of fantasy.

Also, since it's a given that we all want to see Pathfinder survive, I think it's helpful to look at the shelves of your FLGS. Count how many Blue Rose books there are compared to Conan books, and try to recognize the reality of the market that paizo must operate in.

Peace,
Gailbraithe


Gailbraithe wrote:

Dear krissbeth,

I'm sorry to hear that you find the paizo forums, and male gamers in general, so disturbing. In my own personal experience, the gaming community is one of the most progressive, open minded and accepting of white male dominated hobby groups. It's also my experience that people into sci-fi and fantasy are, as a general rule, ahead of the general curve.

While its certainly true that there are sexist men in gaming, there are sexist men everywhere, and few other male-dominated hobby communities have the sort of expectations of egalitarianism that gaming does. The model rail-road builders and muscle car rebuilders don't fret that their hobbies are skewed towards a male demographic. Gamers are the only hobbyists I know of who seem to commonly think they are morally obligated to make the hobby more accommodating to women.

What you demand is, I think, ultimately unreasonable. You wish for the gaming community to not just be ahead of the curve, but to be perfect -- and a very specific idea of perfect that many people don't agree with. I'm afraid that you will be disappointed, but at the same time I don't think anyone in this forum or the gaming community in general is well served by attempting to cater to someone with unreasonable expectations who presumes to assume the absolute worst of anyone who does not share her perspective.

You are, apparently, entirely willing to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and that is an attitude I just can't empathize with. Frankly, it's not an attitude I want to cater to, nor one I want to see the industry cater to. I think it's great that Blue Rose exists. I also think it's great that Conan exists. Ultimately, I'd like to see Pathfinder remain true to its heritage (D&D) and be broad enough to encompass both ideas of fantasy.

Also, since it's a given that we all want to see Pathfinder survive, I think it's helpful to look at the shelves of your FLGS. Count how many Blue Rose books there are compared to Conan books, and try...

Well said. Gamers usually have great senses of humor too. Ironic sometimes, misplaced others, but most try to get along with others. Even when we disagree.

Dark Archive

Last time I was on holiday in Thailand the women were pretty scantily clad and objectified. That place is probably many a guys fantasy land, so like...yeah fantasy game and all that ;p

Eh in all seriousness though, fantasy has always had a bit of fan-service, would be odd without it. I think most guys don't mind a lil T&A with their D&D. Hell, in my Conan d20 book every page has a naked chick on it, was rather shocked by that to be honest though.

It's a mostly male hobby, why would they put a bunch of near naked men on the covers? Again, I get enough of that from my Conan book. I'm not saying that they need to slam pics of naked chicks (maybe not the best term) but I've yet to see anything wrong with the art from Paizo.

If someone wants to seriously crusade for the non-objectification of women, much bigger targets lie in the video game and movie industries. Have at it lads and ladies =)

Scarab Sages

Krissbeth has done an admirable job of challenging both the humourous posters and the serious posters to see if they can take being insulted for millenia of oppression of women with which they had no involvement.

She does an even more impressive thing when she manages to ignore the serious discussion of the dialectic between power and sexuality in human society and whether or not it currently reflects a feminization and imbalance in favor of women.

That she can do all that while simultaneously claiming that men do not and can not understand the burdens she faces is almost so sophisticated a piece of sophistry as to make one wonder why she bothers interacting with any Y chromosome bearers at all.

Except that,

in the end, she is stuck with the same biological imperative we all have--how can my cells make more cells like mine?

She is also stuck with the fact that gamers really are a tolerant, thoughtful bunch of humans, who wrestle with statistics and history and attempt to weave them into imagination and fantasy. That is a powerful community to associate with, even if all you can muster is the equivalent of psychic vampirism.

EnWorld refugee turned off by a discussion stretching over several months that takes seriously the question of how we can visually use images to both promote the hobby and refrain from denigrating our own common humanity? Wow, how on Earth can someone responding like that handle the commercials for Carl's Jr? Or watch the nightly news with its benign patriarch anchor and coquette co-anchor? Or purchase a calendar for the new year from anything but the university women's studies department?

For my money, education and reflective thought is essential to improving oneself and our society. That is why I have taken the classes in women's studies, and african american studies, and european studies, and anything else I can get my hands on that offers me the chance to re-examine assumed truth. To grow, we must question. I humbly suggest that Krissbeth take a second look at this thread and notice just how many humans of good will and intent have put time and effort into this topic.

Or, just try smiling once in a while, as the smiley in the topic thread suggests. :)

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

I'm not sure that I buy the assumption that male gamers are a fairly enlightened group of individuals ... I'm not saying some aren't but what is it about this hobby that would turn away sexist creeps? I suspect we are fairly diverse in our attitudes towards women.

I'm also not going to buy the sleight of hand where we point out how badly women are treated in other countries and wait for someone to throw us a cookie and pat us on the head for being less sexist. Through my work, I meet lots of actively religious muslim men who have warm and gentle hearts and object to the objectification of women.

And as much as I enjoy beautiful women, I don't actually think we need more scantily clad females. I share my Pathfinders with my 8 year old boy and the uncomfortable silence in the room is ... well, uncomfortable. (Doesn't mean I don't want any or that I'm a neanderthal if I enjoy looking at them.)

I suspect there are women besides Krissbeth who are turned off by such images. I'm sure Paizo will continue to show heroic women characters. I'm sure Paizo will continue to show heroic characters of different races (and try to avoid stereotypical backstories when they introduce them).


Tarren Dei wrote:
... uncomfortable. (Doesn't mean I don't want any or that I'm a neanderthal if I enjoy looking at them.) ...

HEY!!


Lilith wrote:
krissbeth wrote:
EN World refugee. I can positively say that this thread has immediately turned me off to these forums as well.
I would hope you wouldn't judge an entire messageboard based on one thread - this is a particularly sticky subject no matter what website you happen to be on.

+1

Take any given group with a large enough sample (over 10,000 people on this board) and you are bound to find some who hold views you find offensive. Most people are going to see the title of this thread and skip it. The internet is also a bastion of mis-communication.

Liberty's Edge

Tarren Dei wrote:
I share my Pathfinders with my 8 year old boy and the uncomfortable silence in the room is ... well, uncomfortable.

Paizo's audience is composed almost entirely of males aged 18-34 and up. That is, in fact, their target audience. That is who Pathfinder is aimed at, and they have expressly stated that they aim for a "PG-13" rating.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you shouldn't be sharing age inappropriate material with your boy. And seriously dude, you're showing him stuff that contains stories of psycho-killers who flay people alive, and cannibal clans of hillbilly ogres, and all other manner of pretty gruesome and vile stuff...and you're worried he might get a warped view of women? Seriously?

Look, I was polite in telling krissbeth where she can stick it, but dude: No. You're way out of line. Paizo should absolutely NOT adopt an art policy that starts with the presumption "Is this safe for 8 year olds?"

Do your job, be a parent, filter stuff for your kid. Don't ask the rest of us to live in a world where everything, even violet heroic fantasy adventure, is made safe for the wee little ones just so you can be lazy and show them whatever you want. You can wait a few years before introducing the kid to Pathfinder. Start him off with Kobold Ate My Baby, or something else appropriate for tykes.

Also, am I the only one who finds it weird how often people assert that gaming books need to be made safe for women and children?

The Exchange

I certainly concur that Seoni is certainly much less harmful to the eight-year-old psyche than, for example, the write-up and art accompanying the Zon-Kuthon article.

However, I think we have given Krissbeth sufficient oxygen for her feminist-puritanical views, given that there is a strong whiff of troll about her conduct on these boards (imflammatory posting coupled with a refusal to actually debate, lack of a sense of humour and absence from any other thread where stuff where she cannot be outraged might reside).

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Gailbraithe wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
I share my Pathfinders with my 8 year old boy and the uncomfortable silence in the room is ... well, uncomfortable.

Paizo's audience is composed almost entirely of males aged 18-34 and up. That is, in fact, their target audience. That is who Pathfinder is aimed at, and they have expressly stated that they aim for a "PG-13" rating.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you shouldn't be sharing age inappropriate material with your boy. And seriously dude, you're showing him stuff that contains stories of psycho-killers who flay people alive, and cannibal clans of hillbilly ogres, and all other manner of pretty gruesome and vile stuff...and you're worried he might get a warped view of women? Seriously?

Look, I was polite in telling krissbeth where she can stick it, but dude: No. You're way out of line. Paizo should absolutely NOT adopt an art policy that starts with the presumption "Is this safe for 8 year olds?"

Do your job, be a parent, filter stuff for your kid. Don't ask the rest of us to live in a world where everything, even violet heroic fantasy adventure, is made safe for the wee little ones just so you can be lazy and show them whatever you want. You can wait a few years before introducing the kid to Pathfinder. Start him off with Kobold Ate My Baby, or something else appropriate for tykes.

Also, am I the only one who finds it weird how often people assert that gaming books need to be made safe for women and children?

Come now Gailbraithe, I didn't say Paizo should adopt an art policy suitable for 8 year olds. I just said that I -- notice the 'I' -- don't need more scantily clad women in my Pathfinder. I like what Paizo's doing and trust them to make intelligent choices in their work as they have done so far. You've misread me and then been rude about it.

I believe that people can express personal opinions about what they like as Krissbeth did. (I objected earlier to Krissbeth's suggestion that men are troglodytes, juvenile, etc., if they like something she doesn't.) Too often people storm on here telling us what they don't like in Pathfinder or on the messageboards and how we should change what we see to accommodate them. I'm tired of people proposing this or that should be banned.

So, while I don't need 'more scantily clad females in my Pathfinder', I also object to the censoring attitude that predominates these days.

Now, as to your insinuation that my child who at the age of 8 is reading at a grade 10 level, can play the piano, is physically fit, has a warm heart, loves his parents, and respects others is suffering from bad parenting ...

PG-13 means 'parental guidance for people under the age of 13'. I guide him. Mostly, he's interested in the world building aspects of D&D and we look at those parts of Pathfinder together.

He likes to draw maps of imaginary worlds, invent languages, create characters, and tell stories about them. He likes to take the rules from D&D to have jousting and archery competitions. He likes the heraldry. He likes to draw prizes using the heraldic images of different nobility. He likes to run imaginary shipping companies. He plays in an online PbP with me where we keep it age appropriate. Which of those activities do you find age inappropriate?


Sutekh the Destroyer wrote:


Viewed with that in mind, is it truly ridiculous for a female drow to use her sexuality as a method of maintaining control over the weaker, less favored males of her species (who somehow also drew the further weakness of still being as sex-driven as males of other humanoid races)? Is Seoni really that foolish for dressing herself in a way that maximizes the likelihood that her male companions will sacrifice themselves to protect her survival because they believe her provocative dress indicates interest in mating with them? Especially when you consider that her ability to cast spells would be retarded by wearing something more practical (like full plate armor)?

Okay. First off, the use of sexuality to achieve control is done to gain power when more traditional avenues to power are not available. So, the drow men should be the ones tarting themselves up to get power, wearing the ridiculous shoes and uncomfortable and revealing clothing. I'll be looking to see what art choices are made in the next AP to see if the editors and CEO take the politics of their art as seriously as they take the political implications of their text.

(Consider that Don Juan and James Bond are represented it as doing it for the adventure and fun, not simply to survive. This is opposed to virtually all female sexual adventurers, who may have fun, but the purpose is rarely represented as that; namely, they're scheming to get power that they can't have.)


Speaking as a sexually active heterosexual man, I find the assumption that men can't be sexy and attractive in fantasy art work lest people stop buying kind of annoying. I find it annoying that the assumption is that men can't fantasize about enjoying being admired for their physique. I find it annoying that people are assuming that men are so insecure and fragile that they will run away shrieking from the gaming store if they are represented like Conan (or the cited men of Planet Stories) in art illustrations. Are men really so uncomfortable with their bodies that they can't stand looking at an attractive, partially clothed man?

It's almost as annoying as having 12+ hyper-sexualized female images to 1 sexualize male image in Paizo's Gamemastery and Pathfinder lines... which I support for their quality and for their politics.

Scarab Sages

Just thought I'd throw another female opinion into the mix :), though I know my boyfriend has much the same opinions as we've tossed this topic around with respect to illustrations in AP a couple of times. I have no problem with scantily clad females, or other female depictions with a bit of a sexual overtone, where it's appropriate to the character/situation. My main problem is that it's so frequently utterly inappropriate for who they are. In particular I really hate female characters in submissive poses without a decent personality/plot reason (something I don't think Paizo are particularly guilty of), and armour that follows the same shape as lingerie (putting characters in corsets/thongs/stockings/suspenders with a metallic sheen and calling it armour just really annoys me)

I've just gone through all my CotCT books (would have gone through Runelords, but I'm going to be play it eventually so I shouldn't spoiler myself any more than I already have by frequenting these boards :), and made a list of all the art depicting women that made me roll my eyes (about as close to offended as I get), and another list of all the art depicting women I really like.

Spoilers for CotCT (well, character names):

Spoiler:

Eye-Rolling:
PF 7: Sabina Merrin
PF 8: Lady Andaisin, the girl with the crossbow in the Abadar article
PF 9: Laori Vaus
PF 10: Cinnabar
PF 11: None
Iconics: Seoni, Amiri (though these are relatively minor, Seoni has a something of an excuse since she's wearing robes, albeit really inconvenient ones, and I mostly quite like Amiri, I just can't quite get over that exposed midriff and tops of thighs on a front-line beatstick)

Good:
PF 7: Zellara, Trinia
PF 8: Grey Maiden, Vendra Loaggri, Jolistina Susperio
PF 9: Vimanda Arkona
PF 10: None (though there's some nice pictures of Seelah)
PF 11: None
Iconics: Merisiel, Kyra, Seelah, Lini

This probably doesn't prove much other than how inconsistent I am what with Cinnabar showing barely any flesh at all, whilst Vimanda is wearing a bikini-type top (what can I say, I find Vimanda utterly breathtaking, loveloveLOVE that picture). just thought it was kind of interesting.

At the end of the day it seems to me like Paizo are aiming to have one 'fanservice' type picture per book, and if that improves their sales, then frankly, so long as they keep including other depictions of women and keep giving everyone an interesting personality, that's fine by me.

EDIT: Just wanted to say Roguerouge's point above is an excellent one, I've always found it a little peculiar that lots of women will profess to appreciating pictures of attractive women, but so few men seem to admit appreciating their own gender. Though on the other hand, I'm not particularly after beefcake, I'd much rather see someone like Valeros, attractive, well-built but not excessively muscular and clothed sensibly, than some bulked up "hunk" in a loincloth. I guess that's more about how my taste in men runs than anything though, I've never been a fan of muscley...


Set wrote:


Somewhat ironically, recent research by Geoffrey Ashe, IIRC (it's been awhile, I might be making that name up...) suggests that 'Arthur' was a Romanized Briton, with minimal, if any, combat training, and 'Guinevere' / Gwynhamara was the daughter of a Celtic King, expected to be able to kill with a spear from an early age, regardless of gender, and quite possibly a far more combative person than her husband. Celtic royalty also slept around, regardless of marital status, and were *expected* to have multiple lovers, and it is thought that later Christian Monks, scandalized by her behavior, transformed her into the 'faithess fallen woman who destroyed Camelot' rather than portray her as a sexually-liberated woman who could probably kick 'King Arthurs' butt in an armed fight...

But yeah, the movie sucked, and would have sucked had it been 100% historically accurate.

Actually, if that's the real history, you should give Joss Whedon a call. Nice post.

Dark Archive

I'm pretty much argued out on this one, having said my piece. I've enjoyed reading the rational arguments from those who took it upon themselves to actually *discuss* the topic, on both sides (Tarren Dei, roguerouge, Sutekh the Destroyer, etc, etc) and didn't feel the need to troll or fling poop or call us gamers troglodytes or pathetic or whatever.

It's a credit to this little community that the one name-caller in this thread is not a 'local' and has deemed this an 'unfriendly' place to be.


Interesting thread and very good arguements from all around the table.

I am new to these forums but I see nothing here that would make me run....yet **winks**

Honestly If Pathfinder placed more scantily clad females in thier artwork then its fine by me. As a female I am very comfortable in my own sexuality to know that art is art and will only show the mere image of one's demeaner. So what if the men are nearly blinded by the physical attractiveness of her beautifully sculpted curvature, when she turns to the man in game and psychicly assaults him with her glowing eyes then the true nature of that woman's power comes out.

A picture is just a picture but we as RPGers will make that "character" come alive in the game as we see fit. If the DM wants her to be the damsel in distress then so be it but as a player if I am running around in a sheer dress then it will be on me to make that character seem much more then meets the eye.

This is fantasy after all. Having the eyecandy is not going to hurt but hey... I wouldnt mind a few more guys or orcs running around in a loincloth :')

The Exchange

roguerouge wrote:

Speaking as a sexually active heterosexual man, I find the assumption that men can't be sexy and attractive in fantasy art work lest people stop buying kind of annoying. I find it annoying that the assumption is that men can't fantasize about enjoying being admired for their physique. I find it annoying that people are assuming that men are so insecure and fragile that they will run away shrieking from the gaming store if they are represented like Conan (or the cited men of Planet Stories) in art illustrations. Are men really so uncomfortable with their bodies that they can't stand looking at an attractive, partially clothed man?

It's almost as annoying as having 12+ hyper-sexualized female images to 1 sexualize male image in Paizo's Gamemastery and Pathfinder lines... which I support for their quality and for their politics.

Apparently, the knee-jerk reaction of a man seeing the depiction of another man naked (or maybe in a state of undress) is to feel threatened. (The reason why I'm not entirely sure about, but suspect it is a similar thing to the species of monkey where the males make a territorial display to the others by flashing their blue coloured testicles at one another.) Whatever, such a thing is probably a cultural and maybe biological response to the depiction of the male form by another male.

Where the male form was elevated in culture (like the Greeks, for example) if often had homosexual overtones (and, of course, they considered women to be virtually subhuman, which doesn't really point them out to be very liberated either). While you can probably educate a straight male to appreciate the male form, he will probably always prefer looking at semi-naked women. In any case, the reasons behind the depiction of the form of men or women in the past would appear to have sexual overtones irrespective of the sex of the body being depicted - it would be wrong, I think, to assume that what we consider "art" was done purely for aesthetic reasons - assuming they even considred art to be what we consider it now (one of Michaelangelo's David statues - not the famous one - was pretty obviously a bit of gay porn for the guy who commissioned it).

I guess what I am groping at is that divorcing the human form from a sexual context and saying "Why can't we all be grown up about this" is noble but, I would suggest, doomed unless you are an art connoisseur with an appreciation of the skill and the techniques involved. This is especially true for the commercial art in RPGs which is intended to create a strong reaction, in order to catch the eye. I would suggest it might be more grown-up to understand that people are mostly hardwired like that, and accept it, since most of it is biology.

For me (as I keep saying over and over in this thread - maybe I should get out more) it is about shifting units and making sales, not trying to "educate" the readership. I take on board Chris Mortika's comments above about his group of Shadowrun teen girls and how they reacted to the art there, and also to the (more coherent) part of Krissbeth's views on the silliness of some of the garb of the supposed female adventurers. But so what - does all this worthy stuff make it more likely that a guy (yes, most players are men) will pick up a copy of a Paizo product so that Vic and Lisa can feed themselves for the next month or so (which is, after all, their aim)? Which market do you aim at, and how much risk do you take, in order to sell your products? These are all marketing decisions, which then feed through into the look and art of Pathfinder. (Interestingly, they are more willing to take risks of this nature in the writing, what with the gay NPCs and all - but of course, the item will most likely have been purchased by that point.)

And finally, there was a cover of Dragon that actually had a beefcake cover (a sort of Greek god type with rippling muscles). There were actually quite a lot of complaints about it (see the "threatened" comment above). Obviously, that probably isn't the sort of reaction that the publishers want. It might not be right, but to some extent you have to pander to what your customers want, not sternly tell them what is good for them and risk alienating them.

Dark Archive

Illessa wrote:
EDIT: Just wanted to say Roguerouge's point above is an excellent one, I've always found it a little peculiar that lots of women will profess to appreciating pictures of attractive women, but so few men seem to admit appreciating their own gender.

I've seen a study, which I thought was on ScienceDaily.com, but I can't seem to find, which measured bloodflow/etc. to determine arousal levels and showed a selection of men and women erotica. Most straight men were only aroused by erotica featuring women, while most straight women were equally aroused by erotica of men, women or either.

The Exchange

Yeah - most men don't admit to appreciating it because many simply don't. This isn't anti-gay or anything, this is just about me, but... Yuk! I probably tend to overestimate the evolutionary psychology angle of things, but men and women are wired differently, most obviously in the realms of sexual attraction.


Mommy!

201 to 250 of 564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / "This is all very interesting stuff... but I still think there should be more scantily clad females :)" All Messageboards