I didn't know Alahazra was supposed to be wearing armor... Man, that is silly.Alhazra isn't wearing armour because the art description at the time didn't mention that she was wearing armour.
It wasn't until years later when I discovered her characters stats included armour.
Ah, fair enough then. I wonder how much other art winds up having stuff like this happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Wayne!
Welcome to the thread!
Please don't take the request as an indictment of your art style!
To be honest, I'd be curious to see some of the works that minimized boob-plate-dom and what sort of process went into it, to get an artistic persepctive.
I can blather about concerns, desires, and personal tastes, but an artist has to *live* the creative process.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I'm a tad dull, but I just now realized the wordplay in the thread title.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And here I thinking from the title this thread would be about the British noblility eating children....
Already stated up-thread that we'd be using the discussion folks from the Paladin threads for this, but that morbid humor fell on flat ears.
And it was a humble approach, but modesty is often the best policy.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that I always find amusing about these discussions is that there hardly ever seems to be a complaint about unrealistic depictions of male fantasy tropes where the man can function effectively as a combatant in little armor or clothing. No one scoffs at Conan the Barbarian, War Duke, Tarzan, Zorro a pit fighter, monk, ninja, Native American warriros, Highlanders, African warriors, Pacific Islanders or other such warriors fighting in little armor or clothing and being effective combatants but female characters must be in full armor and the armor must cover her from head to toe otherwise she cannot be taken seriously. Its like a subtle form of sexism. Sure you can have an 18 in all your physicals but you cannot run around in a loin cloth like Conan and not expect to get hit. Its totally unrealistic (sigh)
No one thinks anything less of Wonder Woman as a female role model because she is not completely clothed head to toe. She is wearing the definition of fantasy armor and she kicks serious butt! Some fantasy cultures, especially patriarchal ones, would definitely frown upon boob armor and probably would not like to see their women in martial roles period. I don't think that a culture that is generally depicted as egalitarian (such as most surface elven cultures) or matriarchal cultures might not care as much. If every female is in boob armor its a big problem and if no female warrior is in boob armor I also think it is a problem.
The real issue is depicting female protagonists equally and neither totally dependent on their menfolk or patronizingly by insisting that they have only true virtues and no flaws. Women like Men are complex people who have the same range of emotions and desires. They are not defined solely about how they dress. I am sure you will find some women like men dress pretty provocatively, some dress conservatively and the vast majority find somewhere in between the extremes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Art is not about reality. If you want photorealism, just read a textbook.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Wayne, I want to echo Wei Ji's sentiment. Please don't take my griping as an indictment of your talents.
One thing that I always find amusing about these discussions is that there hardly ever seems to be a complaint about unrealistic depictions of male fantasy tropes where the man can function effectively as a combatant in little armor or clothing. No one scoffs at Conan the Barbarian, War Duke, Tarzan, Zorro a pit fighter, monk, ninja, Native American warriros, Highlanders, African warriors, Pacific Islanders or other such warriors fighting in little armor or clothing and being effective combatants but female characters must be in full armor and the armor must cover her from head to toe otherwise she cannot be taken seriously. Its like a subtle form of sexism. Sure you can have an 18 in all your physicals but you cannot run around in a loin cloth like Conan and not expect to get hit. Its totally unrealistic (sigh)
False equivalence. In real life (and frankly most of these works of fiction) cultures with full plate were rarely pitted against the cultures that didn't. When they did, historically it tended to go badly for the unarmored folks. I don't think most of these groups had the option to wear armor and refused it, they simply never had the option. (Obviously there are plenty of situations that can make armor impractical. Marching, scouting, sneaking, what have you. But in the real world it is pretty good have for not getting stabbed in the gut.)
Fictionally, Zorro usually fights other lightly armored folks. When you see the lightly armored person take on the heavily armored person in fiction (like the Viper vs the Mountain) it revolves around the lightly armored person being much, much faster and/or skilled.
In Pathfinder, we have ways of representing people covering their body in less armor and still being competitive. It's called "being a dex based martial." Heck, we even have a way that you can be naked and not get hit, and it is called "being a monk." Boob plate isn't analogous to Conan,* because the monk thing is.(well, the Savage Barbarian archetype really tries to represent Conan, but the monk is a better general example of a naked martial.) A Monk can run around in a loincloth regardless of their gender and it is at least consistent.
*Now, if you mean that Conan is just as sexualized as Red Sonja or whoever, that is a separate issue because Conan is also a male sexual fantasy.
The issue here is two-fold, I think. 1) it is meant to represent the same armor worn by male counterparts. Not Conan. Imrijka ostensibly wears the same armor as Valeros. And yet her armor just seems a lot less practical. 2) These differences can only really be explained as a desire to sexualize the female counterparts, and we have enough cultural baggage around how we treat female sexuality to be wary of this.
#1 at least would have been a less of an issue if the sexualized gals were all monks and what not. Seoni at least doesn't have any practical reason to cover up. Amiiri, on the other hand, would be better served if her armor didn't have a hole in the midriff.
#2 is where it gets complicated. Lots of people (and lots of women) aren't bothered by sexualized depictions of women. Some of these folks even enjoy it. And some of them even think fictional women flaunting their sexuality is good for the cause of women's rights. I don't really want to tell anyone who identifies as a woman how to feel about this, but I will say enough women are bothered by these depictions for it to at least be handled with care. And I think trying to keep the sexualization to contexts where it makes sense for the character to be sexualized seems like a pretty fair concession to make.
Luckily, signs point to this being the direction Paizo and Wayne Reynolds are going.
No one thinks anything less of Wonder Woman as a female role model because she is not completely clothed head to toe. She is wearing the definition of fantasy armor and she kicks serious butt!
Actually, there are lots of people who think Wonder Woman should be allowed to wear pants. I'm not getting into the specifics of the gender politics, or even trying to take a stance on them. But there are plenty of people who think Wonder Woman being naked is weird.
She's also a pretty bad example to point to, IMO, because she has one of the best reasons to wear armor out of any super hero. She's super strong and super durable... except when it comes to bullets and edged weapons. She's strong enough to where heavy armor would never slow her down, and would actually benefit if more than just her wrists were bullet proof. SUPERMAN got full body armor before she did, despite not having her vulnerabilities and just generally being more durable.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spoilered for length:One thing that I always find amusing about these discussions is that there hardly ever seems to be a complaint about unrealistic depictions of male fantasy tropes where the man can function effectively as a combatant in little armor or clothing. No one scoffs at Conan the Barbarian, War Duke, Tarzan, Zorro a pit fighter, monk, ninja, Native American warriros, Highlanders, African warriors, Pacific Islanders or other such warriors fighting in little armor or clothing and being effective combatants but female characters must be in full armor and the armor must cover her from head to toe otherwise she cannot be taken seriously. Its like a subtle form of sexism. Sure you can have an 18 in all your physicals but you cannot run around in a loin cloth like Conan and not expect to get hit. Its totally unrealistic (sigh)No one thinks anything less of Wonder Woman as a female role model because she is not completely clothed head to toe. She is wearing the definition of fantasy armor and she kicks serious butt! Some fantasy cultures, especially patriarchal ones, would definitely frown upon boob armor and probably would not like to see their women in martial roles period. I don't think that a culture that is generally depicted as egalitarian (such as most surface elven cultures) or matriarchal cultures might not care as much. If every female is in boob armor its a big problem and if no female warrior is in boob armor I also think it is a problem.
The real issue is depicting female protagonists equally and neither totally dependent on their menfolk or patronizingly by insisting that they have only true virtues and no flaws. Women like Men are complex people who have the same range of emotions and desires. They are not defined solely about how they dress. I am sure you will find some women like men dress pretty provocatively, some dress conservatively and the vast majority find somewhere in between the extremes.
Ooo, piece of candy... ooo, piece of candy...
My problem isn't with women warriors in little to no armor. My problem is with women warriors in little to no armor that is designed to emphasize her sexual attributes at the expense of her combat effectiveness and competency.
When I see male warriors go shirtless and/or in a loincloth in an RPG product, (outside of pure cheesecake/fan service materials) I never see them depicted in a way that undermines their combat prowess or that undermines their aspirational physical ideal to male players. Although it has gotten much better with Paizo and late WotC taking a stand, it's still not difficult to find women warriors in game systems depicted in poses and outfits which clearly signal to the players that these supposed women warriors are to be seen for their physical sexiness and not their competence in combat. Add boob plate, bare midriffs, heels, weirdly arched backs, and/or twisted spines and the art's message becomes clearly not on her being a warrior.
If Paizo or anyone wants to depict semi-dressed ("Amazonian") or nude (Greek wrestler) women warriors, I'd be 100% for it as long is the art emphasis is focused on them as being a warrior ideal. You know, just as already is for art of male warriors. If I'm looking to play a woman ranger or fighter or a combat-focused rogue, I want art that depicts her as a lethal, kick-butt, bad ass. She can be attractive or sexy, sure, but I'm looking for inspiration as a warrior... not as a sex kitten, a minx, a tease, or a sexy prize to be awarded/unlocked.
Yes, women who use their physical attractiveness to achieve their ends is something that happens, both in the real world and in fantasy/sci-fi fiction. But please keep such fictional depictions as the exceptions and not the rule, especially in a core flagship product meant to entice women players to inhabit/play women characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fictionally, Zorro usually fights other lightly armored folks. When you see the lightly armored person take on the heavily armored person in fiction (like the Viper vs the Mountain) it revolves around the lightly armored person being much, much faster and/or skilled.
Right. Also, when you see Zorro or Conan or Inigo Montoya or the Dread Pirate Roberts depicted, there is no doubt that they are clearly combat capable, even a physical aspirational ideal, for the viewer/player onto which to project themselves. Sure, they're usually sexy or at least physically attractive, but that never comes at the expense of their capability and competence as a warrior.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo or anyone wants to depict semi-dressed ("Amazonian") or nude (Greek wrestler) women warriors, I'd be 100% for it as long is the art emphasis is focused on them as being a warrior ideal. You know, just as already is for art of male warriors. If I'm looking to play a woman ranger or fighter or a combat-focused rogue, I want art that depicts her as a lethal, kick-butt, bad ass. She can be attractive or sexy, sure, but I'm looking for inspiration as a warrior... not as a sex kitten, a minx, a tease, or a sexy prize to be awarded/unlocked.
Yeah, this. This also reminds me of my other issue with Wonder Woman-- she's rarely drawn as a well muscled warrior, which is my preferred depiction, and the one that best aligns with her character concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Male sexism? Good grief...
You know why nobody takes exception of male beefcake? Because it isnt shoehorned into every g d thing possible. Imagine everywhere you went you saw ads with chiseled dudes in loincloths like this:
"Man, theses tampons are absorbent"
"Imma wrestle this other dude in loincloth to see who gets to bring her a bacardi limon"
"Get your taxes done at HR block so you got cash to take me to dinner!"
"Get a lexus girl and ill be turning my head"
"Are those lee press on nails? Id love for you to run them down my back!"
Well you get the idea. The male beefcake is reserved for the occasions its appropriate and not every other single facet of social life.
Anything else I can shine some light on?
Yeah, this. This also reminds me of my other issue with Wonder Woman-- she's rarely drawn as a well muscled warrior, which is my preferred depiction, and the one that best aligns with her character concept.
She's a goddess... Why would a god need buff, bulging muscles? It much like supergirl and her not looking like a bodybuilder even though she can lift a cargo ship...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this. This also reminds me of my other issue with Wonder Woman-- she's rarely drawn as a well muscled warrior, which is my preferred depiction, and the one that best aligns with her character concept.She's a goddess... Why would a god need buff, bulging muscles? It much like supergirl and her not looking like a bodybuilder even though she can lift a cargo ship...
Superman is powered by solar radiation. DC's Captain Marvel (aka "Shazam") is powered by magic. Why do either of them need buff, bulging muscles that easily exceed the physiques of elite buildbuilders?*
* And since we're straying off-topic, what clearly unrealistic expectations are those images planting in young male minds as the "male physical ideal"?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sup gets to wear pants too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Superman is powered by solar radiation. DC's Captain Marvel (aka "Shazam") is powered by magic. Why do either of them need buff, bulging muscles that easily exceed the physiques of elite buildbuilders?*Yeah, this. This also reminds me of my other issue with Wonder Woman-- she's rarely drawn as a well muscled warrior, which is my preferred depiction, and the one that best aligns with her character concept.She's a goddess... Why would a god need buff, bulging muscles? It much like supergirl and her not looking like a bodybuilder even though she can lift a cargo ship...
Thankyou! That was my biggest complaint about Wonder Woman. There have been periods where she was drawn as a solid woman who easily had as much in the muscle department as Superman and Batman. And yet the movies (and consequently now the comics) feel that the female actress has no need to bulk up (despite the fact the Superman actor clearly did). I would have loved to see an actress like Briennan of Tarth in the role (although one whose makeup and hair department haven't tried to make her as unattractive as possible).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the above mentioned suits of armor are fine and clean. The issue comes into play when women's armor becomes less of protection and more to flaunt herself on the battlefield.in other words, aribeth's armor from neverwinter.
that one woman in the FR( whos name I can never remember because I don't like the character anyway) who hangs out with dragonbait, her armor which was created so that her creators could kill her if she rebelled against them//
power girl's outfit...if so, need a new term..... boob armor comes across to me as something else...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the rumors about photoshop are true, apparently so super the pants had to be retouched in post-production so it was merely suggestive instead of graphic.
Edit: To the original topic, I'm of the camp that a variety of levels are appropriate, depending on the character, but the overarching drive should be to make the characters look like awesome adventurers, not attention grabbing.
I'm a little more worried about ridiculous poses, since it looks like the art style for clothes has been shifting in the direction the OP has asked for.
How is this discussion about a rule play test?
Is it a discussion worth having... sure? But why have it in the rules play test forum?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is this discussion about a rule play test?
Is it a discussion worth having... sure? But why have it in the rules play test forum?
Because it's not just a rules forum, it's the entire playtest forum. And the playtest art will set the tone for the art for at least the first few years of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Superman is powered by solar radiation. DC's Captain Marvel (aka "Shazam") is powered by magic. Why do either of them need buff, bulging muscles that easily exceed the physiques of elite buildbuilders?*
According to designer Lindy Hemming and director Patty Jenkins, every design decision made for Themyscira came down to the same question: "How would I want to live that's badass?" "To me, they shouldn't be dressed in armor like men. It should be different. It should be authentic and real […] and appealing to women." When asked about the decision to give the Amazons heeled sandals, Jenkins explained that they also have flats for fighting, adding "It's total wish-fulfillment […] I, as a woman, want Wonder Woman to be sexy, hot as hell, fight badass, and look great at the same time […] the same way men want Superman to have ridiculously huge pecs and an impractically big body. That makes them feel like the hero they want to be. And my hero, in my head, has really long legs." This corresponds to the original intent by William Moulton Marston, who wanted his character to be alluringly feminine.
Wonder woman's looks were to "appeal to WOMEN", not young men... Just like superman's muscles where to appeal to men... :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
