One thing on the original point of the thread.
My whole introduction to Pathfinder, and the two campaigns that have sprouted from it, and my choice to continue with the PathfinderRPG (as opposed to 4th Edition) were because of seeing Seoni on the cover of "The Skinshaw Murders" on the shelves of my Local Game Store.
Otherwise, I would likely have walked on by the adventure path, and (my personal gaming history) would likely have been different - and poorer - for it. :(
One thing on the original point of the thread.
My whole introduction to Pathfinder, and the two campaigns that have sprouted from it, and my choice to continue with the PathfinderRPG (as opposed to 4th Edition) were because of seeing Seoni on the cover of "The Skinshaw Murders" on the shelves of my Local Game Store.
Otherwise, I would likely have walked on by the adventure path, and (my personal gaming history) would likely have been different - and poorer - for it. :(
Art in Advertising. Attract interest. Solid point.
And she's HOT! Not Florence Henderson hot, but still hot. ;-)
Wow.
I'm really glad I decided to check out this thread when I did. There has been some really beautiful composition in some of the last few posts. There's way to much to respond to seperately, but just let me say that everyone made great points.
Specifically, DeadDMWalking, Emperor7 and Set made wonderful points and are all talented writers. I was glued to my screen! Jal Dorak almost seemed to make some my points for me (and I love the story of his Mongrelfolk). Hida_jiremi made a great point about potraying villians in realistic ways (even if those villians themselves are sexist or sexual predators). (And I think a good example of this in recent publishications is the succubus Mistress Delvahine in Pathfinder 5.) I'm also glad he gave a good explanation of the objectivism philosophy, so as to better facilitate discussion and understanding. (I'm more of a Christian and a Buddist, myself.)
But wonderful reads, all around!
Now this is a discussion!
|
Wow...
But wonderful reads, all around!Now this is a discussion!
Welcome to the boards! I am glad you encountered this thread after the turnaround - it is one of the rare cases where a thread has managed to claw it's way back to the way the boards used to be - civil, intelligent, and disagreement without shouting matches.
My kudos to the recent posters as well! Especially Set - I completely agree that Judeo-Christian culture is still getting over the whole "Christian guilt" thing - while other cultures are much worse. I am not advocating wanton sexuality - I think we need to get beyond the point where the human form is always seen as sexual. It would be better for everyone.
"NOM, NOM, NOM"
Gotcha.
You just had to climb in my bag? Didn't you?
Oh yes, scantily clad elven females would be nice. Frost, Grey, High, Wood, and even Drow would be nice in a calender style swimsuit edition.
Oh yes, scantily clad elven females would be nice. Frost, Grey, High, Wood, and even Drow would be nice in a calender style swimsuit edition.
Actually that was done as a promo item for the PS2 game Champions Of Norrath.
Actually that was done as a promo item for the PS2 game Champions Of Norrath.
Great Link. Swipping pictures from their media site as I write this.
Oh yes, scantily clad elven females would be nice. Frost, Grey, High, Wood, and even Drow would be nice in a calender style swimsuit edition.Actually that was done as a promo item for the PS2 game Champions Of Norrath.
Great pics. Didn't go thru all of them but I didn't see any subservient shots. Quite a number scantily clad, but several with armor. All look buff.
One thing that sometimes gets ignored in these discussions is the armor. Metal armor is expected but wasn't as common as some people think. The further back in time you go the more rare it was. Of course the 'fantasy' world nukes the historical context.
Of course this may turn the debate into one centered on video game audiences versus RPG.
Further examples might be required to make a truly informed decision. ;-)
|
One thing that sometimes gets ignored in these discussions is the armor. Metal armor is expected but wasn't as common as some people think. The further back in time you go the more rare it was. Of course the 'fantasy' world nukes the historical context.
It is true that realistic armor would look terribly different than the sort of armor that Todd Lockwood or Keith Baker draw, but I'm actually fine with that. Call it artistic license, call it accounting for the presence of fantasy metals like mithril and adamantine (and fantasy hides like dragonscale) as well as magical / alchemical enhancements and preparations, whatever, so long as it looks cool.
Medieval armor looked pretty darn uninspiring, and everyone would be the same formless blob, if the art was focused more on historical accuracy than dramatic postures and heroic figures. It's been the same for millenia. Herakles wasn't depicted in full armor, he was usually shown just wearing a loincloth and a lionskin, because the sculptors wanted to show off his body (and their skills) rather than yet another sculpture of formless-blob-of-clothing-number-23.
One thing that sometimes gets ignored in these discussions is the armor. Metal armor is expected but wasn't as common as some people think. The further back in time you go the more rare it was. Of course the 'fantasy' world nukes the historical context.It is true that realistic armor would look terribly different than the sort of armor that Todd Lockwood or Keith Baker draw, but I'm actually fine with that. Call it artistic license, call it accounting for the presence of fantasy metals like mithril and adamantine (and fantasy hides like dragonscale) as well as magical / alchemical enhancements and preparations, whatever, so long as it looks cool.
Medieval armor looked pretty darn uninspiring, and everyone would be the same formless blob, if the art was focused more on historical accuracy than dramatic postures and heroic figures. It's been the same for millenia. Herakles wasn't depicted in full armor, he was usually shown just wearing a loincloth and a lionskin, because the sculptors wanted to show off his body (and their skills) rather than yet another sculpture of formless-blob-of-clothing-number-23.
Good points. Woad, magical tattoos, items, and the like allow for a lot more freedom of movement of combatants. And a lot more cool artwork and heroic figures.
And, woman or man, they are all heroic figures.
And, woman or man, they are all heroic figures.
Now this is on the right track! :D
leg armor held up by leather garters? That's a new one on Me...
Now this is on the right track! :D
That's not leather. It's dragon cartilage. Strong but not restricting! ;-)
And, woman or man, they are all heroic figures.Now this is on the right track! :D
That's drawn from a module which finds this woman... trapped in an ice prison... for several days.
Filed it under "pandering" and an excellent example of what I'm talking about when it comes to seeking parity in illustrations. There's Valeros (who's attractive and fully armored) and then there's the pinup girls of Paizo.
Look: if you can show me 3 Paizo illustrations that objectify the male form in a manner similar to the way that female characters and NPCs are (as discussed in this thread and occassionally linked to), I'll concede that I am wrong and that Paizo has been equitable by industry standards.
Show me a Paizo illustration of an attractive man that emphasizes his ass, covered or not.
Show me a Paizo illustration of an attractive shirtless man.
Show me a Paizo illustration that emphasizes the shapely and uncovered legs of a male NPC or PC.
If you can't do that, perhaps you might want to reconsider the arguments of the fathers, women, and men in this thread that such illustrations of women are sexist (because they are not balanced by similar depictions of men), that they support and normalize harmful attitudes and behaviors towards women, and that they are frankly uncool.
Debate is fine. Baiting is not. That's what was going on. And some people think it appropriate to provoke others. Then take perverse pleasure in the result. Kinda like turning the forum into an online Jerry Springer/Dr. Phil ambush. Sad.
Respect other posters and postings. Stay calm and polite. But don't be afraid to express your own opinions and reasons for such (respectively, of course). Follow these little pieces of wisdom and this thread can become a place for exploration of the human condition.
I just want to pose a question to all of the people who keep talking about the fact that this was intended as a humor thread: can you see why some might interpret what you were doing as "doing it for the lulz"? Can you understand that from another perspective the "humorous" thread at first might also look like baiting?
Look: if you can show me 3 Paizo illustrations that objectify the male form in a manner similar to the way that female characters and NPCs are (as discussed in this thread and occassionally linked to), I'll concede that I am wrong and that Paizo has been equitable by industry standards.
Actually, "by industry standards," Paizo has been very equitable. But then I have to conceed that is more of a comment on the P&P gaming industry in specific and the publishing industry in general. :|
|
I'm not trying to be humorous at all. I can certainly understand why some people would consider an artistic depiction that shows some skin to be sexist.
Personally, I disagree. Furthermore, I enjoy the sight of a beautiful woman whether with or without clothing. I am unapologetic regarding this enjoyment. I certainly don't think that it is unusual, and I don't think that it necessitates objectifying women, or diminishing their role to a purely sexual one.
In fantasy art, I want things that fire my imagination. That doesn't mean it has to be an attractive woman, but that is certainly an attention-grabber, and helps getting me thinking.
Regarding parity between pictures of men and women, I certainly don't want to say that men are ignored. Most of the women in Pathfinder are not dressed scantily. Most of the men are not, either. Though of course, I only ask that the character dresses appropriately to their character. As far as Paizo being willing to use the male form, there are examples...
From Dungeon magazine in the final year.
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/TSR/TSR82140_500.jpeg
Planet Stories:
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZO/PZO8003_500.jpeg
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZO/PZO8002_500.jpeg
Adventure Path:
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZO/PZO9009_500.jpeg
Of course, showing some skin may or may not be considered 'sexual' in regard to the male form. Can a man be 'denigrated to a sexual object' in any pose or position? If the answer is no, perhaps we are being too sensitive in protecting women.
I certainly understand and respect the point of view that depictions of scantily clad women can objectify women. I know it is true. But I don't believe that it necessitates objectifying women. That is the product of the mind of the viewer. I personally am comfortable with a certain amount of 'pandering', and will state that 'attractive art', whether of men or women is a positive factor for me. It is unlikely to cause me to increase my purchases of Paizo products for the simple reason that I buy everything regardless. However, it may increase my enjoyment of them.
I'm not trying to be humorous at all. I can certainly understand why some people would consider an artistic depiction that shows some skin to be sexist.
To be very clear again: it's not the depiction of skin, female or male. It's the message that the lack of parity in the depictions that's the problem.
I'm not a prude, nor are the other people taking the stance that we are taking, I imagine. The issue is the lack of parity and the real world attitudes that it mirrors and encourages.
As far as Paizo being willing to use the male form, there are examples...
From Dungeon magazine in the final year.
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/TSR/TSR82140_500.jpegPlanet Stories:
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZO/PZO8003_500.jpeg
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZO/PZO8002_500.jpegAdventure Path:
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZO/PZO9009_500.jpeg
For myself, I don't tend to think of Planet Stories as being what I was talking about, as I tend to be a module and path man, myself. But probably others don't make that distinction. Also, I've been thinking more about Paizo since they decided to "Go it alone" after the end of the mags.
But, good job on the illustrations and I will concede that Paizo's better than I thought on this issue, although I think that they have room to improve.
For example: while all of their undead in their modules and paths have been one kind of disgusting or another, the female mummy of the Osiron module is the one that's all kinds of hot and seductively arranging her burial bandages. Geppa in Red Raven is barely clothed, yet she's survived a few days in an area made of ice and cold stone. The female barbarian prominently displayed leaping to attack Seoni in River into Darkness is wearing a loin cloth and halter top, while her peers in the background wear actual armor. Seoni shows up in illustrations for adventures where she isn't even one of the iconics listed in the back of the book. Perhaps this has something to do with the thread speculating on whether she's going commando pretty much full-time based on her outfit? (Her illustrations are too numerous to cite.) Sabina's tight mini-skirt armor makes some sense I guess, if you assume it rides up in combat rather than restricting her to tiny steps. And don't forget the CotC3 goth version thereof. And Tornulis from Guardians of Dragonfall seems to be wearing a diaphanous shower curtain as a top.
But from the recent paths and modules, the cover image of the monk's the only real male equivalent.
I will concur that the depiction of Trinia, Seelah, Merisiel and Kyra largely work for me along equity lines.
I'm not trying to be humorous at all. I can certainly understand why some people would consider an artistic depiction that shows some skin to be sexist.
To be very clear again: it's not the depiction of skin, female or male. It's the message that the lack of parity in the depictions that's the problem.
I'm not a prude, nor are the other people taking the stance that we are taking, I imagine. The issue is the lack of parity and the real world attitudes that it mirrors and encourages.
The real world is a sexual place. Should it be is a whole other argument. Until the world becomes gender neutral there will always be a parity argument.
It sounds like we're discussing the role of a corporation as a change agent, on a society/world level. Pretty big shoes to fill. If they are too far in front of the curve they risk losing a segment of their customer base. Any customers lost are a bad thing. The politically correct argument is that those customers should be kicked to the curb. The real world economics make that unlikely.
Sex sells, and is a strong motivator for a male audience. While a female audience likes a little beefcake, women are much more complex and motivated by a wider range of stimuli. An action scene might appeal to the aggressive nature of a man but be offensive to a woman. And so on.
Your points are recognized but a lot of this debate comes down to personal taste, and personal motivators. World as it is versus the world as you think it should be. (The gender neutral world of Orwell's 1984 seemed pretty bland.) As such, there is no 'winning' the argument. Something I think the OP thought of when he added the smiley icon to the end of the post title.
As such, there is no 'winning' the argument. Something I think the OP thought of when he added the smiley icon to the end of the post title.
True. But I had hoped that it would not spin as badly out of control as it had. :(
As such, there is no 'winning' the argument. Something I think the OP thought of when he added the smiley icon to the end of the post title.True. But I had hoped that it would not spin as badly out of control as it had. :(
Agreed. It would have been more fun if it could have been kept to a lighter mood. We're all pretty much grown ups here and well aware of the history and shortcomings of the world we live in. Hence our desire to relax in a fantasy realm of our choosing for a few hours a week.
Ahhh...too serious. Maybe we should scan the art files for the character most laden down with equipment. The 80s hair thread was pretty funny too.
It sounds like we're discussing the role of a corporation as a change agent, on a society/world level. Pretty big shoes to fill. If they are too far in front of the curve they risk losing a segment of their customer base. Any customers lost are a bad thing. The politically correct argument is that those customers should be kicked to the curb. The real world economics make that unlikely.Sex sells, and is a strong motivator for a male audience. While a female audience likes a little beefcake, women are much more complex and motivated by a wider range of stimuli. An action scene might appeal to the aggressive nature of a man but be offensive to a woman. And so on.
Your points are recognized but a lot of this debate comes down to personal taste, and personal motivators. World as it is versus the world as you think it should be. (The gender neutral world of Orwell's 1984 seemed pretty bland.) As such, there is no 'winning' the argument. Something I think the OP thought of when he added the smiley icon to the end of the post title.
I'll simply point out that the authors hired by this company's editors and publisher tend to like being change agents when it comes to their writing (c.f. the inclusion of abortion as a service in Sandpoint by a good-aligned NPC, the uncontroversial gay romance in Sandpoint that became a bit controversial on these boards, their use of a black female for their paladin iconic, their level of tolerance for extreme content in Hook Mountain and Carnival of Tears, etc.).
Paizo holds themselves to a different (and higher) standard on a number of issues, so I see no reason not to hold them to a different (and higher) standard when it comes to other issues.
Ahhh...too serious. Maybe we should scan the art files for the character most laden down with equipment. The 80s hair thread was pretty funny too.
THERE'S AN EIGHTIES HAIR THREAD!?! That's so offensive.
As someone stuck in the 1970s, I'm upset.
The real world is a sexual place. Should it be is a whole other argument. Until the world becomes gender neutral there will always be a parity argument.
It sounds like we're discussing the role of a corporation as a change agent, on a society/world level. Pretty big shoes to fill. If they are too far in front of the curve they risk losing a segment of their customer base. Any customers lost are a bad thing. The politically correct argument is that those customers should be kicked to the curb. The real world economics make that unlikely.
Sex sells, and is a strong motivator for a male audience. While a female audience likes a little beefcake, women are much more complex and motivated by a wider range of stimuli. An action scene might appeal to the aggressive nature of a man but be offensive to a woman. And so on.
Your points are recognized but a lot of this debate comes down to personal taste, and personal motivators. World as it is versus the world as you think it should be. (The gender neutral world of Orwell's 1984 seemed pretty bland.) As such, there is no 'winning' the argument. Something I think the OP thought of when he added the smiley icon to the end of the post title.
I sort of bowed out of this conversation for much of the reasons that E7 points out ("you can't debate personal taste"), but I did want to say that I did appreciate the comments made here...
Likewise I have enjoyed Set's posts.
(The gender neutral world of Orwell's 1984 seemed pretty bland.)The whole attractive vs. unnattractive sub-topic reminds me of Harrison Bergeron, actually.
As always, you are right on.
The real world is a sexual place. Should it be is a whole other argument. Until the world becomes gender neutral there will always be a parity argument.
It sounds like we're discussing the role of a corporation as a change agent, on a society/world level. Pretty big shoes to fill. If they are too far in front of the curve they risk losing a segment of their customer base. Any customers lost are a bad thing. The politically correct argument is that those customers should be kicked to the curb. The real world economics make that unlikely.
Sex sells, and is a strong motivator for a male audience. While a female audience likes a little beefcake, women are much more complex and motivated by a wider range of stimuli. An action scene might appeal to the aggressive nature of a man but be offensive to a woman. And so on.
Your points are recognized but a lot of this debate comes down to personal taste, and personal motivators. World as it is versus the world as you think it should be. (The gender neutral world of Orwell's 1984 seemed pretty bland.) As such, there is no 'winning' the argument. Something I think the OP thought of when he added the smiley icon to the end of the post title.
I sort of bowed out of this conversation for much of the reasons that E7 points out ("you can't debate personal taste"), but I did want to say that I did appreciate the comments made here...
Likewise I have enjoyed Set's posts.
Too bad that you had to bow out, and this post had to become so controversial. The fewer people contributing to a thread makes it less apealing.
I'll simply point out that the authors hired by this company's editors and publisher tend to like being change agents when it comes to their writing (c.f. the inclusion of abortion as a service in Sandpoint by a good-aligned NPC, the uncontroversial gay romance in Sandpoint that became a bit controversial on these boards, their use of a black female for their paladin iconic, their level of tolerance for extreme content in Hook Mountain and Carnival of Tears, etc.).
Paizo holds themselves to a different (and higher) standard on a number of issues, so I see no reason not to hold them to a different (and higher) standard when it comes to other issues.
Then should we demand less violence in their products, since violence is bad for society? Where does it end? At what level?
I see your points but this is a FANTASY game enjoyed for a few hours a week. Real life issues can be mirrored in the material but too much and the FUN goes out of it. I game to escape the real world, and buy products that help that mental transition.
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.
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'd like to hear what you personally like to see in fantasy artwork. You might find that some of us aren't as one-dimensional ('juvenile and pathetic' as you posted earlier) as you believe.
Are you espousing a 50/50 mix, none at all, more average-looking people (like an earlier poster), heavy armor for all, etc? We know what you don't like and why. Pls share what you do like.
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.
Speaking to an unnamed audience doesn't help make your case. It reduces it to a rant. I say this politely and respectfully..
You're talking "some men in this thread" or to an entire gender. It's passive aggressive. You get to condemn without risk, because you don't speak to any one person directly, and so if anyone replies back to *you* directly (like I am now)- it can be construed as an attack.
That isn't just you, it's a pretty common practice on the Paizo boards. In order to avoid confrontation, a great many posters address their comments to "some person". Usually someone they disagree with in the prior posts of that particular thread. They get to say whatever they wish from a position of relative (and in my opinion illusionary) safety.
Of course, writing directly to a previous poster does entail more risk. It is more confrontational. I'm just saying, there is an honest quality about doing it that way, that I appreciate and admire.
To the discussion...
***********************
If you had your way.. or some editorial authority, Krissbeth, how would you handle this issue?
Would you allow no more illustrations of women that portrayed them as attractive and/or sexual beings?
It's not a trick question, and I'm not setting you up for some zinging reply... But I'm trying to get a sense of what you think is appropriate, hopefully without eliminating attractive women in fantasy altogether.
I appreciate your passion for not having your gender objectified. The problem I have with it, and I'm taking a risk here myself, is that I get this sense that you perceive "the men in this thread" as actively doing this on purpose. That they have a choice that they are some how making, and that this amounts to inconsiderate behavior on their part.
You see, I can't walk up to a gay person and ask them to change their sexual orientation. That is part of who they are. It is a component of their identity. It behooves me to respect them, and to "let them be."
What I find ironic about today's society is that the heterosexual male is often not offered that same "right to be" who he is. Granted, that group has been responsible for some unfortunate events over the years, but no single one of them is personally for the actions of society.
I can't see wagging a finger at them, and telling them to quit living into their sexual orientation any more than any one else.
I *can* see moderation and proportion being exercised. I can see equity for all orientations. I can see a line being drawn attractive and sexual, and excessive and objectifying.
But where to draw that line?
So Krissbeth, what I am asking you.. my challenge to you is... Define the point at which objectifying begins. However, you are not allowed to ban sexuality and attractiveness.
I'd like to hear what you personally like to see in fantasy artwork. You might find that some of us aren't as one-dimensional ('juvenile and pathetic' as you posted earlier) as you believe.
Are you espousing a 50/50 mix, none at all, more average-looking people (like an earlier poster), heavy armor for all, etc? We know what you don't like and why. Pls share what you do like.
Lol.. We said very much the same thing, only I spent 22 more minutes writing it, and missed seeing your post!
First, I'm going to point out that your confusion of the terms "sex" and "gender" points to a lack of understanding of the issues here.
You're talking "some men in this thread" or to an entire gender. It's passive aggressive. You get to condemn without risk, because you don't speak to any one person directly, and so if anyone replies back to *you* directly (like I am now)- it can be construed as an attack.
When I said, "the men in the thread," I meant "the men in the thread." Note how the phrase was also followed up by a description of which men. A common trait and activity warrants a generic response. If I wished to respond specifically to one person or one comment, I'd have used quotes.
If you had your way.. or some editorial authority, Krissbeth, how would you handle this issue?
Would you allow no more illustrations of women that portrayed them as attractive and/or sexual beings?
Allow me to reconstruct this as the board goblins ate my previous response.
Portray female warriors as warriors.
It's pretty simple. Stop making it look like the majority of women in fantasy moonlight as succubi.
It's not a trick question, and I'm not setting you up for some zinging reply... But I'm trying to get a sense of what you think is appropriate, hopefully without eliminating attractive women in fantasy altogether....
Let's take Lidda as an example.
She was done right. She has armor. She has gear. It looks like she has an actual AC. Definitely looks female and feminine to me.
Somehow, I see a lot of you have it in your head that skin = femininity, and that armor somehow compromises that femininity. I see those who would prefer some tarted up wisp without the muscle tone to hold a sword lolling on the pages of their campaign materials.
Such imagery hurts the female consumer base. As a customer, I find overtly sexualized and objectified portrayals of the female figure offensive. It tells me that my sex is viewed as solely a thing of pleasure used to pander to salivating fanboy masses. It tells me that I'm not taken seriously as a buyer, a player, a gamer or seen as a valid contributer to the fantasy-fan community. Those images of the feminine are exploited for male use and perpetuates the idea that women are subject to the male gaze.
As someone with money to blow on one of my favorite hobbies, I find that sort of thing disgusting and it definitely affects my choice when stocking up on gaming materials.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Such imagery hurts the female consumer base. As a customer, I find overtly sexualized and objectified portrayals of the female figure offensive. It tells me that my sex is viewed as solely a thing of pleasure used to pander to salivating fanboy masses. It tells me that I'm not taken seriously as a buyer, a player, a gamer or seen as a valid contributer to the fantasy-fan community. Those images of the feminine are exploited for male use and perpetuates the idea that women are subject to the male gaze.
As someone with money to blow on one of my favorite hobbies, I find that sort of thing disgusting and it definitely affects my choice when stocking up on gaming materials.
I'm curious. Do you find "overtly sexualize and objectified portrayals of the female figure offensive" or the disproportionate number of these portrayals offensive?
I'm curious. Do you find "overtly sexualize and objectified portrayals of the female figure offensive" or the disproportionate number of these portrayals offensive?
Such imagery hurts the female consumer base. As a customer, I find overtly sexualized and objectified portrayals of the female figure offensive. It tells me that my sex is viewed as solely a thing of pleasure used to pander to salivating fanboy masses. It tells me that I'm not taken seriously as a buyer, a player, a gamer or seen as a valid contributer to the fantasy-fan community. Those images of the feminine are exploited for male use and perpetuates the idea that women are subject to the male gaze.
As someone with money to blow on one of my favorite hobbies, I find that sort of thing disgusting and it definitely affects my choice when stocking up on gaming materials.
The former.
A sudden Beefcake Explosion doesn't fix the initial problem.
And I just went to a weird visual place on "Beefcake Explosion." Eeeeeeew...
|
|
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.
I can understand, and sympathise, with the dolly-bird look affected by some of the female iconics (mainly Seoni) as being silly - I've written it elsewhere that going down a dungeon in what is effectively a cocktail dress is ridiculous. Plus, her breasts are absurdly large and seemingly defy gravity. She is quite plainly a male sexual fantasy made manifest on the cover of Pathfinder. But, as someone points out above, she is eye-catching.
This isn't just about a pretty picture, it is marketing. Blatantly sexual marketing, but probably speaking to about 80-90% of the target audience (straight males). Back in the day when Paizo did the two magazines, James mentioned that issues with hot babes on the cover sold much better than those with serious covers with hirsute dwarves on (for example). Arguably, the right commercial decision would be for Pathfinder to have only Seoni on each cover (maybe in different suggestive poses) and watch the cash come in. They don't, of course, but with a few exceptions the iconics are all very attractive, and young-looking. Paizo needs to make money out of this - Pathfinder isn't a social or political statement.
There was a thread a while back where someone (a woman) made comments that she didn't like another Wayne Reynolds cover from Dungeon of a similarly buxom, gravity-defying and revealingly-garbed woman (though her objections were couched in more religious terms). Personally, I think his heroines look silly as serious adventurers - they might break a nail or something and have to call off the dungeon delve while they get a manicure. But, like most males, I quite like the images in a passing sort of way - y'know, breasts and stuff. Is it right to use such images to advertise Pathfinder? I dunno, but sexual advertising is omnipresent - you can't really blame Paizo for using such a common, and proven method of shifting units.
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.
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.
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.
Hmm... Whether I buy a product or not I really could care less about what that says about the communities "image".
Regardless, I cry shenanigans to this. I get rolled eyes and sarcastic comments when people see images of the iconic wizard. More often than when people see me checking out an image like Seoni. It's 'normal' for guys to check out scantily clad women in all sorts of outfits. Having something with a picture of a Wizard (or a dragon, a dwarf, or even more so with demons) on the cover gets me strange looks and stupid comments every time.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I'm curious. Do you find "overtly sexualize and objectified portrayals of the female figure offensive" or the disproportionate number of these portrayals offensive?
Such imagery hurts the female consumer base. As a customer, I find overtly sexualized and objectified portrayals of the female figure offensive. It tells me that my sex is viewed as solely a thing of pleasure used to pander to salivating fanboy masses. It tells me that I'm not taken seriously as a buyer, a player, a gamer or seen as a valid contributer to the fantasy-fan community. Those images of the feminine are exploited for male use and perpetuates the idea that women are subject to the male gaze.
As someone with money to blow on one of my favorite hobbies, I find that sort of thing disgusting and it definitely affects my choice when stocking up on gaming materials.
The former.
A sudden Beefcake Explosion doesn't fix the initial problem.
And I just went to a weird visual place on "Beefcake Explosion." Eeeeeeew...
Actually, I was thinking disproportionate in relation to non-sexualized, less 'objectifying' portrayals of women.
And, umm, thanks for sharing on Beefcake explosion. I'd love to see that art order.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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.
Not having posted in this thread before,
but I wanted to point out it seems to me that the entire genre of "Fantasy" is in and of itself tied to a mode of 'objectivication' via the iconic 'Avatars' chosen to represent roles. That said, how I've seen "Fantasy" role-playing in action, these 'objectivications' are often used to enact minority 'becomings', e.g. thru 'playing' alternative genders, or just playing in alternative 'settings' (OK, Lands of the Amazon Warriors, for one relevant to the thread).
In any case, the slobbering, basement dwelling 'zomg...hawt chix' D&D Nerd stereotype, would seem to be just as viable with 'Ork-Narr, 24 STR Barbarian with Intelligent Great-Axe of Death (and Best Friend)' or 'Nerd-rick, 28 INT Master of the Planes', so I don't think getting rid of sex-pot female iconics will necessarily help in that regard :-)
For the sake of civility and mutual betterment, I don't think intimating people are ignorant for not having studied "Women's Studies" is at all helpful. If someone makes a statement demonstrating ignorance of a particular realm of knowledge, then it's helpful to inform them of their factual error, or even make a specific suggestion as to where they might 'open their eyes to'. Otherwise, if they're not making false factual claims, but just expressing a point-of-view or opinion contrary to your own, just acknowledge that. After all, in recent modern history, a significant number of women were in fact opposed to the "Women's Movement" for their own personal motives and interests!
All in all, I think it's a good thing for non-sexpot female illustrations to be developed... I don't see how that should mean dropping 'sexy' females, but the archetypes can certainly co-exist. And as Chris mentioned Shadowrun, it's likely Shadowrun's more gender neutral imagery (which, of course is in a post-modern/Future setting, as opposed to pseudo-medieval) certainly appealed to males as well as females... I really, really, think when Beta is released, people won't get so worried about all this stuff :-)
Look: if you can show me 3 Paizo illustrations that objectify the male form in a manner similar to the way that female characters and NPCs are (as discussed in this thread and occassionally linked to), I'll concede that I am wrong and that Paizo has been equitable by industry standards.
First, please keep in mind the the CEO of Paizo is a woman, I am sure she sees the cover of all of the issues before they are released. As small as their profit offering is I am certain that she at least flips through everything they release before it's released to the printers and has the opportunity to give a thumbs down to any artwork/ covers she doesn't like.
Paizo makes product marketing decisions based on sales, and cover art is based on their experience of what sells. Why should there be 'equal' coverage, the artwork is there primarily to sell product. They put the artwork that sells the most product. You can talk altruism all you want and complain about the fact that "there would be more female gamers if...", but it's all theory and in the mean time the product with Seoni on the cover sells 50% more issues than the one with Valeros.
Is that sexist? People don't really understand what the word sexist means anymore. I guess it's less sexist to make a product that people don't want to buy.