Seoni as Santa


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

201 to 250 of 432 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Well mr D7 is still at it. Apparently reynolds is guilty of casual sexism (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean)

Okay someone correct me if I'm wrong but d7's problem is you have a strong minded independent woman dressing the way she wants to dress? Despite what he might want to believe you do get strong willed independent women that like to dress in revealing outfits. Is this somehow sexist? I would say no it isn't.

Now if all the female Iconics dressed like that then yes I would say mr D7 has a point and that it could be sexist but they don't and in fact I would be hard pressed to find a more diverse bunch of characters anywhere else.

Former VP of Finance

Erik Mona wrote:

Sean,

You should have added the inscription:

"HAVE A BEARY MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

--Erik

...I had to go back and make sure there wasn't a leather harness. Would certainly explain how the weapons were kept on.

Maybe there should be a leather harness version. And now I'm stopping where my mind is taking that. This train of thought, next stop is a full stop, thank you.

Contributor

Erik Mona wrote:

Sean,

You should have added the inscription:
"HAVE A BEARY MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

In the book, but not in the photo I posted, is the header "HO HO HARSK!"

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Chris Self wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

Sean,

You should have added the inscription:

"HAVE A BEARY MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

--Erik

...I had to go back and make sure there wasn't a leather harness. Would certainly explain how the weapons were kept on.

Maybe there should be a leather harness version. And now I'm stopping where my mind is taking that. This train of thought, next stop is a full stop, thank you.

too late

Moderately NSFW

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

James Jacobs wrote:
roguerouge wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

All right, this one's for the ladies. And some of the men, too.

unofficial Paizo beefcake fanart

Well, since you ARE still posting on this topic, although evidently not over at d7, I'll repost the questions I asked you over there:

What role do you think that our culture’s repetitive use of certain representations of women’s and men’s bodies have in promoting various eating and body image disorders (anorexia, bulimia, muscle dysmorphia, steroid use and others)? If so, does that [belief] play a role in your company’s art orders; if not, should it?

While I agree that eating and body image disorders are a very real problem, we can't let that govern our art orders. Being overly sensitive and politically correct can be just as damaging as the other end of the extreme, and as a result what I try to do when writing or approving art orders is to try to stay between those two extremes and let common sense and good taste be my guide. And on top of that, I listen to customer feedback via letters, phone calls, email, messageboard posts, and the like, and take that feedback and use it to constantly educate myself about what is and isn't in good taste. It's a constantly evolving process, and it's not perfect, but it's better than either extreme.

And for the record, I don't think that Christmas Seoni is "bad" or sexist or anything of the sort. I think Paizo's done a great job at being open-minded and getting all sorts of genders, races, sexual orientations, beliefs, and all that good stuff out there in a non-discriminatory way. In other words, the only thing I discriminate against is bad writing, I guess.

That, and dwarves. Although Sean's Santa Harsk DOES have a bit more style than most dwarves, I must admit!

I think this is a very good answer. Not everyone will agree -- the world would be boring if they did -- but James is listening and considering the points. Fair enough for me.


roguerouge wrote:


Well, since you ARE still posting on this topic, although evidently not over at d7, I'll repost the questions I asked you over there:

What role do you think that our culture’s repetitive use of certain representations of women’s and men’s bodies have in promoting various eating and body image disorders (anorexia, bulimia, muscle dysmorphia, steroid use and others)? If so, does that [belief] play a role in your company’s art orders; if not, should it?

I am thinking that any woman who is marching across the world, and fighting monsters on the tops of mountains and in the depths of dungeons, is not likely to be overweight. If she's using physical combat she might be a bit more muscular than the typical supermodel. But even the sorceresses will probably be lean of build because of all the exercise they get.

(The adventuring sorceresses, I mean, of course. Sorceresses who just hang around the castle eating chocolate cake might get to be a bit heavy.)

Dark Archive

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Zeugma wrote:

The only question I have is, how is he keeping the crossbow and axe on his back?

...maybe I shouldn't ask that question.
Back hair weave.

My constitution score is simply not adequate to survive on this thread.

A POX ON YOUR HOUSE SIR !!

Sovereign Court

Kevin Mack wrote:


Okay someone correct me if I'm wrong but d7's problem is you have a strong minded independent woman dressing the way she wants to dress? Despite what he might want to believe you do get strong willed independent women that like to dress in revealing outfits. Is this somehow sexist? I would say no it isn't.

*facepalm*

Seoni is not a strong-minded independent woman. Seoni is a drawing. She is a marketing tool used to sell Play Pretend books to people, who are, by and large, men who enjoy the idea of sex with large breasted women. Seoni cannot be objectified because she is already an object. However, she can and does contribute to a culture where real women are judged against an impossible standard of not being as "strong-minded and independent" as Seoni because they don't like having their t+~# hanging out for fat guys to fap to.

Sure, "just" Seoni dresses like that. Now count how many pictures of Seoni there are versus how many pictures of, say, Seelah or even Kyra. Disproportionately Seoni, eh? Seoni who dresses in lingerie and Merisiel who dresses in a leather catsuit get the lion's share of art. Again, this is marketing to the demographic, but man, do I hate my demographic sometimes.

Mr. d7's problem is that gamers are not only refusing to admit that they are, yeah, sexist and a little adolescent in their fantasies, but on top of that get defensive and make stupid, stupid analogies comparing requests for BGLT role-models to requests for left-handed role-models. There's nothing wrong with adolescent fantasies. We've all got 'em. But for some reason, when *gamers* get called on them, we get defensive and stupid about it.

Dark Archive

cappadocius wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:


Okay someone correct me if I'm wrong but d7's problem is you have a strong minded independent woman dressing the way she wants to dress? Despite what he might want to believe you do get strong willed independent women that like to dress in revealing outfits. Is this somehow sexist? I would say no it isn't.

*facepalm*

do I hate my demographic sometimes.

Mr. d7's problem is that gamers are not only refusing to admit that they are, yeah, sexist and a little adolescent in their fantasies, but on top of that get defensive and make stupid, stupid analogies comparing requests for BGLT role-models to requests for left-handed role-models. There's nothing wrong with adolescent fantasies. We've all got 'em. But for some reason, when *gamers* get called on them, we get defensive and stupid about it.

I'll be sure to tell my four female cousins, my grandmother, my mother and 4 aunts that they are apparently sexist since I showed all of them the picture and not one of them had any problem with it (Heck my mum said as mentioned previously you see more skin on the front cover of the daily star and my grans exact words were "I suppose mr d7 would prefer us to go back to a time when woman weren't allowed to show off any skin and had to stay home and mind the house."

Liberty's Edge

I think that the defensiveness comes from the anticipation of ad hominem personal attacks, as well as the pandering and celebration of faulty logic that, regrettably, seems to go hand-in-hand with this kind of thing.
Now the Paizonians are generalized as signal-to-noise ratio snow. I'm sorry, but there's better places to seek "sensitivity training."

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Heathansson wrote:

I think that the defensiveness comes from the anticipation of ad hominem personal attacks, as well as the pandering and celebration of faulty logic that, regrettably, seems to go hand-in-hand with this kind of thing.

Now the Paizonians are generalized as signal-to-noise ratio snow. I'm sorry, but there's better places to seek "sensitivity training."

People coming into a thread that starts with "my chestnuts are a-roasting" and expecting to have a serious discussion about sexism are about as welcome as my Great-Aunt Ethel at a bachelor party: "Dear, put some clothes on, you'll catch a chill. And what are you doing in that cake?".

Paizonians are a great lot and will discuss serious things in a serious way but, as a community, will give about as much respect as they get.

Still Capp, I was with you right up until the point you called Set stupid.

Scarab Sages

Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Uzzy wrote:

What, no link to a big version of Seoni Claus? :(

Besides, Illeosa is hotter. And she's a Queen. Remind me to order some Fanservice of her from Lilith soon.

** spoiler omitted **

Thanks for the link!

Sovereign Court

Tarren Dei wrote:


Still Capp, I was with you right up until the point you called Set stupid.

Tarren, believe me, 6 years of posting at RPGnet have trained me not to make personal attacks. I called the analogy stupid. Many of us, including myself, can say incredibly stupid things while, unlike me, being incredibly smart.


cappadocius wrote:

*facepalm*

Seoni is not a strong-minded independent woman. Seoni is a drawing. She is a marketing tool used to sell Play Pretend books to people, who are, by and large, men who enjoy the idea of sex with large breasted women. Seoni cannot be objectified because she is already an object. However, she can and does contribute to a culture where real women are judged against an impossible standard of not being as "strong-minded and independent" as Seoni because they don't like having their t*~% hanging out for fat guys to fap to.

QFT.

Thank you for saying what I've been thinking in a much more reasoned tone than I can usually manage in discussions of this topic.

Personally, I figure I'll conclude that general gaming culture is not sexist at about the same time as I can walk into my local gamestore and know that all of the following are true:

  • I won't have to deal with sexual propositions or off-color jokes from the guy behind the counter. (Note: I recognize this as a problem specific to my local game store, which is why I don't go there much.)
  • I'll find as many examples of sensibly dressed warrior type women as I do scantily clad sexpots in the art and miniatures.
  • I'll find as many examples of scantily clad male sexpots as I do sensibly dressed warrior types in the art and miniatures.
  • When I pick up a random adventure path or module, I'll see as many important female NPCs as I do male NPCs in the descriptions. (Most times when I take note of the gender ratio of NPCs in adventure, the ratio of male to female is something like 4 or 5 to 1.)

I'm not accusing any given gamer or gaming group of being sexist. I'm also not saying that gaming 'culture' is more sexist than western culture in general. But I see no point in pretending that gaming culture is a bastion of equality and respect for women, when my experience has been that the proportion of sexist jerks in gaming group roughly mirrors the proportion of sexist jerks in any random crowd of people.

Sovereign Court

Lindisty wrote:
  • When I pick up a random adventure path or module, I'll see as many important female NPCs as I do male NPCs in the descriptions. (Most times when I take note of the gender ratio of NPCs in adventure, the ratio of male to female is something like 4 or 5 to 1.)
  • This is... problematic. I think what we're seeing here is D&D's general confusion with historical accuracy. Because game writers know that women do play their games, they make an effort to put language in about women adventurers and equality among PCs and all that. Then, to give historical verisimilitude to the game with Otyughs and Nilbogs, they make society a bit sexist; which it has been for pretty much all of human history. You would see a ratio of male to female of at LEAST 4 to 5 to 1, in real life.

    Which is not to say it's right. But just that it's a problem that goes deeper than counting NPCs and making sure the Tab As equal the Slot Bs.

    Lindisty wrote:
    I'm not accusing any given gamer or gaming group of being sexist. I'm also not saying that gaming 'culture' is more sexist than western culture in general.

    I'd go as far as to say gaming culture, of which I count myself a part of, is even slightly more sexist than the general culture. We're just sexist in different ways.

    Scarab Sages

    Sean K Reynolds wrote:

    All right, this one's for the ladies. And some of the men, too.

    unofficial Paizo beefcake fanart

    That was truly awesome sir!

    Contributor

    Lindisty wrote:


  • When I pick up a random adventure path or module, I'll see as many important female NPCs as I do male NPCs in the descriptions. (Most times when I take note of the gender ratio of NPCs in adventure, the ratio of male to female is something like 4 or 5 to 1.) [/list]
  • Unfortunately, designers can't win at this one.

    If we go for historical accuracy, more NPCs are male, and therefore the book is sexist against women.
    If we try to balance the number of prominent females vs. the number of prominent males, you end up with a larger proportion of female villains than the historical, therefore you're frequently portraying women as evil, and therefore the book is sexist against women.
    If all the good NPCs are women and the evil ones are men, (1) it's sexist against men, which is apparently tolerable, and (2) it puts all women into the "madonna" category, which is sexist against women.
    If you split it down the middle 50-50, people are going to interject their own personal bias into their perception of the adventure, and they're going to see sexism when there's none there. Jonathan Tweet wrote about this after he decided to randomly determine the gender of all PCs in a series of books. People wrote to him and complained that they were always beating up on female villians.

    Oops.


    cappadocius wrote:
    Lindisty wrote:
  • When I pick up a random adventure path or module, I'll see as many important female NPCs as I do male NPCs in the descriptions. (Most times when I take note of the gender ratio of NPCs in adventure, the ratio of male to female is something like 4 or 5 to 1.)
  • This is... problematic. I think what we're seeing here is D&D's general confusion with historical accuracy. Because game writers know that women do play their games, they make an effort to put language in about women adventurers and equality among PCs and all that. Then, to give historical verisimilitude to the game with Otyughs and Nilbogs, they make society a bit sexist; which it has been for pretty much all of human history. You would see a ratio of male to female of at LEAST 4 to 5 to 1, in real life.

    Which is not to say it's right. But just that it's a problem that goes deeper than counting NPCs and making sure the Tab As equal the Slot Bs.

    I see your point. Personally, though, I think that expecting (or trying to achieve) 'historical realism' in D&D makes about as much sense as expecting scientific accuracy in Star Trek.

    The male/female 'important' NPC ratio does contribute to my reluctance to use published campaign settings, adventure paths, or modules as written when I DM, though. It's something I pay close attention to in the homebrew world I've created, and I haven't yet found a published module that didn't seriously skew the balance if I were to use it as written.

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

    Sean K Reynolds wrote:
    Lindisty wrote:


  • When I pick up a random adventure path or module, I'll see as many important female NPCs as I do male NPCs in the descriptions. (Most times when I take note of the gender ratio of NPCs in adventure, the ratio of male to female is something like 4 or 5 to 1.) [/list]
  • Unfortunately, designers can't win at this one.

    If we go for historical accuracy, more NPCs are male, and therefore the book is sexist against women.
    If we try to balance the number of prominent females vs. the number of prominent males, you end up with a larger proportion of female villains than the historical, therefore you're frequently portraying women as evil, and therefore the book is sexist against women.
    If all the good NPCs are women and the evil ones are men, (1) it's sexist against men, which is apparently tolerable, and (2) it puts all women into the "madonna" category, which is sexist against women.
    If you split it down the middle 50-50, people are going to interject their own personal bias into their perception of the adventure, and they're going to see sexism when there's none there. Jonathan Tweet wrote about this after he decided to randomly determine the gender of all PCs in a series of books. People wrote to him and complained that they were always beating up on female villians.

    Oops.

    Yep. Because no matter what kind of representations you put in, they are going to be interpretted in terms of sexism and racism in our society.

    Take for example the choice of a dark-skinned iconic for Pathfinder. If you choose a combat-oriented class, it can be read as representing black people as more martial. If you choose a caster, it can be read as repeating Hollywood's 'magical negro' trope. If you choose a rogue, duck. If you don't have a dark-skinned iconic, you're read as saying dark-skinned people can only be villains.

    All texts can be read in terms of their connections with sexism and racism. That doesn't mean that the people who make those texts are sexist or racist. My problem with D7, as I said on his blog, is that labelling people as sexist or racist is politically clumsy and doesn't even fit with his own theories of what sexism and racism are. I read your comments on that thread with interest and thought D7's throwing insults at you was unnecessary.

    I've spent a long time exploring issues of sexism and racism but still find myself thinking and saying sexist or racist things. An anti-racist or anti-sexist is not someone who stops being sexist or racist and finds a royal road to racism/sexism free fantasy but someone who continues to think about the problem, listens to the arguments, and tries to come up with solutions.

    You did that on D7s blog and I think that's commendable.


    Sean K Reynolds wrote:
    Lindisty wrote:


  • When I pick up a random adventure path or module, I'll see as many important female NPCs as I do male NPCs in the descriptions. (Most times when I take note of the gender ratio of NPCs in adventure, the ratio of male to female is something like 4 or 5 to 1.) [/list]
  • Unfortunately, designers can't win at this one.

    I understand this. And this is not something I actually expect to see in my lifetime, because the changes in general western culture that would make such a thing seem 'normal' aren't likely to happen in my lifetime, at any rate.

    But it's a metric I use for personal judgments, and the companies that make an effort to be at least slightly more balanced than average are the ones that tend to get my business.

    Contributor

    roguerouge wrote:

    Well, since you ARE still posting on this topic, although evidently not over at d7, I'll repost the questions I asked you over there:

    What role do you think that our culture’s repetitive use of certain representations of women’s and men’s bodies have in promoting various eating and body image disorders (anorexia, bulimia, muscle dysmorphia, steroid use and others)? If so, does that [belief] play a role in your company’s art orders; if not, should it?

    Anorexia, bulimia, and muscular dysmorphia are all psychological disorders which include biological and cultural factor. Culture plays a part for vulnerable individuals, but it can't be the majority factor, otherwise EVERYONE in the USA would be A, B, or MD ... when in actuality, most Americans are merely fat.

    Now, on to my opinion....

    It's really, really easy to point at "the media" as the source of a problem, but "the media" isn't one homgenous entity. Yes, you have the fashion industry promoting ultra-skinny models, because their lack of curves allow fashion designers (who are disproportionately gay males) to draw attention to the clothes rather than the person, and Hollywood has its share of scrawny, unattractive, waifish starlets, but it also has healthily-proportioned women such as Scarlett Johansson, Reese Witherspoon, America Ferrera, Rose McGowan, Thora Birch, Anna Nicole Smith, Jennifer Lopez, Beyonce Knowles, Jessica Alba, Katherine Heigl, Drew Barrymore, Mariska Hargitay, Marilyn Monroe, Heidi Klum, Salma Hayek, and Kate Winslet, none of whom could ever be considered "skinny."

    Does the stereotypical impression of disorder-forming media influence our art orders? I can only speak for the art orders I write, but: not only "no," but "hell no." I describe art that is appropriate for the book in question. Sometimes that art is a hideous monster. Sometimes that art is an older woman appraising a healthy half-naked male slave. Sometimes it's a priestess of Sarenrae in battle garb. Sometimes it's a pretty Katapeshi merchant woman. Sometimes the artist sends a sketch that isn't appropriate or what I wanted for the scene, and I sent it back; the monster looks too sexual, the woman isn't old enough, the priestess doesn't have enough armor. And sometimes the sketch is sexy because that's what it's supposed to be. (Otherwise, so as to not exploit women, all succubus illustrations should be fat, hideous, and covered in boils, even though they're supposed to be evilly seductive creatures.)

    Why? Because as a game designer, my primary responsibility is to create quality game products set in a fantasy world that isn't our Earth. A fantasy world, mind you, where the goddess of beauty (illustrated for the first time in Gods & Magic) is a healthy, voluptuous woman rather than a scrawny girl-child.

    And above all, my opinion is based on my belief in personal responsibility: while I have a responsibility to act in an ethical manner, so do you. It is not my job to raise your (generic your) children or what standards of beauty they should try to live up to, it's your job. I am not your child's parent, you are. If your child develops A/B/MD because they were raised by television and "beauty" magazines instead of responsible personal parenting, I am not responsible for that. If your child ends up obese or a serial killer because of your action or inaction, likewise I am not responsible for that. The "constant pressure of countless images from the media" withers away in the face of a parent who gets off his or her butt and actually tries to be a parent. If you find a piece of art in an RPG and you think it's an unrealistic or unhealthy depiction of the male or female form, it's your responsibility to explain that to your child.

    My job is to provide interesting characters for a fantasy world ... a world where heroic fighters are stronger than the strongest real-world weightlifter (Seelah at level 14 has Str 20 and can lift 800 pounds over her head, more than Hossein Rezazadeh's 2004 Olympic record of 580.9 pounds), heroic rogues are more Dextrous than anyone on Earth (Merisiel at level 14 has Dex 24, almost eight times the human average, as in D&D +5 = x2 the previous value), and heroic sorcerers are more charismatic and beautiful than anyone on earth (Seoni at level 14 has Cha 24, truly a "face that launched a thousand ships"). It's your job to explain to your son that he can't look like Superman, can't fly like Superman, and can't ignore bullets like Superman. Our iconics can fly, get chopped by a dozen swords and survive, dodge ground-zero explosions, and routinely shoot out the eye of an orc at 100 yards. They're not human, they're superhuman. As a parent, you should explain to your child that fantasy characters are unreal. Anyone who realistically holds up fantasy characters as what a person should look like or be able to do isn't thinking clearly.

    I don't believe that illustrating a woman is exploitive of women if that illustration is relevant to the subject matter. Even if she's an attractive women. Even if she's not wearing much. In the case of the Paizo holiday card, it's perfectly relevant because Seoni is an iconic character, has been part of the Paizo product line for 2 years, and is very recognizable (if you're familiar with Paizo products, you've seen Seoni before, and thus she should be familiar to you when you see her on that card). To me, it's not exploitive to put her on the card, any more than it would be to put any of the other iconics on the card. So why Seoni? Well, she is the most attractive iconic in the traditional sense of beauty (Cha 24). And of the traditional Christmas colors (red and green), the only iconics who use them are Seoni, Seelah (her red cloak), Merisiel (whose armor is sometimes shown reddish, sometimes black), and Lini (who has green hair and green accents on her armor). I didn't have anything to do with picking the art for this card, but if my choice was among those four, I wouldn't pick Seelah or Merisiel, mainly because their armor and weapons depict a bit too much readiness to commit violence, and it's supposed to be a holiday of peace. So the choice is Seoni or Lini. With Lini, you have to decide whether or not to include her cat, which makes the illo more complex, and though as a gnome she does have a bit of a "Santa's helper" vibe. Or you could go with Seoni, who is appealing in a different (yes, sexier) way, and her outfit is already very Santa Clause-themed (the red and the white). If you're offended by Seoni-as-Santa, I'm not sure why you're not offended by Seoni-any-other-time-of-the-year. I'm not surprised at the choice. I don't think it's exploitive. I'm sorry if you're offended, you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean you're right and that we should all bow to your will (any more than my opinion makes me right and that you should all bow to mine).

    Contributor

    Tarren Dei wrote:
    Yep. Because no matter what kind of representations you put in, they are going to be interpretted in terms of sexism and racism in our society.

    Another Jonathan Tweet anecdote.

    He presented the problem of a demon that seduced and killed people. If it was a female demon that attacked men, it was sexist against women because it made her a killer and a sexual aggressor. If it was a male demon that attacked women, it was sexist against women because it victimized women, and used sex to do so. Rock, meet hard place.

    Lindisty wrote:

    I understand this. And this is not something I actually expect to see in my lifetime, because the changes in general western culture that would make such a thing seem 'normal' aren't likely to happen in my lifetime, at any rate.

    But it's a metric I use for personal judgments, and the companies that make an effort to be at least slightly more balanced than average are the ones that tend to get my business.

    Well, I appreciate your honesty, and please know that we do try to be progressive about cultural issues. For a game company that's mostly white males, we're actually pretty diverse and open to new ideas. If you see a problem with something, we welcome your input. Rants that call us sexist and racist, not so much, but honest criticism is always fair. :)


    Sean K. Reynolds wrote:
    My job is to provide interesting characters for a fantasy world ... a world where heroic fighters are stronger than the strongest real-world weightlifter...(snip)...It's your job to explain to your son that he can't look like Superman, can't fly like Superman, and can't ignore bullets like Superman. Our iconics can fly, get chopped by a dozen swords and survive, dodge ground-zero explosions, and routinely shoot out the eye of an orc at 100 yards. They're not human, they're superhuman. As a parent, you should explain to your child that fantasy characters are unreal. Anyone who realistically holds up fantasy characters as what a person should look like or be able to do isn't thinking clearly.

    Sean, this quote ought to be posted at ever movie theater, video game store, comic book store and should be shown every half-hour on TV. You speak the truth.

    Sovereign Court

    Sean K Reynolds wrote:
    Tarren Dei wrote:
    Yep. Because no matter what kind of representations you put in, they are going to be interpretted in terms of sexism and racism in our society.

    Another Jonathan Tweet anecdote.

    He presented the problem of a demon that seduced and killed people. If it was a female demon that attacked men, it was sexist against women because it made her a killer and a sexual aggressor. If it was a male demon that attacked women, it was sexist against women because it victimized women, and used sex to do so. Rock, meet hard place.

    Lindisty wrote:

    I understand this. And this is not something I actually expect to see in my lifetime, because the changes in general western culture that would make such a thing seem 'normal' aren't likely to happen in my lifetime, at any rate.

    But it's a metric I use for personal judgments, and the companies that make an effort to be at least slightly more balanced than average are the ones that tend to get my business.
    Well, I appreciate your honesty, and please know that we do try to be progressive about cultural issues. For a game company that's mostly white males, we're actually pretty diverse and open to new ideas. If you see a problem with something, we welcome your input. Rants that call us sexist and racist, not so much, but honest criticism is always fair. :)

    And that's why you guys rock! I've been a loyal fan since I switched my Dungeon and Dragon subscriptions over to AP's and added in all the pathfinder lines. Paizo's attitude, I feel sometimes even more then their writing, has a lot to do with it. :)


    Heathansson wrote:

    You know, walruses have ivory too. But you assume it's elephants.

    Nice job outing yourself.

    Way to point out the racist. How bigoted can you get...

    [EDIT] Also, here's my take on the entire matter. I noticed Sean saying that his post was deleted and I thought I'd share here:

    Spoiler:
    Keeping the vitriol to as low as I can muster, as long as the good folks at Paizo don’t send out dead-baby greeting cards, I don’t see anything wrong. Is that imaginary character being objectified? I don’t know, she’s IMAGINARY. How is this any different than a local fire department putting out a calendar of firemen? Y’know, I’d like to quote my wife in this matter: “Nerds, like regular men, like t*@#”… God, do I love my wife. Anyway, she has a point; People like looking at pretty things. Be they fan-favorite sorceresses, a well-prepared meal, or magnificent architecture, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you honestly and truly found what was sitting in your inbox to be that offensive, well, that’s your prerogative. I however, and a great many others like me, happen to like what we deem pleasing to our eye. So, in closing, I hope that this entire debacle can be nipped in the bud for next year, and move to a gender neutral doppelganger grace Paizo’s card next year.

    With boobs. Big ones. Y’know, for the wife.

    Liberty's Edge

    Is Obama Girl sexist exploitation?

    Sovereign Court

    Heathansson wrote:
    Is Obama Girl sexist exploitation?

    Yes?

    Is it healthy? That's a different question. Is it inherently wrong? A different question altogether. Does it contribute to unhealthy or inherently wrong forms of sexist exploitation? Third question.

    But it *is* undeniably sexist exploitation.

    Liberty's Edge

    cappadocius wrote:
    Heathansson wrote:
    Is Obama Girl sexist exploitation?

    Yes?

    Is it healthy? That's a different question. Is it inherently wrong? A different question altogether. Does it contribute to unhealthy or inherently wrong forms of sexist exploitation? Third question.

    But it *is* undeniably sexist exploitation.

    Well, is it? Also, if so, where was the outcry?

    Should the (soon to be) POTUS release a statement condemning Obama Girl?

    Sovereign Court

    Heathansson wrote:
    cappadocius wrote:


    But it *is* undeniably sexist exploitation.
    Well, is it?

    Uhhhhhhhh. what

    Heathansson wrote:
    Also, if so, where was the outcry?

    It's out there. It's not that hard to find.

    Heathansson wrote:
    Should the (soon to be) POTUS release a statement condemning Obama Girl?

    You know, I do get tired of playing the straight man sometimes. Obama Girl is in no way affiliated with Mr. Obama, and it would be stupid of him to even acknowledge her without being pressed to.

    Liberty's Edge

    cappadocius wrote:


    Uhhhhhhhh. what

    the other thingy cappadocius said "Is it healthy? That's a different question. Is it inherently wrong? A different question altogether. Does it contribute to unhealthy or inherently wrong forms of sexist exploitation? Third question."

    That's what.

    So it's okay to benefit indirectly from sexploitation, and not speak out against it, even if you're the POTUS. Why would it be stupid? He could do a lot of good for the cause.


    Sean K Reynolds wrote:
    Well, I appreciate your honesty, and please know that we do try to be progressive about cultural issues. For a game company that's mostly white males, we're actually pretty diverse and open to new ideas. If you see a problem with something, we welcome your input. Rants that call us sexist and racist, not so much, but honest criticism is always fair. :)

    To clarify a bit, there is an (admittedly subtle) difference between saying that a particular representation of a woman by a company reflects a sexist aspect of culture and saying that the company is sexist. Paizo is in its business to make money, and marketing Seoni as a sexpot (a capable, independent sexpot, but a sexpot nonetheless) makes you money. And I recognize that Paizo certainly does more than many gaming companies to represent diversity and equality in your products. While I'd prefer that the culture were such that this kind of marketing weren't so effective, I can't fault your company for doing what works.

    Besides, if I were going to condemn a company for sexist marketing campaigns, there are far more egregious examples out there for me to be outraged over. (Like the 'buy her diamonds so she'll put out' commercials that show up on t.v. around this time every year.)

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

    cappadocius wrote:
    Tarren Dei wrote:


    Still Capp, I was with you right up until the point you called Set stupid.
    Tarren, believe me, 6 years of posting at RPGnet have trained me not to make personal attacks. I called the analogy stupid. Many of us, including myself, can say incredibly stupid things while, unlike me, being incredibly smart.

    Yeah. Okay. I'm just being a bit punchy. I realized you were talking about the analogy and not the person.

    You know what would have made a sexier Paizo Christmas card? A cheesecake pinup shot of a many eyed, slimy tentacled monster. That would have been sexy, eh guys?

    ...

    guys?

    ...

    What ... it's only me that thinks that?

    Liberty's Edge

    For the record,

    I bought the Skinsaw Murders because I buy all the AP books. If I DIDN'T buy all the AP books, I would've bought the Skinsaw Murders because Richard Pett wrote the thing. The monk with the bare chest was on the other one Richard Pett wrote, (iirc) and I bought it.
    Seoni on the cover didn't clinch the deal for me or anything like that.

    Seoni doesn't sell Paizo product for me. Paizo does. The writing does. The proof is in the pudding.

    There's these other books that sucked, don't remember which ones, (like Vikings of Valhalla or something) but they had these Heavy Metal Magazine cover chicks with leather thongs and longswords in suggestive poses; I can hardly pick the damn things up. There's a difference between that kinda stuff and Seoni sitting there with the candy cane.
    I guess Paizo is a big enough blip on the radar that the guy with the blog thought he could stir up some controversy with them, or perhaps he was genuinely offended; I really don't know.

    I don't think a little cheesecake here and there is that big a deal. You know, we all get old, and we all look like a bunch of old people. It happens, and the closer I get the less of a big deal this stuff even is, one way or another. You're young, you get old, meh. S@@& happens.

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

    Sean K Reynolds wrote:
    Tarren Dei wrote:
    Yep. Because no matter what kind of representations you put in, they are going to be interpretted in terms of sexism and racism in our society.

    Another Jonathan Tweet anecdote.

    He presented the problem of a demon that seduced and killed people. If it was a female demon that attacked men, it was sexist against women because it made her a killer and a sexual aggressor. If it was a male demon that attacked women, it was sexist against women because it victimized women, and used sex to do so. Rock, meet hard place.

    There is another option ... one that Paizo does quite often. Include in the descriptions of NPCs discrimination that they may have faced. I'll try to dig up a few examples but the one that comes to mind (because I was running my son Nerrat through Into The Haunted Forest this morning) is the NPC Estle Winterbloom who was suspected of a theft just because she is a witch -- a nod to historical discrimination against independent women. Nerrat was a bit thrown by this NPC being suspected for a crime for no good reason and it opened up a good discussion.

    Liberty's Edge

    Tarren Dei wrote:
    Sean K Reynolds wrote:
    Tarren Dei wrote:
    Yep. Because no matter what kind of representations you put in, they are going to be interpretted in terms of sexism and racism in our society.

    Another Jonathan Tweet anecdote.

    He presented the problem of a demon that seduced and killed people. If it was a female demon that attacked men, it was sexist against women because it made her a killer and a sexual aggressor. If it was a male demon that attacked women, it was sexist against women because it victimized women, and used sex to do so. Rock, meet hard place.

    There is another option ... one that Paizo does quite often. Include in the descriptions of NPCs discrimination that they may have faced. I'll try to dig up a few examples but the one that comes to mind (because I was running my son Nerrat through Into The Haunted Forest this morning) is the NPC Estle Winterbloom who was suspected of a theft just because she is a witch -- a nod to historical discrimination against independent women. Nerrat was a bit thrown by this NPC being suspected for a crime for no good reason and it opened up a good discussion.

    IDK....I like the idea. I think it's great. BUT, I think it does have the potential to put the publisher on shaky ground.

    There's an inherent power in pointing your finger and screaming "****ist!" at other people. Or, "I'm the victim here!!!" Not to take anything away from people who are genuinely discriminated against, or victimized, but the damndest people end up doing it.

    Contributor

    Tarren Dei wrote:
    You know what would have made a sexier Paizo Christmas card? A cheesecake pinup shot of a many eyed, slimy tentacled monster. That would have been sexy, eh guys?

    Has nothing on the Lamashtu worshipping gnoll, human, and werehyena sacrificial orgy in the Osirion book. Still surprised that section survived edits, and amazed it got an illustration. I approve. ;)


    Lindisty wrote:
    To clarify a bit, there is an (admittedly subtle) difference between saying that a particular representation of a woman by a company reflects a sexist aspect of culture and saying that the company is sexist. Paizo is in its business to make money, and marketing Seoni as a sexpot (a capable, independent sexpot, but a sexpot nonetheless) makes you money...

    Funny, I've seen nothing about Seoni that says "sexpot". Now, if per se in her stat block she had Craft: Sexual Position, Knowledge: Tantra, or Profession: Who're*, then I'd agree with you. However, and this is the sad thing, you're demonizing something that someone thinks is beautiful and twisting it to an agenda. I realize that this is a bit heavy handed, but in the end it's true, whether you realize it or not. When my wife puts on makeup, does up her hair, and wears her push up bra (her words, not mine), does that make her a "sexpot" just because she evokes a sexy nature? You're condemning a painting for what you're broadcasting onto it. Others may not see it as you do.

    *

    Spoiler:
    Got by the censors with that one...


    A few thoughts.

    1) Like everybody else here, I am descended from a long line of guys who found women attractive, sought them out, and ended up having sex with one. Maybe in the future we will have cloning and we won't need to have sex anymore. Maybe some people would even be happy to live in such a time.

    2) Girls can't be Seoni in real life, but they can be Seoni in a fantasy. Or they can be Kyra or Meriseil or even Valeros if they want to, in the fantasy game. In real life they are whoever they are, and some of them are good looking, others less so, but that's why real life is not the same as fantasy life. Exageration is a stock in the trade of fantasy illustration.

    3) I don't think Seoni really defines beauty for anybody. (Well, perhaps she is "fetish fuel" for some teenagers buying Paizo products today.) Insofar as a fictional character can be a fictiom, Seoni is as much a victim of "The Media's" standards of beauty as anybody else: the artist, wanting to portray an attractive young woman portrayed her as the Media portrays them. The women whom I've been very attracted to did not look like Seoni.

    4) There are a lot of real issues in the fantasy gaming subculture. To focus your ire on something that is not a real issue detracts from the purpose of making gaming more hospitable for females. The question is, yes, our Western Civilization Culture is massively screwed up when it comes to matters of sex, but is this illustration a barrier to girls entering the gaming subculture?

    5) I think not. My observation is that girls like to identify with the heroine, and by presenting Seoni as both capable and attractive, my prediction is that she is effective at drawing girls into the world. If I were to give this serious consideration I'd have to do some market research with focus groups, maybe a psychological study. But as an observation, the flood of sexy superheroines that appeared in the 1990s has accompanied a flood of girls getting interested in the fantasy subculture. In the 1980s I couldn't find any girls interested in these games. In the 2000s, women are well represented in most gaming groups I've been in.

    6) Paizo has created a fantasy world. Part of this world is sex. People like me may half-jokingly postulate the existence of Golarian cosmetic surgeons and specialized prestige classes. But sex is one of the things that makes this world, so why shouldn't it be one of the things in a fantasy world?

    7) Boys like to have fun. Why shouldn't we? And why should a guy's choices be limited to Burkas or Bikinis, between Mary Poppins World and Porno-Exploitoiva World? People like fantasy games because fantasy worlds provide options that are not available in the real world. Why should sexy sorceresses be among the elements of a fantasy world?

    As a subcategory of this thought, I've had games where activities were involved in storylines that included the potential for family generation. Having introduced a beautiful princess in one game, the question comes of up who would get to marry her. In another game, one of my characters took a chance of generating offsping, because that seemed like the in-character thing to do.

    8) I don't really see this illustration of Seoni as a sex object. Yes, she is attractive. Yes, she has the body of a porn star. Yes, her outfit is one you don't see very many real women wear. But she also appears to be a bit unapproachable, as if she's willing to be my friend, but not more. I'm sure she has an Ice Ray spell ready for guys who don't see that.

    9) A lot of illustrations show male heroes as bare legged AND topless.

    Dark Archive

    Sorry folks, not wanting to offend anyone....!!! I am just suprised that this kind of discussion is still being held in the 21st Century.

    But, in hoping to show how stupid this discussion is, let me join with the following questions:

    What is so sexiest about depicting this character in this bikini like clothing???? I truly don't understand.

    The bikini...??? hellfire,.......... If that is the case what are all the bikinis doing on the beaches all over the world, ............and who the hell is wearing them????

    Having asked that question: If showing a good looking body in a bikini makes the artist a sexist.... what about all those women who are wearing bikinis (and lots of bikinis worn in reality are made of even fewer cloth than the on in the picture of question), what are they ....also sexist.....or what?

    What about the men on the worlds beaches, who wear even less than a string bikini? what are they? sexist, gay, strange,????

    Come on folks, this discussion is not worth the paper (it ain't printed on). We are not living in the middle ages an more. If "X-Mas Seoni Picture" means that Paizo and those that like the PIC are sexist, then so was the artist that painted all the covers of Howards Conan Books (hmmmm, there where scantly dressed women AND men on all the covers......yak, phui, bahhh.....) or Edgar Rice Buroughs Tarzan books.....More half naked men then women, if I add up the covers and if I counted correctly....! Maybe I am wrong, but none of the above mentioned authors or publishers of these books have been called sexist.

    Folks...2009 is coming. Get over this of stupid bickering of who is allowed to depict what kind of picture on what kind of medium!

    If you don't like it, then take what ever action or consequences you like, as do those that like it.

    As much as I love America and its people....sometimes you folk make me wonder if some of you are for real.......(or how many are still caught in the middle ages)!

    Dark Archive

    Golarion Goblin wrote:
    Lindisty wrote:
    To clarify a bit, there is an (admittedly subtle) difference between saying that a particular representation of a woman by a company reflects a sexist aspect of culture and saying that the company is sexist. Paizo is in its business to make money, and marketing Seoni as a sexpot (a capable, independent sexpot, but a sexpot nonetheless) makes you money...

    Funny, I've seen nothing about Seoni that says "sexpot". Now, if per se in her stat block she had Craft: Sexual Position, Knowledge: Tantra, or Profession: Who're*, then I'd agree with you. However, and this is the sad thing, you're demonizing something that someone thinks is beautiful and twisting it to an agenda. I realize that this is a bit heavy handed, but in the end it's true, whether you realize it or not. When my wife puts on makeup, does up her hair, and wears her push up bra (her words, not mine), does that make her a "sexpot" just because she evokes a sexy nature? You're condemning a painting for what you're broadcasting onto it. Others may not see it as you do.

    *** spoiler omitted **

    Thanks for the above statement.... Seems there are still rational human beings out here...


    Devlin 'Dusk' Valerian wrote:
    As much as I love America and its people....sometimes you folk make me wonder if some of you are for real.......(or how many are still caught in the middle ages)!

    High five dude, high five.

    *high fives monitor*

    Dark Archive

    Golarion Goblin wrote:
    Devlin 'Dusk' Valerian wrote:
    As much as I love America and its people....sometimes you folk make me wonder if some of you are for real.......(or how many are still caught in the middle ages)!

    High five dude, high five.

    *high fives monitor*

    Mental high five.

    Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

    Kevin Mack wrote:
    Mental high five.

    Ouch! My brain!


    As much as I love America and its people....sometimes you folk make me wonder if some of you are for real.......(or how many are still caught in the middle ages)!

    This may have something to do with why.

    Demagogy (From Wikipedia). (also demagoguery) refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.

    The early 20th century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, known for his "definitions" of terms, defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

    I am with the French on this!

    vive la différence!
    "[long] live the difference"; originally referring to the difference between the sexes, the phrase may be used to celebrate the difference between any two groups of people (or simply the general diversity of individuals)

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

    Utgardloki wrote:
    7) Boys like to have fun. Why shouldn't we? And why should a guy's choices be limited to Burkas or Bikinis, between Mary Poppins World and Porno-Exploitoiva World? . . .

    Can I join that campaign setting? :D


    Lord Fyre wrote:
    Utgardloki wrote:
    7) Boys like to have fun. Why shouldn't we? And why should a guy's choices be limited to Burkas or Bikinis, between Mary Poppins World and Porno-Exploitoiva World? . . .
    Can I join that campaign setting? :D

    I don't know. You'll have to ask the DM. I don't do Porno-Exploitoiva World Settings. But if I can get at least one woman to sign in for my Macho Women with Guns campaign, then you can join, too. But I don't do pornographic campaigns. It would just invoke Too Much Information.

    But I do do anthropological speculations on the sociological functionality of differing sexual mores in fantasy world cultures.

    Liberty's Edge

    Utgardloki wrote:
    Lord Fyre wrote:
    Utgardloki wrote:
    7) Boys like to have fun. Why shouldn't we? And why should a guy's choices be limited to Burkas or Bikinis, between Mary Poppins World and Porno-Exploitoiva World? . . .
    Can I join that campaign setting? :D
    I don't know. You'll have to ask the DM. I don't do Porno-Exploitoiva World Settings. But if I can get at least one woman to sign in for my Macho Women with Guns campaign, then you can join, too. But I don't do pornographic campaigns. It would just invoke Too Much Information.

    Really? Personally, I found it had to many seperate skill check rolls, such as the many variations of the Perform skill. It looked like you'd only get one or two things done each night. Maybe three or four, if you didn't take a break in between and don't bother with snacks.

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

    Mentioning the Burroughs/Howard art reminded me of a piece I wanted commissioned in that style for my classes.

    Left to right, it would show a large menacing monster in the background, like a Barsoomian apt roaring and looking generally menacing. Opposing it is a warrior sword in one hand, a ball of fire in the other. He'd be wearing light or no armour. Behind him kneeling on the ground in the 'damsel in distress pose' would be a scantly clad woman, sandals silks etc. Typical pulp image.

    The devil would be in the details. There'd be a thin line of magic linking the monster to one of the damsel's hands. Her other hand would be reaching into the warrior's belt pouch, and she'd be looking out of the picture with a smirk.

    To me, it's taking classic pulp, and turning it sideways to show the two classes, the magic using warrior (Arcane Legionary) and the magic using thief (spell stalker)

    Were I selling the product, would it be using cheese/beefcake to sell it? Not my intent, but I'm sure it would catch some eyes. Would it be the 'women as sneaky liars/men and big dumb defend their woman' trope? I'm sure it would be seen as such.

    Would it be a homage to those stories I read as a kid that influence my way of thinking to this deay? Definately.

    Would D7 over analyze it? Yes.

    201 to 250 of 432 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Seoni as Santa All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.