|
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.
So to sum up sometimes a picture is just a picture.
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?
Actually, we agreed on that point, which may be a first. In a response to Aubrey, I described it as "disappointingly boring and unimaginative. I mean, of all the things you could do with a Paizo XMas card, cheesecake is the most creative solution they could come up with? You couldn't have a goblin ransacking presents under a tree, holding up a Christmas turkey about to be eaten alive? A Mammy Graul Family Christmas card? An "I'm Dreaming of a Drow Christmas" album? Have that countdown in the Egyptian-themed modules reference XMas morning? In short, it felt formulaic and barely connected to your current products, which are two sets of iconics away from that one."
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.
I don't think I've condemned anything or anyone, much less 'demonized' anything or anyone.
Most of the illustrations I've seen of Seoni have her in the sort of arched-back, pouty-lipped, pointed-toed poses that come off to me as being overtly sexualized, which leads me to conclude that it's a deliberate choice on Paizo's part to portray her that way. Personally, Seoni is not to my taste (I prefer my eye candy --female and male-- to be more realistically proportioned), and I think the portrayal does reflect a sexist aspect of gaming culture-- at least insofar as I don't think I've seen any male iconics in the Paizo lineup consistently sexualized in a similar manner.
But that's not a condemnation or a demonization, in any sense of either word. It's an observation and an opinion, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't ascribe motivations to me that I don't have.
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.
Of course, media industries play a role in Americans' weight issues: the 28.8 hours a week the average American spends watching television has a tendency to make it harder to keep fit. The 4 hours a week some of us get to spend sitting around a gaming table has a similar but lesser effect, and that's without accounting for the snacks.
But so long as you're willing to admit that there is a cultural factor and that you are cultural producers and that it's something that you'll think about in the future, that's all I can ask.
I ask that because a dear friend's sister was hospitalized several times for an eating disorder and will likely die a decade or more early due to the internal damage that disorder caused. Looking at Seoni's tiny waist with hips significantly smaller than her shoulders doesn't put me in a very festive mood, I'm afraid. It makes me angry and sad.
It's really, really easy to point at "the media" as the source of a problem, but "the media" isn't one homgenous entity. [fashion-industry and Hollywood examples cut for length]...[snip]
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. [snip]
You're projecting me as making an argument that I haven't made, because I've only asked you a question. Still, I'll respond to it. The short answer is that you do have some personal responsibility, but not blame. As James Dean once put it, "we are all involved."
I don't have to claim that it's the only or even the major factor. It only has to be a contributing factor for there to be responsibility (which is not the same thing as blame). After all, if someone gets cancer after a lifetime of smoking, working at the nuclear power plant, and eating food with lots of artificial preservatives and genetic manipulation, that doesn't mean that the chemical company dumping carcinogens into the ground water is without culpability. (This is an analogy about multiple causation, not Paizo as cultural carcinogen.)
You can't opt out of culture. It's like saying if you don't like the air quality, stop breathing. The average American is exposed to upwards of 5000 commercial messages a day, in everything from signs to piped-in radio at coffee shops to the brands on litter. And your analogy falls apart when one considers that the parent was influenced by the culture that permeates them as well.
Social systems are never isolated systems and thus make the linear causation model limited or inapplicable. (After all, the A causes B model is not the only standard in law, or science, for that matter.) Eliminating foreign elements like controlling parents or the effect of portion sizes to isolate the effect of ideology (or one cultural product's role in fostering ideology) makes it harder to simulate the interconnected nature of social reality. To the extent that media or culture is systemic, its harm is magnified. To the extent culture is systemic, its influence will be harder to isolate. That does not mean the influence doesn’t exist. Media products do hurt individuals and provide tangible benefits, but it is not targeted at one linearly, nor is it caused by one product except in a tiny minority of the cases (e.g. something like Birth of a Nation, rather than an XMas card).
The metaphor of advertising campaign is an apt one, as one might think of them as advertisements for ideas, feelings, and ways of perceiving and living. An ad campaign for a Hummer or a Lexus needs to influence only a puny percentage of its potential viewers to make a big difference for the company, the country, and the planet. Nor does this ad campaign have to sell a Hummer to a customer to have an enormous impact on our world; simply positioning a Hummer as a sign of success and power can do that.
Similarly, representing hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine bodies as a sign of power and success can do much the same thing. And even if only a tiny percentage of people "mistake" that ideal as achievable it can have an enormous impact on us all. Popular culture needs to change perceptions of only a small segment of its vast audience to make a significant difference to society. Thus, the influence is selective and systematic without being linear.
When I teach my media students about media effects theory, one of the things that I talk about is the difference between blame and responsibility. You can be responsible without being blame-worthy, just as a drunk who does bad things is responsible for what he does before going to AA, even though his disease drove his actions and ruled his will. (I'm not looking to debate AA or alcoholism. Take it elsewhere.) I'm not talking about "the media"; I've always kept it directly on point as to what your company's individual responsibility is with its customer base of 10s of thousands of direct customers, according to James Jacobs' estimates.
Although I will say that the broader context necessarily informs your choices and our reception of those choices. Otherwise, your company's choices with Seelah wouldn't be praise-worthy, would it?
When posters take your company to task about its choices, take the implied complement. If Seoni CAN'T matter--can't possibly be damaging in the slightest because it's just an image and just an imagined character--then neither can your story choices about gay paladins, abortionists, and environment-destroying corporations or your use of a black female iconic paladin. You can't have it both ways. In order for stories and art to ennoble us through our interaction with them, they have to risk the possibility of being damaging. They can't mean something and nothing at the same time.
At the end of the day, you want to be held accountable if you're confident in the overall quality of your work.
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.
This is a false dichotomy. The fact that controlling parenting plays a role in promoting these disorders does not mean that it's not also influenced by ideals promoted by ad agencies to cause anxieties designed to be soothed by their products, by a maladaptive response to sexual violence, by portion-sizes that have increased by 50-60 percent over the last two decades, by the sedentary jobs of the new economy, by chemical imbalances, by schools that cut physical education requirements to meet federal and state high stakes testing requirements, ideologies of manliness that don't fit the vast majority of what people do every day and on and on and on.
The world is more complex than you want it to be when it comes to this issue. It's very tempting to look for villains to blame, rather than to examine the myriad causes of a very complex Western disorder. But it's just not accurate.
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.)
First, I think you'll acknowledge that I pointed out in the Sexuality thread that it makes a difference whether the depiction is of a villain--whom the player is meant to oppose--or an iconic, whom the player is supposed to imagine themselves being when playing them. That makes a huge difference, so the fat succubi analogy is a reductio ad absurdam argument that's fairly irrelevant to my particular argument.
Second, you revealed something about yourself here with "the monster looks too sexual" (and possibly "the woman isn't old enough".) That means it's not all about the dictates of the story. There are some lines you won't cross because you find believe that such representations--even just encouraging people to imagine such things let alone role play them out--can be damaging. What posters like myself are asking you to think about is where you draw that line.
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.
Good. And good for Paizo when it comes to the other things that I've mentioned as positives. That's why Seoni's so disappointing--especially a badly drawn one with two identical feet, a too-small head, a missing large intestine and hips that are much smaller than her shoulders. The fact that her appeal's so obvious is what makes her so un-Paizoan, which I associate with cleverness and risk-taking, not this. She's not a good representation of what your company--the best in the module and setting business--brings to the table. She's also at best tangentially related to the products that you've put out over the past year.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
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?
Actually, we agreed on that point, which may be a first. In a response to Aubrey, I described it as "disappointingly boring and unimaginative. I mean, of all the things you could do with a Paizo XMas card, cheesecake is the most creative solution they could come up with? You couldn't have a goblin ransacking presents under a tree, holding up a Christmas turkey about to be eaten alive? A Mammy Graul Family Christmas card? An "I'm Dreaming of a Drow Christmas" album? Have that countdown in the Egyptian-themed modules reference XMas morning? In short, it felt formulaic and barely connected to your current products, which are two sets of iconics away from that one."
I'm specifically thinking of tentacled monsters. They make me all tingly.
I don't think I've condemned anything or anyone, much less 'demonized' anything or anyone.
Most of the illustrations I've seen of Seoni have her in the sort of arched-back, pouty-lipped, pointed-toed poses that come off to me as being overtly sexualized, which leads me to conclude that it's a deliberate choice on Paizo's part to portray her that way. Personally, Seoni is not to my taste (I prefer my eye candy --female and male-- to be more realistically proportioned), and I think the portrayal does reflect a sexist aspect of gaming culture-- at least insofar as I don't think I've seen any male iconics in the Paizo lineup consistently sexualized in a similar manner.
But that's not a condemnation or a demonization, in any sense of either word. It's an observation and an opinion, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't ascribe motivations to me that I don't have.
Point taken. One of the worst things about the internet is a lack of context between posters. Forgive my blanket statement. I'm a rather staunch supporter of freedom of speech and expression, so that bled through slightly. I apologize.
Also, I agree with you that a more natural looking woman is more appealing than an sexualized one. However, that does not preclude that a sexualized woman isn't appealing. It's all a matter of personal opinion.
As for your thoughts on the male iconics, I'd re-take a look at Seltyiel. Not to point counter-culture fingers, but I'm sure somewhere there's at least one angst-ridden goth who found the half-elf appealing.
I'm specifically thinking of tentacled monsters. They make me all tingly.
You mean like Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion?
Point taken. One of the worst things about the internet is a lack of context between posters. Forgive my blanket statement. I'm a rather staunch supporter of freedom of speech and expression, so that bled through slightly. I apologize.
Apology accepted.
Though I'd point out that I also never suggested any restriction on anyone's speech or expression. Expressing my opinion of Paizo's representation of Seoni is hardly the same thing as demanding they be prevented from representing her in that way.
(Apologies if I read more into the preceding text than was intended. I'm a librarian-- freedom of expression is a core part of what I do and who I am, so being interpreted as having advocated restrictions on expression stings a bit.)
As for your thoughts on the male iconics, I'd re-take a look at Seltyiel. Not to point counter-culture fingers, but I'm sure somewhere there's at least one angst-ridden goth who found the half-elf appealing.
Hey, some people apparently find tentacled monsters appealing, but that's not relevant to the discussion. ;) My point wasn't about what any given person may find sexually attractive.
I haven't seen as many illustrations of Seltyiel as I have of Seoni, so my basis for comparison is a bit scarce. From the few I've seen, though, he's fully clothed (albeit with his chest bared) and in a powerful pose with a wide-legged stance and a direct gaze at the viewer, as opposed to being all coyly posed with the pouty lips, arched back, and pointed toes one usually sees in Seoni's illustrations. It's a distinctly different vibe, and I suspect the difference has at least as much to do with the difference in genders as with the difference in the types of characters they are.
By contrast, it's fascinating to me that Lem, who, as a bard, should be the highest-charisma male character in the Paizo iconic lineup and thus ripe for an equivalent treatment to Seoni if Paizo wanted such a thing, is illustrated in a way that comes across to me as much more comic and non-sexualized than the others. This is not to say that I think Paizo should change what they're doing-- it's just something I find interesting about the choices they've already made.
|
Also, aside from the fact that cheesecake is good advertising (to quote Bill Hicks, "Who was thinking about gum during the Doublemint adverts with the twins?"), Seoni is also one of the oldest two iconics so her appearances in the early modules are because they literally didn't have anyone else prepared. Selyietal, by contrast, is the most recent iconic and his appearance has really only been settled for 8 months, so it's not surprising that there are fewer pictures of him.
Now that all 12 iconics are in play, there should be less emphasis on any one of them. I doubt there will be owing to the first point but it might be slightly more equal now.
EDIT: And the latest pose of Seoni (on the cover of Osirion Land of Pharaohs) seems much less sexualised than previous. Although she does have the waist-twist to show both t~&@ and arse going on, so it's still not perfect.
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.
How demonic of us! If we were proper christians, we'd humbly wish for intercourse with ugly, but friendly women, and only to procreate, not for fun.
Is that what you mean?
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.
Are the skinny guys suffenly not allowe dto fap? Or are you just discriminating against fat guys, implying that they cannot find sexual partners and have to fap (great move: whine about sexual discrimination and then discriminate about overweight people. Always a classy move. Unless you're implying that good-looking women are always shallow and will never consider overweight people as partners, sexual or otherwise. Which is discrimination against women).
Mr. d7's problem
Is that he's a demagogue, plain and simple.
Or maybe his wife caught him looking at the picture for 5 full minutes, but luckily he didn't see him drooling, so when she confronted him he made something up about being furious about this mistreatment of all women and non-white people basically had to launch this ridiculous crusade to avoid having to sleep on the sofa.
is that gamers are not only refusing to admit that they are, yeah, sexist and a little adolescent in their fantasies
There's nothing to admit. Fantasies cannot be sexist. Is it sexist for me to fantasise about seducing women but not men? Is it sexist for me to fantasise about seducing - or being seduced by - good-looking women (or even too-good-looking women) instead of average or even ugly ones?
Of course it's not. It's our fantasies. They don't have to deal with reality. They're fantasy. Everything for the same price. So if we're thinking about things that have nothing to do with reality, we might as well max out that credit card and get the sexiest women ever, and her even sexier sister.
Why should we settle for less (unless we muddy our fantasy with reality by dreaming about specific, existing women)?
In reality, when we look for women to spend a part of my life together, we have a whole lot of things to look for, and decent looks is only one (not even a major one) criterium. But when we, the fat guys, want to have something to fantasise about when we fap, we won't be guilt-pressed into looking at pictures of women who aren't good looking and sexy but might have nice characteristics that are of no use whatsoever in that moment.
And if any women who doesn't look like Seoni is angry because we won't fantasise about her when we fap, send her to me, and I slap some sense into her and tell her that she should get her priorities straight.
We've all got 'em. But for some reason, when *gamers* get called on them, we get defensive and stupid about it.
No, we're not. We get defensive when some opportunist calls us sexist and racist and exaggerates to get some pats on the back.
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.
Hardly. But kudos to everyone who can get enough tasty food on adventuring to gain weight despite all the moving about and carrying three times your own weight in loot.
By all accounts, adventuring is a very busy thing. And catering sucks. Not the best conditions to collect some excess weight.
In other words, the only thing I discriminate against is bad writing, I guess.That, and dwarves.
Hear, hear! A laudable sentiment. Speciesism is so much more fun than sexism. Why should I bash black? Black and white should live together in harmony and gang up on green! ;-)
I'm not quoting, but I agree with the sentiment that "The Media" are there to entertain, not to educate. And when it comes to certain things, the schools aren't there to educate, either. There are things a child can, and should, learn only from their parents. If kids are messed up, it's not because of the media with their Beauty Irreals, it's because you failed catastrophically. When a child has to look to perfect strangers for their role models, then that's because those who are supposed to be role models - that's you, dear parents - didn't show up for the gig, and they had to hire the first guy they met on the street.
I mean, of all the things you could do with a Paizo XMas card, cheesecake is the most creative solution they could come up with? You couldn't have a goblin ransacking presents under a tree,
As a Jew, your use of the Christmas tree offends me.
holding up a Christmas turkey about to be eaten alive?
As a vegetarian, your use of a live turkey as a food item offends me.
Etc.
(No, I'm not really a Jew, I'm just pointing out that no matter what you do, someone may be offended.)
This is a false dichotomy. The fact that controlling parenting plays a role in promoting these disorders does not mean that it's not also influenced by ideals promoted by ad agencies to cause anxieties designed to be soothed by their products,
I don't watch TV. If you're a parent, maybe you shouldn't let your kids watch so much TV (as I said earlier, don't let TV be the babysitter).
by a maladaptive response to sexual violence,
Not really sure what you mean by this, but sexual violence has been on the decrease in this country, and there is much less of a "blame the victim" mentality than what we've seen even 10 years ago. And you read what I said on D7's blog about my friends.
by portion-sizes that have increased by 50-60 percent over the last two decades,
And parents have no role in deciding how much their children eat?
by the sedentary jobs of the new economy,
Because people never have any free time outside of work, and have no choice about what they do in their free time.
by chemical imbalances,
A medical issue, not a media issue.
by schools that cut physical education requirements to meet federal and state high stakes testing requirements,Because parent's clearly aren't responsible for going out and playing with their kids anymore.
ideologies of manliness that don't fit the vast majority of what people do every day and on and on and on.So instead they run the other way to obesity? "If I can't be Conan, I'll be Fatman"?
The world is more complex than you want it to be when it comes to this issue. It's very tempting to look for villains to blame, rather than to examine the myriad causes of a very complex Western disorder. But it's just not accurate.It amuses me that you say this, but don't acknowledge that we are thinking beings that can make choices about our lives. Choose to watch TV, or not. Choose to smoke, or not. Choose to exercise, or not. Choose to overeat, or not. Choose to purge, or not. Choose to hit your lover, or not. Sure, there are countless little things that influence what sort of person you are, but you are not a collection of preprogrammed responses; you can't set your brain aside and "see what you are conditioned to do." You have to make an active or reactive choice to do something. And unless you have a mental disorder (and eating disorders are mental disorders, and I'm not trying to stigmatize them by calling them that) that is interfering with your free will, you are responsible for the choices you make. And when your mind says, "I know this is bad for me, but I'm going to do it anyway," that's not the fault of the media, or the chemical companies, or your lazy parents. I know it's not a good idea for me to eat an entire bag of almond M&M's, but I do it anyway ... and then I do the smart thing and exercise more in the next few days, or limit my snack intake for a like period. I have a choice, and I deal with the consequences of my choice.
Second, you revealed something about yourself here with "the monster looks too sexual" (and possibly "the woman isn't old enough".) That means it's not all about the dictates of the story.FYI the sexual monster bit is mainly to avoid the gamut of phallic monsters that appeared in various Wizards monster books. Though I certainly wouldn't want an illustration where anyone (humanoid or otherwise) was sexually assaulting someone.
As for the woman and the slave, I wanted her relationship with the fleshpeddler to be clear; she knew what she was doing, wasn't being swindled, and was in a position of power. The irony is that I could have shown an older male inspecting a comely female slave and I'm sure that would offend some people ... but as I've stated, I like to turn things on their heads.Fair enough. But I think we can agree that you and I think the line is in different places, no?
|
|
Hell, I support teaching kids about sex very early on. My father was a biology teacher(now retired), I was taught about sex from the scientific standpoint. Sure, every now and then as I was growing up, I had the little immature snicker about sexual themes/comments, but because I was told about these things and left with no questions, the concept of sex never really seemed so abstract to me. Kinda like how people learn that when you flick a switch, the light in the room is supposed to turn on.
In other words, when you take the mystery about a topic away from a kid(child or adolescent) it typically removes much of the interest. A closed box with unknown contents will illicit more questions than one that is open with the contents in plain view. Shielding from the facts simply makes it so they have to go out and learn on their own, probably in a less safe environment.
I haven't seen as many illustrations of Seltyiel as I have of Seoni, so my basis for comparison is a bit scarce. From the few I've seen, though, he's fully clothed (albeit with his chest bared) and in a powerful pose with a wide-legged stance and a direct gaze at the viewer, as opposed to being all coyly posed with the pouty lips, arched back, and pointed toes one usually sees in Seoni's illustrations. It's a distinctly different vibe, and I suspect the difference has at least as much to do with the difference in genders as with the difference in the types of characters they are.
I dunno about the gender issue (I wasn't at Paizo when the characters were concepted the way they are) but Sel is evil, manipulative, and "keep an eye on number 1" sort of guy, whereas (IIRC) Seoni has a good alignment and is much more outgoing.
By contrast, it's fascinating to me that Lem, who, as a bard, should be the highest-charisma male character in the Paizo iconic lineup and thus ripe for an equivalent treatment to Seoni if Paizo wanted such a thing, is...
Well Lem is described as a jokester, not a sexpot. He's also a hideous little man-goblin and I don't want to see him trying to be sexy. It would be like Danny DeVito in Big Fish, or that episode of Friends where he plays a stripper. *shudder*
Creative Director
|
There's a reason there's more pictures of Seoni than most other iconics, and it's not because she's pretty. She and Valeros were the first iconics we had Wayne design, and we had him design both super early. They've been around for almost two years as a result, whereas the newest iconic (Seltyiel) only debuted about six months ago.
I'm kind of hoping for New Year Merisiel tomorrow, myself...
|
There's a reason there's more pictures of Seoni than most other iconics, and it's not because she's pretty. She and Valeros were the first iconics we had Wayne design, and we had him design both super early. They've been around for almost two years as a result, whereas the newest iconic (Seltyiel) only debuted about six months ago.
Right, Seoni is a logical choice for the Christmas card, because she IS ICONIC.
I honestly don't understand why people are shocked by this card. Seoni is an image of one example of beauty. She's not the be all end all of beauty or women, but she is a symbol instantly recognisable as Paizo and Pathfinder. I like the card and I like Seoni. I liked the goblin card last year too!
Hey, some people apparently find tentacled monsters appealing, but that's not relevant to the discussion. ;)I'm not off-topic! You're off-topic! The whole freaking thread is off-topic!
Great post though.
Thank you.
Usually I think I should have someone standing over me with a stick to whack me upside the head anytime I consider getting involved in discussions of gender issues in gaming, because it's rarely productive. But it's a slow week, so I can afford to spend a little time where I usually wouldn't.
Usually I think I should have someone standing over me with a stick to whack me upside the head anytime I consider getting involved in discussions of gender issues in gaming, because it's rarely productive. But it's a slow week, so I can afford to spend a little time where I usually wouldn't.
And we have had this discussion already dozens of times, which is why I have been mostly silent here...
To summarise some of earlier points:
Context and poses are important.
So are trends. Women typically portrayed in one way and men another...much cannot be said about individual pictures, but a lot can be said about trends.
At the same time it is just a picture and it is not just a picture: while being fantasy art, it is interpreted by real world standards and cultural perceptions.
It makes sense that there would by characters who would dress provocatively by choice, as that does have certain amount of advantages...just like in our real world (and I have played prostitutes, strippers and other such characters and enjoyed them). However, when that becomes the only option available, or even dominant, this practice should be questioned.
To repeat: much cannot be said about single images. A lot can be said about trends.
I dunno about the gender issue (I wasn't at Paizo when the characters were concepted the way they are) but Sel is evil, manipulative, and "keep an eye on number 1" sort of guy, whereas (IIRC) Seoni has a good alignment and is much more outgoing.
By contrast, it's fascinating to me that Lem, who, as a bard, should be the highest-charisma male character in the Paizo iconic lineup and thus ripe for an equivalent treatment to Seoni if Paizo wanted such a thing, is...Well Lem is described as a jokester, not a sexpot. He's also a hideous little man-goblin and I don't want to see him trying to be sexy. It would be like Danny DeVito in Big Fish, or that episode of Friends where he plays a stripper. *shudder*
All of those choices in characterization sort of reinforce what I've been saying. There's no reason an evil character can't be sexualized (Queen Ileosa, anyone?), so Seltyiel's evilness doesn't strike me as necessarily relevant to whether or not illustrations of him are sexualized in the same way that Seoni's are. Likewise, the choice to make Lem a humorous character rather than a charismatic (and sexualized) male counterpart to Seoni seems to me to reinforce the whole idea that women in Paizo's art are more likely to get the 'cheesecake' treatment than men are. After all, there's also no reason why a male halfling couldn't be sexy, even in a slightly androgynous way. (Frodo in the Peter Jackson films? Rawr.) When I look at illustrations of the iconics, I don't see any of the males being portrayed with the level of sexual emphasis that I see in the illustrations of Seoni, Ileosa, or other female figures.
I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing, by the way, but the existence of the trend seems pretty obvious to me. That the trend reflects a sexist aspect of gaming culture is my personal opinion, and I hardly expect that to make a difference in Paizo's business practices. But I'm also a little baffled by the somewhat contemptuous dismissal I've seen in these threads of those who actually admit to noticing such a trend.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I'm not off-topic! You're off-topic! The whole freaking thread is off-topic!All right, Pacino! You have no idea how much I hate that movie! :P
Actually, I was doing Homer Simpson doing Pacino. It's different when Homer does it.
I'm specifically thinking of tentacled monsters. They make me all tingly.So, are you saying you feel like you're stuck in some tentacle fetish hentai?
Yes. And, if we band together, I'm thinking we could get a very revealing Old Ones valentine card out of it.
All of those choices in characterization sort of reinforce what I've been saying. There's no reason an evil character can't be sexualized (Queen Ileosa, anyone?), so Seltyiel's evilness doesn't strike me as necessarily relevant to whether or not illustrations of him are sexualized in the same way that Seoni's are.
I was unclear, and didn't have the book to reference at home.
Sel is evil, and not in a sexy way. He may be a sexy _man_, but he grew up in an abuseful home, his father eventually tried to murder him, he ended up murdering his father, and his life is a "cruel series of betrayals and pain." He's been imprisoned, too. His is not a happy story, he is not a pleasant character. In fact, he has a 10 Cha, which means that while he might be physically attractive, he doesn't present himself as someone desirable. Given his history, he probably tries to avoid letting anyone get close to him in any way. He's like Edward Norton at the start of American History X ... a really good-looking guy, in incredible shape, but a horrible racist and not someone you present as physically appealing. In fact, the only times you really get to see how buff he is in that movie are (1) after he's curb-stomped a black man to death, and (2) in prison when he takes off his shirt to show his Nazi tattoos so he can get the other skinhead inmates to accept him.(BTW I was wrong about Seoni ... she's lawful neutral, and a "control freak," as described by her companions, which might actually mean that she's fully aware with her appearance and might actually be obsessive about presenting herself as some idealized beauty, but I'm armchair-diagnosing based on one paragraph of her character writeup in PF#6.)
Likewise, the choice to make Lem a humorous character rather than a charismatic (and sexualized) male counterpart to Seoni seems to me to reinforce the whole idea that women in Paizo's art are more likely to get the 'cheesecake' treatment than men are.
Again, I didn't create this character, but in most cases our iconics are supposed to be iconic for their class roles, and the bard is generally the jokester, the songster, or the seducer, so having him as a jokester isn't necessarily a gender thing.
After all, there's also no reason why a male halfling couldn't be sexy, even in a slightly androgynous way. (Frodo in the Peter Jackson films? Rawr.)
Heh, good point. :)
When I look at illustrations of the iconics, I don't see any of the males being portrayed with the level of sexual emphasis that I see in the illustrations of Seoni, Ileosa, or other female figures.
To nitpick, our female iconics are Amiri, Lini, Seelah, Kyra, Merisiel, and Seoni. Ileosa isn't an iconic PC ... she may be an important character, but when we say "the iconics" we normally mean "the eleven characters representing the eleven core character classes, plus Sel the multiclassed weirdo." And as far as "screen time" goes for the iconics, the second AP featured three male iconics (Ezren, Harsk, and Lem) and one female (Seelah), none of which are particularly sexualized, and the third AP has two females (Lini and Amiri) and two males (Sajan and Sel), none of whom are particularly sexualized. So it may just be a Seoni thing, in that of all the iconics, we've seen her the most (as James said, she was drawn the earliest). And I think it's important to note that in the first AP, three of the four iconics were strong, capable women (Seoni, Kyra, and Merisiel), so it's not like Seoni was the token female sexpot in a group of male characters.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that it's not necessarily clear-cut. And hindsight is 20-20, of course.
I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing, by the way, but the existence of the trend seems pretty obvious to me. That the trend reflects a sexist aspect of gaming culture is my personal opinion, and I hardly expect that to make a difference in Paizo's business practices. But I'm also a little baffled by the somewhat contemptuous dismissal I've seen in these threads of those who actually admit to noticing such a trend.
I hope you don't think I'm dismissing your comments, let alone contemptuously. I really do appreciate what you're saying, and while I don't agree with your position, it has made me think about future art orders.
I propose a return to topic.
Unfortunately, I think this topic has run its course. :(
|
|
I always thought Kyra is quite beautiful in how she is portrayed and her illustrations do not play up a Westernized sexuality, which is much in keeping with the Arabian analogue of Quadira. I think she is a good example of Paizo's willingness to break away from a Boris Vallejo centered depiction of fantasy women. Am I the only Kyra fan?
As for Seoni; I just rolled my eyes at the Santa picture. It's just a pastiche '50s cheesecake tribute. *Yawns* Been there, seen that. Real life people, like Ann Coulter, are much more of a threat to feminism than Seoni is. My aunt who thinks a woman's place is in the home and that my choosing to be single makes me less of a person is more of a threat.
P.S. Don't tell Seoni I said this, but I think she needs a new hairdresser. That faux-Pink look is so last year!
After all, there's also no reason why a male halfling couldn't be sexy, even in a slightly androgynous way. (Frodo in the Peter Jackson films? Rawr.)Heh, good point. :)
Only that making small races "sexy" has the risk of them looking like "sexy children," and that is not a good thing to encourage. :(
When I look at illustrations of the iconics, I don't see any of the males being portrayed with the level of sexual emphasis that I see in the illustrations of Seoni, Ileosa, or other female figures.To nitpick, our female iconics are Amiri, Lini, Seelah, Kyra, Merisiel, and Seoni. Ileosa isn't an iconic PC ... she may be an important character, but when we say "the iconics" we normally mean "the eleven characters representing the eleven core character classes, plus Sel the multiclassed weirdo." And as far as "screen time" goes for the iconics, the second AP featured three male iconics (Ezren, Harsk, and Lem) and one female (Seelah), none of which are particularly sexualized, and the third AP has two females (Lini and Amiri) and two males (Sajan and Sel), none of whom are particularly sexualized. So it may just be a Seoni thing, in that of all the iconics, we've seen her the most (as James said, she was drawn the earliest). And I think it's important to note that in the first AP, three of the four iconics were strong, capable women (Seoni, Kyra, and Merisiel), so it's not like Seoni was the token female sexpot in a group of male characters.
Actually, I might disagree that Amiri and Sajan not being "sexualized." :) (But, I also think that is a good thing. :D)
And then the tread will be assimilated by the Paizomatix!
I propose a return to topic.
I propose we kill this topic, Those who are against the art will not covert those that are for.
I have have a real contempt for those that set themselves as the moral arbiters for society, usually they turn out to be worst sort of deviants or tyrants.
The talented ladies and gentlemen that staff Paizo produce quality products within the accepted moral norm for the genre.
As an adult, I enjoy the fact that Paizo will take on "Adult" topics, I enjoy adventures that challenge me.
I find the tendency for the US media to sanitise, homogenise, and stereotype everything to the point it becomes as interesting as watching paint dry very frustrating.
There is something overprotective and smothering about those that dictate culture the US. This is counter productive it hides the real world in its immense beauty, horror, terror, and joy.
How can you as a culture deal with the world if you are hidden from it.
|
Having just read this entire thread, I don't see reason to kill it. Let it die a natural death do to disinterest? Sure. But it's actually been rather civil and interesting. I didn't read anything terribly illuminating (though I do like Capp's phrasing), but the exercise seemed to engage many of you, and that's at least worth a nod to D7.
I'm not sure why people bemoan threads like these, as they often touch upon the finer points of human frustration. This sexuality/objectification/idealized woman issue is near the heart of what it means to be reasoning social creatures, no? It's both stupid and fascinating, and it will never, ever end.
That said, beardcake!
And yeah, Seoni totally needs a new hairdo. That thing looks an angry cockatiel crapping out a jump-rope.
|
|
I'm not sure why people bemoan threads like these, as they often touch upon the finer points of human frustration. This sexuality/objectification/idealized woman issue is near the heart of what it means to be reasoning social creatures, no? It's both stupid and fascinating, and it will never, ever end.
That said, beardcake!
And yeah, Seoni totally needs a new hairdo. That thing looks an angry cockatiel crapping out a jump-rope.
Re: the human condition: Yeah, there were probably people arguing over the Venus of Willendorf and asking if her idealized form promoted obesity in women.
Re: cockatiel: LOL!
|
|
I always thought Kyra is quite beautiful in how she is portrayed and her illustrations do not play up a Westernized sexuality, which is much in keeping with the Arabian analogue of Quadira. I think she is a good example of Paizo's willingness to break away from a Boris Vallejo centered depiction of fantasy women. Am I the only Kyra fan?
No you aren't. :)
When I look at illustrations of the iconics, I don't see any of the males being portrayed with the level of sexual emphasis that I see in the illustrations of Seoni, Ileosa, or other female figures.To nitpick, our female iconics are Amiri, Lini, Seelah, Kyra, Merisiel, and Seoni. Ileosa isn't an iconic PC ... she may be an important character, but when we say "the iconics" we normally mean "the eleven characters representing the eleven core character classes, plus Sel the multiclassed weirdo." And as far as "screen time" goes for the iconics, the second AP featured three male iconics (Ezren, Harsk, and Lem) and one female (Seelah), none of which are particularly sexualized, and the third AP has two females (Lini and Amiri) and two males (Sajan and Sel), none of whom are particularly sexualized. So it may just be a Seoni thing, in that of all the iconics, we've seen her the most (as James said, she was drawn the earliest). And I think it's important to note that in the first AP, three of the four iconics were strong, capable women (Seoni, Kyra, and Merisiel), so it's not like Seoni was the token female sexpot in a group of male characters.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that it's not necessarily clear-cut. And hindsight is 20-20, of course.
You're right, and it's my turn to apologize for a lack of clarity. I knew Queen Ileosa was not an iconic, and I was speaking more generally than just the representations of the iconics, but that wasn't clear the way I phrased it. What I was trying to say is that I can easily find examples of sexualized women in Paizo's art, it's not at all easy to find examples of men sexualized in the way that Seoni is. By which I mean that even in 'combat' illustrations, it seems to me that Seoni is usually posed and drawn so as to emphasize her sexiness, while I don't see that same tendency with any of the males.
And in fairness, I don't think I've seen much of that kind of thing with the other female iconics, either. Though tangentially, I'll admit that poor Amiri's bare midriff makes me shudder every time I see her. Armoring one's extremities and leaving the vital organs bare is just monumentally stupid for a front-line warrior. I know Sajan is represented as bare-chested, too, but he wears no armor at all, and very light clothing in general. Amiri has armor-- it just doesn't cover her vital organs!
I hope you don't think I'm dismissing your comments, let alone contemptuously. I really do appreciate what you're saying, and while I don't agree with your position, it has made me think about future art orders.
No, you personally have been civil, respectful, and thoughtful. And I appreciate your willingness to listen, and to consider these perspectives in your future development work. I consider my part in this conversation worthwhile for that, if for no other reason.
|
I'll admit that poor Amiri's bare midriff makes me shudder every time I see her. Armoring one's extremities and leaving the vital organs bare is just monumentally stupid for a front-line warrior. I know Sajan is represented as bare-chested, too, but he wears no armor at all, and very light clothing in general. Amiri has armor-- it just doesn't cover her vital organs!
as a barbarian, I view her armor more as a traditional or ceremonial than functional... but that's just me.
I hope you don't think I'm dismissing your comments, let alone contemptuously. I really do appreciate what you're saying, and while I don't agree with your position, it has made me think about future art orders.
Emphasis mine. Spoilered so as not to offend, these are my opinions and nothing more.
To be honest, that's exactly where I was hoping this whole thing would not go. To me, sometimes art is just that.. art. I also think, while I realize this will sound brash of me, that people in these days have grown overly sensitive.
|
|
Just to point out, male and female sexuality is vastly different. A bared midriff on a dude looks sort of like a homosexual 80's workout look for guys. A guy is sexy with eyes, facial expressions and by looking like an Alpha male. Women tend to like broad shoulders, a semi-rugged face, muscular build, and a confidence to back it up. Men are simple. More skin please.
It's hard to convey the beefcake part of sexuality, but I still think that Paizo has done that. Valeros is a bad mother-shutyermouth! that looks pretty beefcakey to me. Ezran is quite the "Sean Connery" looking older man. Sajan is almost total beefcake. I bet if you asked a dwarf woman you would find some who really dig that crossbow wielding dwarf.
Men's sexuality isn't as easy to pinpoint as women's is. My personal barometer to gauge total beefcakism is Mathew McConaughey from Reign of Fire. He is REALLY damn hot in that movie. Ripped but not an overmuscled freak, killer eyes, chiseled face.....he is the total package.
If any iconic was to emulate that it would be really difficult to strike the right balance to not have him look cheesy, gay, or like he is compensating for some deficiency in his life.
With women you just tack on some curves, a bit of cleavage and impractical clothing and you are there. Men aren't as choosy as women in that regard.
All that is IMO, by the way.
|
|
I'll admit that poor Amiri's bare midriff makes me shudder every time I see her. Armoring one's extremities and leaving the vital organs bare is just monumentally stupid for a front-line warrior. I know Sajan is represented as bare-chested, too, but he wears no armor at all, and very light clothing in general. Amiri has armor-- it just doesn't cover her vital organs!as a barbarian, I view her armor more as a traditional or ceremonial than functional... but that's just me.
Maybe she uses only the parts she needs to compliment her ridiculously large sword. As big as it is, you might consider it simply held in front of her as covering her torso. It is about as wide as she is, after all.
I bet if you asked a dwarf woman you would find some who really dig that crossbow wielding dwarf.
And some dwarf men too.
Men's sexuality isn't as easy to pinpoint as women's is. My personal barometer to gauge total beefcakism is Mathew McConaughey from Reign of Fire. He is REALLY damn hot in that movie. Ripped but not an overmuscled freak, killer eyes, chiseled face.....he is the total package. If any iconic was to emulate that it would be really difficult to strike the right balance to not have him look cheesy, gay, or like he is compensating for some deficiency in his life. With women you just tack on some curves, a bit of cleavage and impractical clothing and you are there. Men aren't as choosy as women in that regard.
All that is IMO, by the way.
That's actually part of what I was trying to get at, without getting myself flamed off the boards. It's common in fantasy art to sexualize (and frequently, to sexually objectify) women even in contexts where sexuality is irrelevant (e.g. in the middle of combat), whereas men's sexuality rarely becomes a factor in representing them unless it has direct relevance to the situation being portrayed.
I don't fault Paizo for conforming to that cultural norm frequently in their art, but I think being aware of it and questioning its necessity from time to time is not a bad thing.
|
|
That's cool.
From my standpoint, I'm just sick of being portrayed as a slackjawed troglodyte by smug wannabe demagogues who want to lecture the world, glasses adanglin' from the end of their nose, and then retreat into their sanctum sanctorium to enjoy the smell of their own methane. The umpteenth time is tedious.
Good job, blogger guy. You saved the whole world yet again! Thanx, Super(sensitive)Man!
You don't seem to want to do that.
Armoring one's extremities and leaving the vital organs bare is just monumentally stupid for a front-line warrior.
Hee hee. I'm always joking about Aribeth, the paladin from Neverwinter Nights. The thing she wears looks quite good, and I'm sure it grants an equipment bonus to charisma or something, but I wouldn't leave my heart and lungs bare for others to stab at - of if I did, I'd not wear heavy armour.
I always call it her Dress Armour (see here).
I also think, while I realize this will sound brash of me, that people in these days have grown overly sensitive.
Brash or not, I think you're right. Give it another five, ten years and we're all trapped in Care Bear Land. Does this touchy-feely stuff really help anyone? I mean, does someone who's actually concerned feel better about it? I'd say it's more that those who aren't concerned can feel better about themselves because they can show that they make an effort with "those people".
it has made me think about future art orders.
Sean this is what I feared.... you are allowing yourself to be censored by the self appointed "moral" minority.
All I can say is that you have been doing things right. Paizo's collective instincts and talent have driven a brilliant and quality product.
Please don't become like majority of media that oozes out of the US, sanitised, homogenised, and stereotyped.
I have nothing but contempt for people that set themselves up as the arbiters of what is "decent" as they usually prove to be the worst kind of deviant or tyrant.
Do not allow your edge and irreverence be ground away by the constant harping of people who don't understand what a joke is or get their kicks out of repressing society.
Armoring one's extremities and leaving the vital organs bare is just monumentally stupid for a front-line warrior.
So you are calling people that fight with out Armor stupid. How racially superior of you.
My Celtic ancestors fought skyclad (naked) with their wedding tackle on display to terrify and show their contempt of their enemies.
Even more terrifying were the Celtic women who stood up the back bare-breasted, wild hired, screaming and urging their men on to kill.
The Romans were scared of the Celtic warriors but the bare-breasted women terrified them. Especially when they thought that their husbands were not fighting hard enough and entered the battle to take a few heads of their own.
You are applying your "Modern Puritan" view to the world. Have a look at the rest of the world and see how they deal with gender issues and ask your self is my sense of western moral superiority really warranted.
Have a look at the matriarchal societies through out history and ask yourself is how much they cover up an issue. I think you will find that women in those societies openly celebrated their bodies.
That's cool.
From my standpoint, I'm just sick of being portrayed as a slackjawed troglodyte by smug wannabe demagogues who want to lecture the world, glasses adanglin' from the end of their nose, and then retreat into their sanctum sanctorium to enjoy the smell of their own methane. The umpteenth time is tedious.
Good job, blogger guy. You saved the whole world yet again! Thanx, Super(sensitive)Man!
You don't seem to want to do that.
Well put Heath mate, I agree 100%