| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having recently been given a bunch of Pathfinder stuff for Christmas, I've been looking through the books. Golarion is a pretty nifty setting! It reminds me of the World of Greyhawk and the 'Gray Box' era-FR, and that is good. The setting has depth, variety, and a little grittiness in the mix.
So much for the lavish praise, now on to my complaint:
The art quality is quite good, but there are too many cheesecake illos. I'm tired of seeing so many sexy female characters in RPG art who wear skimpy outfits, 'armor' that exposes the kill-box or the abdomen, etc.
I would like to see more variety with the looks of women in Golarion. Give us some gals who look plain, scarred, ugly, plump,frumpy, mousy, etc. I'm not saying that all the female characters have been 'too pretty', or that I object to the occasional odalisque, but dialing down the fanservice would certainly please me. Give us more hard-bitten adventuresses who look the part, and not like swimsuit or lingerie models.
The iconic paladin is a big step in the right direction. She actually looks like a credible threat and not like some fanboy's dream girl. She's wearing armor that looks designed for protection, not sex appeal. The Battle Herald illo looks really good, too. Hell, she's even got a scar on her face! Imagine that.
Does anybody else have thoughts on this one?
Me too. But my players like hot chicks. :(
Me too. But my players like hot chicks. :(
At this point, most of my tabletop players are women.
Check out Anna Krieder's blog:
http://gomakemeasandwich.blogspot.com/
She calls Paizo on their genderfail over artwork, and Erik Mona responds.
In my experience, Paizo as a company have a pretty good attitude to issues of gender, race, and sexuality in their writing. Unfortunately the images in their books don't match up with that attitude.
Check out Anna Krieder's blog:
She calls Paizo on their genderfail over artwork, and Erik Mona responds.
In my experience, Paizo as a company have a pretty good attitude to issues of gender, race, and sexuality in their writing. Unfortunately the images in their books don't match up with that attitude.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Check out Anna Krieder's blog:
She calls Paizo on their genderfail over artwork, and Erik Mona responds.
In my experience, Paizo as a company have a pretty good attitude to issues of gender, race, and sexuality in their writing. Unfortunately the images in their books don't match up with that attitude.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
This link takes you Directly to the spot Go Make Me a Sandwich
I agree with every thing Erik said.
I found the Blogger to be very confrontational a little extreme and doing lot of yelling. Although I understand where she is coming from and I agree with a lot of what she has to say, her style is far from engaging.
My prediction for this thread is that the usual suspects will turn up yell at each other, go round in circles, fail to reach any middle ground, resort to generalising and personal insults, then Lilith or Ross will lock the thread.
My take is art should be based on context.... Chainmail Bikini's only if the insane emperor has ordered the female gladiators to wear them in the arena... then again if you look at male gladiators its all about looking hot and sexy (gladiators were highly sought after as sexual partners by both men and women in Rome. Some emperors did have female gladiators) so in that context fine, in any other not fine.
On the battle field you wear as much protection as you can afford or strip from your dead enemies. No place for sexy chain mail bikini in a sea of blood steel and very pointy death....
If you happen to be a German of Celtic tribeswoman urging on your naked (skyclad) warrior husbands to kill the enemy and be more afraid of going backwards than forwards, you go bare breasted and cut your self with daggers and as a mob savagely kill any of your men that retreat from the battle.... that is not sexy just fraken scary - cultural context fine.
I like Seoni but I also understand that adventuring in your night clubbing gear is probably not that practical.... I know both men and women that would look hot even if they were wearing a trashbag Seoni seems to be one of those. If Seoni was dressed in more Gypsy style that is her heritage and still looking sexy I wouldn't have a problem with that as her background is charismatic and fem-fatalish.
One last thing to address the OP - fantasy gaming is about taking on the role of idealised heros. The Iconics are equivalent the Hughs, Brads, Angelinas, nobody would want to see a Twilight where The 8th Dwarf Played Jacob because a short fat bearded dude is not appealing in the heroic sense (well any sense).
I wonder if you idealise your own characters? Are they good looking? Are they attractive to members of their preferred gender? Do your characters fit the cheesy/beefyness that you have a problem with in the art?
Most of my characters are dwarves so they look like me. Although the current character I am playing is a good looking 35 year-old woman with a daughter.
I suggest that you look at the art around iconics a lot of the NPCs are ugly, ungainly, short, tall, gay, black, Asian, male and female.
Edit: grammar inserted (probably in the wrong spots).
|
I think that one's energy is better spent somewhere else, like talking your government out of discriminating non-white people (hello US, UK) and women (hello ... pretty much everybody ?) instead of chasing a gaming company for, well, selling moderate amounts of sex to the target audience (single males, and yes I've been to GenCon once).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The artwork is F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C and of the best I've ever seen in the RPG sector.
|
I sorta added in with my own comments to that blog- just to another, much earlier blog instead of the linked one which Mr. Mona answered to, btw.
Long story short, if Paizo was all about da cheezcake, what about stuff like these:
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZO/PZO9026_500.jpeg
http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderChronicles/PZO9202-Urgathoa.jpg
http://paizo.com/image/content/Blog/2010CardWallpaper.jpg
(What was for 2010, a year later...)
http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderCompanion/PZO9414-ChelaxianDevilBi nder.jpg
http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderRPG/PZO1114-Heretic.jpg
http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderRPG/PZO1114-Cheers.jpg
http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderModules/PZO9523-Scolding.jpg
http://paizo.com/image/content/Blog/PZO1114-ThrowAnything.jpg
(in all fairness, that one was just the interns of the time messing around)
http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderRPG/PZO1115-InquisitorSketch.jpg
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZO/PZO8022_500.jpeg
http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderRPG/PZO1112-PreviewMonster1.jpg
http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderChronicles/PZO9202-Iomedae.jpg
http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderChronicles/PZO1111-Varisia.jpg
http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderChronicles/PZO1106-Chapter-3-opene r.jpg
|
Just from a brief glance at the blog, it seems that the author approaches games with the attitude of "What can I find in this that will offend me?" I'm sorry, but if you go in to practically ANYTHING with such an attitude, you WILL find something. I'm sure if I searched hard enough, I could find something in Pathfinder that offended me.
I find it a tad ironic that Erik Mona used the iconic elf rouge, whose armor has a vital spot on her torso clearly exposed, as an example of good female character art. His other examples were better, IMO. Who buys armor that doesn't cover the kill box? Who the heck even makes armor designed to show cleavage? Good art but flawed armor design. You wouldn't draw a male in studded leather armor with that vital spot exposed, would you? It would look pretty silly.
Yes, I know about the D&D 3E iconic sorcerer, Hennet. Erik Mona actually brought him up, and I couldn't help but chuckle. I've never once heard a woman comment on Hennet's supposed 'sex appeal.' I have heard many jokes from both men and women about how silly his 'belt armor' is, and some sarcastic speculation about what sort of 'dungeons' he frequents.
The blogger is a feminist. I'm most assuredly not a feminist. My objections are mainly aesthetic and practical, and have little to do with politics or ideology. I'm not against including art that depicts scantily clad harem girls or sultry vixens, where appropriate. I think that Paizo needs to increase the range and variety in its illustrations of female characters.
Please don't take any of this to mean that I dislike or look down upon fans of 'sexy' art in the game. I'm just expressing my strongly held views on this particular aspect of the art content.
-Ewan
|
This is quite an old subject and has been debated here before. I think there is an issue about the depiction of women in fantasy art, but Paizo also need to shift product and make money. They (the Paizo management) have made the point that if you put something un-sexy on the cover (like a hairy dwarf with a beard) you sell less than if you put a sexy chick on the front. It is not Paizo, arguably, who are pushing the sexy chicks out there, it is us, the buying public.
The blogger makes some not-terribly insightful comments in an hysterical style that would probably earn her a warning on these boards (though she can obviously use whatever style she wants on her own blog). Frankly, the place to go (other than the internet) for highly sexualised images of women is generally on the cover and inside womens' magazines, rather than a Paizo product. There are issues with that too, but this is again an issue of marketing - women buy this stuff because they want to see it as it is (supposedly) aspirational. A few years ago, Cosmopolitan went a bit serious and dropped a lot of the sauce - sales fell, and they had to put it back in again.
There is a difference between sexism and sex, which I think the blogger doesn't necessarily appreciate. People are wired to do stuff, including being attracted to sexual images. I can't help (as a heterosexual man) being attracted to sexualised images of women - at the very least, they catch the eye and hold it. It doesn't mean I will go "Duh - breasts" and immediately reach for my wallet to buy. It might mean that I'd actually be embarrassed and not buy it. I might be irritated at being manipulated by the publisher and not buy it. I might decide to take a high-minded stance and not buy it. I might think "That armour looks particularly ineffective" and decide not to buy due to the stupidity of the image. But it will have grabbed my attention, if only for a moment, and marketers know that. But there is more to selling a product than giving me a momentary thrill. I buy Paizo products, usually sight-unseen on subscription, because of the quality of the non-art bits. More sex in the art would have little to no impact (and any impact might be negative).
Personally, I find the only really objectionable character is probably Seoni - her picture is highly-sexualised and, frankly, very much an icon of the silicon(e) age and verging on the ridiculous. The others female characters? Well, women have breasts, so pretending they don't seems silly. That said, for me as an RPG-er, they seem pretty anodyne and not objectionable, nor very sexy. Personally, my favorite of the female iconics is probably Seelah since she seems to most sensibly attired for the adventuring business.
But it is also worth mentioning that cleavange and whatnot is also a long tradition in fantasy art, from the pulps onwards, and are therefore part of the visual language of the medium (from women being menaced by improbably randy robots onwards). (This might also be more of a US thing - I've noticed (in an highly unscientific and anecdotal way) on the covers for US versions of books which have UK versions that the US versions often depict scenes from the books and figurative depictions of the characters while UK versions will tend to be more abstract and do not depict characters or scenes.) That doesn't mean that such a visual language won't change, or indeed shouldn't change, along with society's attitudes. But there might be more "hommage" than outright perversion than perhaps is given credit in some of those images.
I sorta added in with my own comments to that blog- just to another, much earlier blog instead of the linked one which Mr. Mona answered to, btw.
Long story short, if Paizo was all about da cheezcake, what about stuff like these:
Dude, I'd call a few of those cheesecake, or borderline cases.
Dude, I'd call a few of those cheesecake, or borderline cases.I sorta added in with my own comments to that blog- just to another, much earlier blog instead of the linked one which Mr. Mona answered to, btw.
Long story short, if Paizo was all about da cheezcake, what about stuff like these:
That was his point...
I wonder if you idealise your own characters?
Are they good looking?
Are they attractive to members of their preferred gender?
Does your internal image of your characters fit the cheesy/beefyness that you have a problem with in the art?
I actually have no problem with the art in paizo. I don't mind and even like a little cheesecake. I think Paizo is far from having to much personally.
I don't mind a little, either. I do think they have too much, though.
Aside from the usual silly stuff like metal wonderbras and armor with cleavage windows, it's more what's missing than what's included that bothers me.
I want to see female advnetuers who actually look like women who've led hard, dangerous lives. More gals with short hair, or hair pulled back into a pony tail. I want to see some battle marks: scars, missing an ear, missing some teeth, etc. I'm talking about practical clothing. Nobody fights in high heels. They don't all need to be pretty, either.
Ideas for the sort of female characters I'd like to see in AP illustrations/as new iconics for prestige classes/etc:
A gangly, flat chested human woman in her mid thirties, with tanned skin, short-cropped brown hair, and buckteeth. She dresses in pratical boots, breeches, tunic, etc. No cleavage on display,no exposed belly, no piercings, no high heels, no makeup. In her belt are tucked a brace of Alkentsar-made revolvers, and you damn well better believe that she knows how to use 'em.
A female elf with half her face covered in scar tissue from the time an owlbear decided to try to eat her. She's missing most of one ear, the long point is gone. She wears gunmetal gray plate-and-mail armor that's dented and scuffed but well-made and solid-looking. Her main weapon is a polearm. A helmet hangs at her belt, or is otherwise shown in the artwork- she's just not wearing it at the moment.
|
|
Yeah, but what do buck-teeth sell other than dental surgery? The issues here are about marketing and catching the eye - justifying shelf-space.
Actually, one of my favorite artists is Wayne Reynolds but my favorite work of his are the covers he did for the various Eberron products for WotC. Not because of breasts but because they are a series of great action/fight scenes. But his style is quite exaggerated and as a consequence it's had an impact on the visualisation of the iconics, since he drew the original versions of them all. But his Merisel (which I happen to have here in front of me on the cover of The Hook Mountain Massacre) is pretty low key. There is some cleavage, not I've gone looking for it, but it's hardly very obvious. There's no belly window. She's pretty much covered head to foot. What cleavage there is is no more than I've seen in the office (that hyper-sexual place) on occasion.
That was his point...
I wonder if you idealise your own characters?
Are they good looking?
Are they attractive to members of their preferred gender?
Does your internal image of your characters fit the cheesy/beefyness that you have a problem with in the art?
Various PCs of mine have been described as plain-looking, average joe, scarred, pockmarked, homely, weaselish, etc. A few have been described as basically good looking, but none have been described as romance novel cover art.
Who looks sexy wading through sewers while hunting wererats, or burning green slime off a buddy's legs? Who looks sexy in the middle of a boody fight with orcs?
I'm now playing a female PC in an online game who looks like Ginnie Weasly from Harry Potter flicks, althopugh dressed in different garb. Good looking? Sure, she's got a pleasant face. She's also a teenage girl and not what I, a grown man, find 'sexy.' I just thought that the image fit my concept since my PC is a young female wizard. Dalorna Fenswick is a lawful good necromancer with undead veg minions, as it happens. :) She loosk like what she is, practical and sensible: no makeup, no piercings, no fancy jewelry, no revealing outfits.
I don't know, a lot of adventurers tend to travel with Clerics. CLW is great for preventing major battle scars.
Does the rulebook specify no scarring with magical healing, or is that a house rule of yours?
Just curious.
I've always wondered, why is it called "cheesecake" anyway?
Yeah, but what do buck-teeth sell other than dental surgery? The issues here are about marketing and catching the eye - justifying shelf-space.
If your target audience is horny teenage boys, sure, that makes sense. Most cover pieces for PF aren't especially sexy, though. It's mainly interior art.
If you want to reach out to women, girls, men like me who have more mature taste in art, etc. then too much cheesecake in the books can actually backfire on you.Paizo has taken some steps in the right direction, especially with the iconic paladin. I just wish they'd scale back the fanservice and increase the diversity of looks for women in the gamebooks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that said, to get past the art, all one has to do is remember its fatasy AND the cultures on Golarion are NOT I repeat are NOT the cultures on earth.
Cultural argument, heh? Okay....
So, it's perfectly normal for armorers in Golarion to sell women armor that doesn't protect the heart and lungs? The kill box is exposed because displaying cleavage is somehow a better defense than a barrier mail or plate with an aketon behind that?
Do they hate female warriors, or something? ;)
|
|
Yeah, but what do buck-teeth sell other than dental surgery? The issues here are about marketing and catching the eye - justifying shelf-space.
If your target audience is horny teenage boys, sure, that makes sense. Most cover pieces for PF aren't especially sexy, though. It's mainly interior art.
If you want to reach out to women, girls, men like me who have more mature taste in art, etc. then too much cheesecake in the books can actually backfire on you.Paizo has taken some steps in the right direction, especially with the iconic paladin. I just wish they'd scale back the fanservice and increase the diversity of looks for women in the gamebooks.
If reaching out to women involves depicting plain women, why do women's magazines all have good-looking models/actresses/whatever in them? Likewise cosmetics or perfumes adverts? Your view is not borne out by real life examples. Marks & Spencer, a UK clothing chain, tried to run adverts with "ordinary" women in it - you know, not models but women with the normal lumps and bumps. It was a disaster, and M&S was in trouble for a while. They now have well-known, good-looking "personalities" - singers, actresses, models, all glamorous. You do not "reach out" to women by depicting them as ugly or even ordinary-looking. Another example, related to Harry Potter - how come in the book Hermione is plain and, indeed, buck-toothed, yet they choose a pretty girl to play her in the films? Well, we know why.
That is not to say that women who are adventurers should be depicted as heading to a ball or the beach, or that their equipment should be depicted as impractical (assuming the artists know what practical looks like). But as beauty is often associated with "good" and ugly as "bad" you could even sound out a confusing or mixed message (not good for sales) if you start depicting odd-looking women.
And, really, why are we arguing about sexism in a game which glorifies violence and killing? And why pick on RPGs when their cultural influence is so low these days (less a comment to you than the original blogger)? There are a lot more things which should make us uncomfortable if we stop to consider our hobby of choice before sexism in art gets to the top of the list. And if RPGs stopped depicting women in this way, it would likely not even be noticed in the wider world.
Well the all female soldiers of the queens guard of Korvosa dont have any skin showing, not even their faces. All platemail and full helms.
Then there is Madam Mvashti who is the ugliest old crone I have ever seen who lives in Sandpoint and is a local Druid :)
There is Mammy Graul who is a disgusting Ogre Decent Human woman in Hook Mountain Massacre... yugh...
Merisial dosnt wear anything but leather armor, and she is mostly covered...
The Red wearing blond sorsereres dosnt wear armor but has magical protection so it dosnt matter...
The Half Orc Inquisitor is fairly well protected... and debatable for looks...
The Witch is cute, but dosnt wear armor that isnt magick rings etc...
So there really isnt much cheese as there were in the old 70`s and 80`s fantasy art :)
So far as scars go, the only scars you ever get to see in fantasy art, generally speaking, are rakish dueling scars. Valeros, for example, has a nice one across his nose. If his nose had been taken clean off, he wouldn't look nearly so pretty/rakish and would thus never be on the cover of a book.
Seeing the world-weary battle-hardened tanned adventuress who was never a great looker to begin with? Unlikely, and it's also unlikely she'd continue to look like that. It's like comics where they introduce the plain flat-chested teenage girl in one issue and after going through a succession of artists, she goes up a cup size and gets a fashion makeover each one until a few years later she looks like a comic-book pin-up.
While a lot of the costuming indeed looks impractical, if not dry-clean only, let's face it, this is a world with magic, and Seoni can use Prestidigitation to dry clean and flawlessly mend that completely impractical but sexy costume she got at a fashion show somewhere or more likely found in some ancient queen's tomb packed away as grave goods as party wear for the afterlife. It was her size and fit better than the practical adventuring wear she'd been wearing previously (which had gotten shredded) and it's not like that Osirian queen was needing it anymore. Mechanically, she just switched an Adventurer's Outfit for a Courtier's or Noble costume, and if she enchants it? There's no reason a Robe of the Arch Magi can't can't look like a sexy dress, and a lot of reasons why it should, especially since the force fields mean you can show off your navel if you feel like it without it actually being a "kill box."
GURPS actually explained this as official items: the chainmail bikini and the macho leathers allow your barbarians to get the same armor bonus as magic chain or leather with only a few strategic bits of skin covered. And this is less silly than it sounds when you consider that everyone in D&D/Pathfinder has already swallowed magical armor that magically resizes itself to whoever wants to put it on.
Its amazing that with the holiday gnome card, the net result was only to move this discussion back a few weeks . . . ;)
Maybe one of the benefits of masterwork armour is that it flatters the wearer as well as protects them.
And maybe magic armour is able to protect bits of people it doesn't even cover... using magic!
Perhaps it's just because there's so much diplomacy and political maneuvering in my games, but I'd say if your characters never have the chance to dress up and show off, then perhaps combat is a little too central to your games. Sure it happens, and the bulk of the rules are dedicated to it, but that doesn't mean the characters spend the vast majority of their lives actually fighting.
Sure, since it can happen, they keep a reasonable amount of gear on them at all times because they know (better than most) that s~@@ happens. However, these should still be people who have their own lives and wants outside of surviving the next assassination attempt or ambush. I have a few characters of my own who would be greatly hampered in their more crucial roles as diplomats and information-gatherers if they wandered around armed like a siege tower 24×7.
If you have ever been to a renaissance festival, there are plenty of women who wear armor similar to what you see in fantasy artwork. Impractical if you are going into a place expecting a fight, but if you are just meandering around a country faire or a city market, just maybe you have a few things on your mind other than fighting? Say... flirting with a cute guard captain, trying to get a good deal from the sleazy merchant, or even just letting your hair down. A gap in the armor like that is pretty easy to cover with a mail coif or a gorget.
However, if you've actually worn armor for any length of time, I can tell you that it's not particularly comfortable. Expecting trouble? Yeah, get suited up. Otherwise? I think it's more likely that you'd pack and dress with just a hint less paranoia. Nearly all of the attractive gamer ladies that I know enjoy looking attractive. (I'm actually trying to think of any who don't.)
From what I've gathered, they don't see sexiness as being antithetical to being a strong woman — they see it as part of it. What they do see as sexist is the notion that they have to repress themselves and deny their feminine side. I get the feeling they aren't real keen on the idea of looking and acting like men who just happen to have different plumbing. Go figure.
One of my best female friends is a 39-yo mother who has been playing D&D since she first knew how to talk and walk. In a word, she's "hot". Her son is 15 and she's taught him how to GM. Her dad was a green-beret and taught her to be tough-as-nails (which she is), but she really likes dressing up and showing off. She loved the Seoni outfit I made for Jenny and I'm right now working on a new ren faire costume for her. It's nothing that revealing, but she wants to look sexy.
As a professional fantasy illustrator, she typically whips up character sketches for everyone while we game. I have yet to see her portray any of her characters, male or female, as anything less than smokin' hot yet also able to kick your ass. I have no more problem with her artwork than I do with Paizo's.
Aw man, this topic again?
Aw man, this topic again?
Yeah, and you guys thought you could get out of it by not having Seoni on the holiday cards this year? Silly Paizo. ;)
Seoni on Harsk
No, no you are mistaken. I'm pretty sure at that point nobody wins . . . ;)
|
|
My biggest problem from that blog came from this portion:
Then again, as this photo taken by Sean K Reynolds shows, it's not like this is the first time that Paizo has used boobs at GenCon to sell their products: Photo
Ok, so we have an attractive woman with a nice figure. Oh the horror! Burn her! She can't be allowed to participate in the hobby!
Man, if a girl was dressed like that at DragonCon, people would think she was an insecure prude. ;)
I think that blogger needs a reality check where present day cosplay is concerned. Hell, Sean's wife designs and makes posing suits for female fitness models. She has cosplayed as Amiri. By comparison, the woman in that pic is wearing a hell of a lot more clothing.
Not a big deal!
Last I checked, both the CEO of Paizo, and the Senior Art Director were women. It if passes their approvaL, it's tasteful enough for me.
I don't think their being women means anything much. I'm a man and I think some of the art is a bit silly. Of course, even the painfully silly stuff is invariably well done, becaise Paizo's artists are good at what they do.
Armor boob windows are goofy, not merely 'sexist.' People seem to think this is mainly about 'sexism' for me, instead of that being a tangential issue. I have no objection to harem slaves and sultry seductresses- but female fighters, thieves, etc should generally be dressed in a way that makes sense for their professions and acitivities. Armor boob windows make no darned sense. Having so many improbably gorgeous, sexy female characters on display seems a bit much.
Why is it some that the same people who praise Paizo for having characters of 'non-white' looks recoil at the idea of a flat chested woman with buck teeth? I don't get it. Is diversity bad when it involves women who aren't 'hawt'?
The 'sexy art' issue really is less much marked with males in the art. You've got gnarly old wizards, surly looking dwarves, etc to balance out the 'hunks.'It's a mix. With the women? Not so much.
|
I actually have no problem with the art in paizo. I don't mind and even like a little cheesecake. I think Paizo is far from having to much personally.I don't mind a little, either. I do think they have too much, though.
Aside from the usual silly stuff like metal wonderbras and armor with cleavage windows, it's more what's missing than what's included that bothers me.
I want to see female advnetuers who actually look like women who've led hard, dangerous lives. More gals with short hair, or hair pulled back into a pony tail. I want to see some battle marks: scars, missing an ear, missing some teeth, etc. I'm talking about practical clothing. Nobody fights in high heels. They don't all need to be pretty, either.
Ideas for the sort of female characters I'd like to see in AP illustrations/as new iconics for prestige classes/etc:
A gangly, flat chested human woman in her mid thirties, with tanned skin, short-cropped brown hair, and buckteeth. She dresses in pratical boots, breeches, tunic, etc. No cleavage on display,no exposed belly, no piercings, no high heels, no makeup. In her belt are tucked a brace of Alkentsar-made revolvers, and you damn well better believe that she knows how to use 'em.
A female elf with half her face covered in scar tissue from the time an owlbear decided to try to eat her. She's missing most of one ear, the long point is gone. She wears gunmetal gray plate-and-mail armor that's dented and scuffed but well-made and solid-looking. Her main weapon is a polearm. A helmet hangs at her belt, or is otherwise shown in the artwork- she's just not wearing it at the moment.
I respect your likes and what you would like to see. Me personally I have no desire to. I do agree high heels is just silly. From my own personal experience most people I know regardless of gender prefer pictures of attractive women. You can see it in many modern magazines as well. It mostly comes down to, the men want to be with them and the women want to look like them.((to be clear I don't mean everyone is like that, but a large portion of people are IMHO))
I think if this game was about the real world, then yeah it would be more silly. But we are talking about a fantasy world with magic. I know if I could wear two suits of armor, one plate from head to toe and another reveling yet comfortable set of leather armor and due to magic both gave the same protection I would wear the second one.
The only fantasy art I have issues with is some of the older art, especially some of the older conan art. Where conan is standing up bloody sword, while the women are laying at his feat, or chained up etc and submissive. As long as Paizo stays away from that, then I will be happy with their art. I personally think they give a nice variety of cheesecake and practical art myself.
|
I've always considered the stylized ("it doesn't protect the kill-box!") form of armor worn by female adventurers in fantasy art to be nothing more than an artist's interpretation of what they feel the "realty" of Golarion would look like.
Artists take "artistic license" all the time. Who is to say that Wayne Reynolds depiction of Seoni is an accurate representation of the "real" Seoni as she exists in Golarion (if Golarion did indeed exist and you could visit it)? That would be like looking at Monet's Ipression, Sunset as a realistic depiction of an actual sunset over Le Havre harbor in 1872 France.
It's art. It's subjective. It appeals to some and repels others. It's realty passed through someone else's filter. You're reaction to it says more about you than it does about the artist.
-Skeld
This is a Very Serious Topic. It deserves nothing less than 10 pages of discussion.
Who wants to race to 10?
Yawn.
|
|
Some of you are obviously unaware of the mathmatical theory behind the chainmail bikini theory of armor. Please also note that although the term "chainmail bikini" is used throughout this post, this can apply to many different types of armor. The minimal breastplate [literally, in that it (barely) covers just the breasts], the thin leather strip worn as a top...all of these can be considered "armor".
The chainmail bikini theory of armor states that for armor that emphasizes sex appeal over actual protection, distraction/envy is as much of a factor in the increased protection as the normal deflection of regular armor. The typical horny barbarian, when confronted with a good looking woman wearing a chainmail bikini, is distracted by his own lusty thoughts to the point where his attacks are less effective than usual. For those who prefer the opposite sex from the person wearing the chainmail bikini, feelings of envy and jealousy elicit much the same result.
Mechanics: Chainmail bikinis (and similar "armors") provide the same AC as the regular armor upon which they are based, minus 2 for the reduced coverage. However, they also gain a few benefits: the maximum dexterity bonus increases by 1, the armor check penalty is reduced by 1, and the arcane spell failure chance is decreased by 10%. In addition, the wearer can add a distraction bonus to their AC equal to their Charisma bonus. In the case of a Charisma penalty, this becomes a revulsion penalty (making them easier to hit).
Magical chainmail bikinis can be even more impressive, as they often not only add a enhancement bonus, but also extend the magical protection over the exposed areas, to eliminate the -2 penalty to AC suffered by mundane bikini armors.
;)
Let me know when we get art of pretty boys with big packages and a very toned and well defined bottom.
Then you can argue about men being equally objectified.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yawn.This is a Very Serious Topic. It deserves nothing less than 10 pages of discussion.
Who wants to race to 10?
This is serious! Jack-Bauer-we-don't-have-time level serious.
If someone were to derail this entire thread with nonsense and fun, the Very Serious Topic would go unresolved and could kill us all!!!
Or is that rainbows I'm thinking of?
|
|
I don't know, a lot of adventurers tend to travel with Clerics. CLW is great for preventing major battle scars.Does the rulebook specify no scarring with magical healing, or is that a house rule of yours?
Just curious.
Strictly speaking the rules are silent on the issue either way - there's no mention of major scars or permanent injuries except in the Regeneration spell:
The subject's severed body members (fingers, toes, hands, feet, arms, legs, tails, or even heads of multi-headed creatures), broken bones, and ruined organs grow back. After the spell is cast, the physical regeneration is complete in 1 round if the severed members are present and touching the creature. It takes 2d10 rounds otherwise.
Regenerate also cures 4d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +35), rids the subject of exhaustion and fatigue, and eliminates all nonlethal damage the subject has taken. It has no effect on nonliving creatures (including undead).
The rules remain silent on the issue of cosmetic details to characters.
In my home game the way I tend to rule it is:
Magical Healing (being magical) fixes wounds, bruises and broken bones without leaving behind scars, bumps or even fusions, it's perfect healing and leaves you as if you haven't taken any damage whatsoever.
Natural healing (through rest) will leave behind evidence such as scars and bone fusions where appropriate.
Furthermore one can use the Coup-De Grace action (with all the limitations therein) to remove or crush a limb instead of killing the opponent. The attack is treated as a critical hit, and if the opponent fails their Fort Save they lose the limb. It's not an often used option, but it does provide a reason to cast regenerate.
Again these are house rules for a subject that the rule book remains silent on. It also helps to explain all the beautiful adventurers one sees in books, they had access to magical healing. The ones with scars, missing fingers and limbs didn't.