|
...and being intelligent (as Seoni is) doesn't mean being an introvert or not caring about appearances.
This may be because I read things wrong, but I actually got the impression she was something of an introvert. It's the reason her outfit feels jarring to me from a character perspective. As for prestidigitation, there's no way those girls weigh only one pound total! :)
As far as changing her outfit goes, I don't think it's gonna happen. It's just one of those things where I roll my eyes, smile a little wryly, and move on.
...But the Inquisitor? That costume is utterly ridiculous. The exposed cleavage is completely nonsensical. The costume is clearly inspired by the robes of the Spanish Inquisitors, but it looks silly. Like its the Sexy Inquisitor outfit from some tacky Halloween catalog.
Oh sure. As I've said, I'm not expecting to see completely sensical clothing on female adventurers. I think all of them except Lini, Seelah and Kyra have cleavage holes in their clothing. This is a little silly, but par for the course. This doesn't bother me like the 4th edition PHB cover did - they're obviously [finger quotes] fashion [/finger quotes] driven instead of being driven by pure practicality, but I can handle it. Seoni bothers me the most because the practical aspects of her costume, much like the dungeon-punk sorceress on the 4th edition PHB cover, are so bad I wonder if she's an idiot. If Seoni had some support for her breasts, if dungeon-punk 4th edition gurl had clothing that didn't threaten imminent wardrobe malfunctions, I would be pretty much cool with it instead of occasionally annoyed.
::shrug::
Actually, as an anthropologist, a feminist, and a member of the Paizo art staff, I'm happy you brought up some of these issues. They've been on my mind a lot lately, as well.
Y'know, sometimes the execution falls into some pretty typical examples, but I've got to say I've been pretty impressed by Paizo's design ethic thus far.
Not to long ago someone on the Ask JJ Anything thread someone raised the question as to why the Incubus was lower level than the Succubus and JJ's answer pretty well was, "Because I'm tired of that thing where the female of the species is always a level behind the male." That's just one example, but coming from the creative director of an RPG company it's laudable, and I think the attitude has a positive effect throughout the product lines.
Interesting thoughts all round, but especially on jess doors and crystal fraisers part. Great artwork jess, and although I would be lying if I said I did not prefer the original, I could live with the edit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, what Seoni wears is revealing, but her design was released alongside Meresiel and Kyra, a woman who is fully clothed but tight, and a woman who is bundled up like there was a fire sale at the scarf-and-chainmail-emporium. All three are awesome examples of womanhood in their own ways. Since then, Paizo's female iconic have run the gamut from badass warriors who won't take your s*~% (Seelah and Imrijka), to tough-and-hot adventurer chicks (like Lirrianne or Amiri), to eye-candy (Alhazra), to... other (Lini). Seoni's outfit on her own fits stereotypes of what women have been told they should be, but all our female iconics, taken as a group, provide an awesome cross-section of what it actually does mean to be a woman. To leave out women who like to look and feel hot would've bordered on slut-shaming.
I just love this analysis of the female iconics and was wondering if there was a similar one for the male iconics who also have very different styles and attitudes.
|
|
Actually, as an anthropologist, a feminist, and a member of the Paizo art staff, I'm happy you brought up some of these issues. They've been on my mind a lot lately, as well.Y'know, sometimes the execution falls into some pretty typical examples, but I've got to say I've been pretty impressed by Paizo's design ethic thus far.
Not to long ago someone on the Ask JJ Anything thread someone raised the question as to why the Incubus was lower level than the Succubus and JJ's answer pretty well was, "Because I'm tired of that thing where the female of the species is always a level behind the male." That's just one example, but coming from the creative director of an RPG company it's laudable, and I think the attitude has a positive effect throughout the product lines.
Well, I do not share your positive assessment of JJ's answer.
I am all against "the female of the species always being a level behind the male" but I do not believe that its opposite should be "the female of the species being a level above the male". It should be male level = female level. Doing otherwise in any direction will only give more arguments to the sexist crowd IMO.
Come to think of it, I am not sure there are that many examples of male level > female level in RPG these days. What comes immediately to my mind when thinking about a difference in level between male and female of the same species are in fact the other way around (female > male) : Drow, Spiders and now Succubus/Incubus.
Granted, such a discrepancy is less hackles-raising than the old male > female, but I still do not like the principle of it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting thoughts all round, but especially on jess doors and crystal fraisers part. Great artwork jess, and although I would be lying if I said I did not prefer the original, I could live with the edit.
If she were wearing the uneditted top at a social occasion, it wouldn't bother me nearly as much. It would easily be an appropriate wardrobe choice. But spelunking and readying a fireball in that outfit is...well...it's obvious is the point is to look at her and want her instead of wanting to be her.
Of course, in this case, there are so many other problems with the art. I don't know if the dragonborn appeals to guys as an avatar anymore than dungeonpunk girl in her WonderCorset appeals to women as an avatar. And why is he using his sword as a baseball bat?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First: Boobs don't work that way. (Link contains some images that might not be safe for work.)
When it comes to the way women are depicted in comic book art, video games, anime and so on, the problem isn't just that it's objectifying, but that it's more unrealistic than a porn magazine after Photoshopping. Boobs don't work that way. Spines don't work that way. Butts don't work that way. The images are designed solely to sexualize the woman being depicted, realism be damned. I'm astonished that some people don't seem to find that problematic.
But that is not a problem. Women are not hurt in the slightest by the existence of media that appeals to men, just like men are not hurt in the slightest by the existence of media that appeals to women.
Actually, you're very, very wrong about this. Women are absolutely hurt by certain media that is made to appeal to men. Women are hurt, for example, when men compare real-life women to the impossible women depicted in comic books and games, and when they find those impossible women more sexually appealing than real women. Women are hurt when violence is depicted as sexy, because it in turn normalizes sexual violence (read: rape). In the Second Life game, you could "buy" a rape. Then there's the RapeLay game, the goal of which is to, you guessed it, rape women. These are some of the things marketed to men. Don't tell me that this s**t doesn't harm women. It absolutely harms women.
Also, it's worth noting that the original author of the article linked to in the first post has absolutely no clue what the phrase "male privilege" refers to. he is completely misusing the term. Now I personally don't agree with feminist arguments about male privilege -- I think that its just another example of feminists stealing the work of minority advocates and trying to clumsily substitute gender for race as if they were perfectly equivalent of each other (i.e. "white privilege" is a very real thing, while "male privilege" is an attempt to equate being male with being white, which works much better in theory than in practice) -- but that is rather beside the point. Even if we agree that male privilege exists, the existence (and glut of) of video games featuring tough stoic badass male characters and sexy scantily clad female character aimed at a juvenile male audience is not an example of male privilege in any way, shape or form.
^This? Shining example of male privilege. I think this paragraph alone is enough for a Bingo.
The author absolutely knows what male privilege is. Here, look up the word. The author of the article linked to in the first post has a pretty good understanding of what privilege is, at least according to a well-understood definition.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I swear I've written a reply 12 times, and deleted it 12 times.
The article itself misses on some points and hits on others.
I think there are some things that the entire geek culture should think about.
Not having every single female character oozing raw sex OR tied to a man and little else would be good for everyone (better writing). I have met women who don't talk in sexual innuendo or require me to be around to have opinions, and that aspect would be nice to see in geek culture.
Granted that would be nice outside of geek culture too, however that's a rant for another day.
Not automatically giving female character cleavage and instead learning some rules of fashion/armor and why those rules exist would also be nice, as it roots the game with some realism.
Yes, realism. I can't believe in a world where I can use magic to do almost anything, have monsters walking around of genius level intellect, and that has a decent amount of egalitarianism, however no woman in the 8000 years of the world didn't think "You know, having no support for my breasts hurts when I run/ride/jump off dragons backs. I should invent something to help this issue."
I can believe in all that and someone figured out some sort of female undergarment. Granted it doesn't come up to me as I'm a male, but it does come up for women. Think if all the games you played had vegan men. You'd think it was ridiculous. Yes, vegan men exist. No, not all of us are vegan.
That being said, I don't think immediately changing everything in drastic fashion and printing female specific products is the answer, as Chimpanzee Psychonaut has written.
Having niche products inherently leads one to sell to the niche group that gives you money, and some majority of our niche group don't see what the fuss is about. As a company in geek culture, you shouldn't have to take a financial risk to put something out that is morally good and no one is going to buy. That won't change anything and you'll just keep seeing the same thing.
The answer also isn't tell anyone to leave if they don't like it and doing things the same way is the answer. That leads to stagnation and the culture doesn't grow and dies out.
The article leaves out a good answer. Am I going to not buy Arkham 3 (for instance) because of this? Or change the way I run games? Probably not.
But am I going to sit back like the article writer and say nothing until my girlfriend leaves? What are you, stupid? We're better than that!
If a woman asks why Wonder Woman wears very little, and someone says "You're dumb because you're female and don't understand, leave", it should be up to us to better explain each side of the debate, and debate it.
We should step in, mock the shizznit out of the person who said that for having little tact and ability to argue, apologize for them, and then argue something along the lines of what I've said above, allowing for education as to why it's the way it is.
I mean, the above image posted that changes the 4e book doesn't seem THAT drastic to me. I'll still think the same way about the rules either way
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's something else to keep in mind:
Geek culture is already changing to be more women friendly.
More women are getting involved in the industry. Companies are realizing there's a huge untapped market out there. As their gamer customer base's median age increases, the portion of market controlled by women increases, as even those gamers/potential gamers that are men have to convince their wives to invest household funds in expensive gaming systems a non-trivial percentage of the time.
Sometimes these efforts to appeal to women are laughably horrible. Sometimes they find something that taps the female gamer market almost by accident. Sometimes it's as simple as allowing the possibility of a female toon in a game.
But it IS changing.
I've always been odd, being a stubborn girl that was something of a tomboy and loves math and science and programming. I've always been "that weird geek girl", so it wasn't too big a stretch to get into the tabletop roleplaying geek community. But I don't think you have to be that kinda girl or "some player's girlfriend" to get introduced into gaming anymore. And I think that will continue to happen.
I appreciate when people are willing to listen to me talking about my frustrations with things like this. They're big, prevalent, multigenerational and cultural things that won't change quickly...and may not disappear ever. But the occasional willingness to listen and attempt to understand where I'm coming from really helps when I'm feeling particularly alone or put upon.
I shared the specific case of the 4th Edition PHB cover art because I think in cases like this a specific can be helpful - gives the conversation something to sink its teeth into instead of throwing around broad generalities. And in this case it also had the appeal of being a case that didn't call out a single person and say "See! This is a absolute jerk of a man!" as some sort of personal attack. Keeps the volatility of the conversation to reasonable levels, I hope. :)
Granted, such a discrepancy is less hackles-raising than the old male > female, but I still do not like the principle of it.
I don't completely disagree Raven, but in a culture where the male bias is so accepted (see Fionnnabhair's post above), contrary examples can't hurt. I won't deny that it reverses rather than does away with gender bias.
The thing is, you (no insult) just named three (pseudo-)matriarchal characters, and they're all bad guys; killing feminists is not a blow against male entitlement. I would love to see a player's companion and/or setting guide that features a full on female dominant society, all fluff, no rules modification beyond a list of traits. (My collection is far from complete, if it's out there, just tell me so.)
Hope that wasn't a douchebag move, just blathering on and on, as promised.
|
|
If she were wearing the uneditted top at a social occasion, it wouldn't bother me nearly as much. It would easily be an appropriate wardrobe choice. But spelunking and readying a fireball in that outfit is...well...it's obvious is the point is to look at her and want her instead of wanting to be her.This isn't fair. I've known close to half a dozen gamer girls who owned their own chain mail bikini or slutty komono. Maybe you don't want to be her, but I think plenty of women do.
A girl who played in a recent game of mine use a painting of a belly dancer for her flying sorcerer.
Besides, PF characters don't go spelunking, they walk down flights of stairs into the hollow earth (;
Cranewings, we're talking about this image:
And it absolutely is fair. Unless these girls wear their slutty kimono and/or chainmail bikinis to life or death knife fights, they're wearing these outfits at social occasions...which, as I mentioned in the very text you quoted from me (repeated here, emphasis added):
If she were wearing the uneditted top at a social occasion, it wouldn't bother me nearly as much. It would easily be an appropriate wardrobe choice. But spelunking and readying a fireball in that outfit is...well...it's obvious is the point is to look at her and want her instead of wanting to be her.
is fine with me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting thoughts all round, but especially on jess doors and crystal fraisers part. Great artwork jess, and although I would be lying if I said I did not prefer the original, I could live with the edit.
Not only do I prefer the update, but I have a problem even with the editted version. I find the edited one more attractive. But really, the edited part isn't the offensive part of the image. That sorceress could be wearing the orriginal clothes (open top & bear midrift and all), in the same location, and be unoffensive. The problem is that she is in a ridiculous pose.
She is posed in such a way to emphisize 3 things, bust, ass, and thighs. Look at the way the torso is twisted to get a front view, but then twisted to give a side view of her ass. Her front thigh is then bent, while the back one is in this wierd, twisted position that is totally unrealistic. This isn't an action pose, its an exploitation pose. And it makes her less attactive to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think these better personify feminine strength:
I want one of these to be my avatar. And I don't know if they're super sexy to guys, but I don't think they're unattractive. I don't feel like their primary purpose is to look sexy - their primary purpose is to kick butt, and any sexiness is secondary to this purpose.
Also, redheads rule.
I am absolutely unbiased in this opinion.
:P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything wrong with her outfit in that picture. I think people are just sensitive about images of the female body.
This was the image of the warrior I grew up with. Physical perfection, almost naked. It is sexual (for god's sake, look at how he is holding the sword). It is greatness. Some men ARE threatened by it, but most take it for what it is, a celebration of human greatness.
The woman in that picture is a glorification of feminine strength.
Almost none of the armor on any of the characters is correct, in either PF or 4e. It is cool to look at.
The thing is its also about how they are portrayed. Conan is an image of strength. His pictures emphasize this. They are not depicting him to emphasize his sexuality, except perhaps in a primal way. Conan is designed to appeal to male power fantasies, just like the dragonborn in the 4e cover.
Most female artwork is designed to emphasize beauty in an objectifying way. In the 4e cover, the woman is posing. She is showing off her boobs and ass for her opponent. She is not in a position showing off her strength. There are ways to do that and this is not and example of it.
I think these better personify feminine strength:
I dunno Jess, all I noticed was the bikini *blush*
I think these better personify feminine strength:
I want one of these to be my avatar. And I don't know if they're super sexy to guys, but I don't think they're unattractive. I don't feel like their primary purpose is to look sexy - their primary purpose is to kick butt, and any sexiness is secondary to this purpose.
Also, redheads rule.
I am absolutely unbiased in this opinion.
:P
I find the strength shown in those images to be far more attractive than the 4e cover. I have a lot of friends who have voiced similar views in various comic book discussions.
|
But the Inquisitor? That costume is utterly ridiculous. The exposed cleavage is completely nonsensical. The costume is clearly inspired by the robes of the Spanish Inquisitors, but it looks silly. Like its the Sexy Inquisitor outfit from some tacky Halloween catalog.
I'm pretty sure she's not actually a half-orc, but instead she's a Jägermonster.
Almost none of the armor on any of the characters is correct, in either PF or 4e. It is cool to look at.
Armour doesn't have to be unrealistic, though. Check out some of the awesome images here, for example. Some of it's Paizo art, too. Personally, I think Pathfinder is pretty good in how it depicts women. Not perfect, of course, but it doesn't seem to alienate women gamers the way some gaming art does. There are sexy, even sexualized, women, and there are women who look like their main goal is to kick ass and take names. There are female iconics for classes that rely on physical strength, where you might not expect to see many women. I mean, look at the iconic barbarian! Look at that sword! Yeah, I'd like to roleplay her. I also really like the iconic witch. There's some problematic boob art there, but she still looks like a character who's there to kick some ass. I don't see much in the way of impossible poses, either, like the ones Caineach described.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno Jess, all I noticed was the bikini *blush*
I could see a picture of a woman from an appropriate culture going into battle naked. The fighting bikini on the first image is a little bit silly, but she's not posed to be sexually appealing to men first, and she's got a body type that makes it obvious that as a fighter, she means business. She's about power and confidence first. As a woman gamer, I want the occasional rendering of women adventurers to be absolutely unconcerned with their own sex appeal.
It happens. It happens more often in Pathfinder art than in any other gaming company's art. WotC has a lot of good pictures too. Wayne Reynolds has some cool iconic female warrior art. But I would say it's the minority.
I don't know. I mean, the 4e artists aren't exactly Jeff Easley or Julie Bell. I think you are just contrasting real old school fantasy art with new school dungeon punk crap.
I know for me it is not the style of the rendering, it is the attitude of the rendered character.
On the PHB cover, chick is posing for the camera as sexy tough chick #4 for a maxim spread.
The other two women will kill the cameraman that asks her to thrust her chest forward a bit more, wiggle her butt and pout better. She will do what she wants when she wants.
I dunno Jess, all I noticed was the bikini *blush*I could see a picture of a woman from an appropriate culture going into battle naked. The fighting bikini on the first image is a little bit silly, but she's not posed to be sexually appealing to men first, and she's got a body type that makes it obvious that as a fighter, she means business. She's about power and confidence first.
Yeah, maybe the joke didn't quite come across, the punchline was even a white heterosexist dude such as myself can be attracted to a woman who could break his arm, like, easily.
If you want to bring historical accuracy (fuzzy edged concept as relates to RPGs) into it, just about everyone fought naked until we reached the iron age; bronze just isn't worth it.
EDIT: Which is to say, I don't have a problem with nudity, but objectification of either gender is sloppy character work.
Director of Sales
|
Example #2Oof. Seen that one before, which is why I made this. (also this) It's Cate Blanchett's face on a man's body. Those are so clearly a man's arms and hands. Attractive face (its Cate Blanchett after all), but the arms are really off-putting. The artist should have used an actual female model for the arms. It also suffers from a severe case of "collage anatomy" - the arms don't match the body and connect oddly because they're all so clearly from different sources.
But that's me, I tend to judge the art on its actual technical qualities, not on entirely subjective and personal biases that no artist can hope to appease.
I agree that this an example of collage anatomy, but I would say that it isn't Cate Blanchett, but rather Rhona Mitra. Minor quibble.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I minored in women's studies in college, and have a very strong grasp of what the term male privilege refers to.
Even if this were true (which I highly doubt) your stating it does absolutely nothing to help me take you seriously. It would go a long way to explain your holier-than-thou attitude, but it doesn't begin to explain why you would troll everyone who doesn't support your extremely confrontational stance.
Congratulations on your first seven posts, by the way. All in the same thread, in the Off-Topic forums. That seems a really strange place to start.
The line you're quoting, Lincoln, combined with the OKCupid stats that actually proves my point, makes me think we have a Poe.
Huh. Mine was about healing spells being necromancy. Never would have thought to check.
Huh. Mine was about healing spells being necromancy. Never would have thought to check.
*reads post*
I am so houseruling that in.
|
Senior Software Developer
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
These aren't my first seven posts. These are my first seven points with this account.
OK, if you're going to publicly state that this is not your first account, we need to make it crystal clear that Chimpanzee Psychonaut is Gailbraithe, who was permanently banned from participating on our site for being unable to walk away from the keyboard when provoked.
Generally I try to use a "brand new day" kind of policy for people who want to come back but that comes with the responsibility to not behave in the kinds of ways that got the person banned in the first place. But alluding to past history on the site in a fashion that doesn't allow people to discover that past behavior is a no-no. If you're going to be here and refer to your posting history, you need to own that history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I am the last person who should be asking this with the way I pop off, but can we please knock off all the hostility, calm down, and discuss this rationally instead of insulting each other? Please?
|
Senior Software Developer
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what? I went back and reviewed your emails to me. I don't have time for this nonsense. I think we are done here.
You're a f@#&ing piece of s+!@, Gary. I f&$+ing hate a+!$*$#s like you, with ypour stupid corporate slave mentalities taking over every space available for people to talk, forcing us all to act like proper little robots. You can suck a dick, you free-speech hating f!&%stick.
Here's a tip. If you wish to discuss issues with how you were disciplined with the moderators, swearing and name calling does not help. In many cases, it actually hurts. This applies in offline situations, as well.
|
Contributor
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well... that was derailing. But now that the unhinged fellow with the persecution complex has... escorted himself out....
Armor doesn't always have to be perfectly realistic for men or women, and honestly is a lot more fun if you can roll some fashion into it without worrying about realistic movement and protection. It's once the "armor" crosses the line into obvious accentuating the wearer for the male gaze that I have issues (and, I'd like to think, a lot of other women feel the same way).
I for one love this one. She's heavily armored and still looks sweet and feminine. I'm not thrilled that she looks so skinny, but I've seen enough wiry women to accept it.
Well... that was derailing. But now that the unhinged fellow with the persecution complex has... escorted himself out....
Armor doesn't always have to be perfectly realistic for men or women, and honestly is a lot more fun if you can roll some fashion into it without worrying about realistic movement and protection. It's once the "armor" crosses the line into obvious accentuating the wearer for the male gaze that I have issues (and, I'd like to think, a lot of other women feel the same way).
I for one love this one. She's heavily armored and still looks sweet and feminine. I'm not thrilled that she looks so skinny, but I've seen enough wiry women to accept it.
Deadlinked.
Personally, I like artwork of attractive women, regardless of whether or not it is sexualized. I am a lesbian, so I look at images of women from both the point of view of someone who finds such women desirable and from the point of view of someone who would like to be these women. I get where the opinions against it come from, and I respect them, but I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the sexy pictures a good deal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deadlinked.
I am quick like robo ninja. You will find this link now works.