New Runelords Player's Guide Art Seems Racy to Some

[Reckless]

thejeff wrote:

If it's front and center on the cover of a publication, without some strong reason to think otherwise I'm going to assume it was put there to sell the publication on the theory that sex sells.

And at exactly $0.00 per copy, Paizo's making a mint on this baby. Oh yeah, they're really exploiting that fictional woman's sensuality to make a fast buck.

[Talonhawke]

Maybe the answer is to only show scantily clad Hags and trolls?

[TwoWolves]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If it's front and center on the cover of a publication, without some strong reason to think otherwise I'm going to assume it was put there to sell the publication on the theory that sex sells.

I don't think that's fair, really.

I'll bet they just chose the positions based on how the poses worked in the layout.

Don't be so cynical.

The other two figures have "directional" poses. Lyrie does not. Hence she is the natural choice for center stage. Those looking to be offended will be, until everyone is in a burka. The fact that Lyrie is standing next to an armored non-cheesecake woman and people still find offense means they are looking for a reason to be offended.

[Xzaral]

thejeff wrote:

If it's front and center on the cover of a publication, without some strong reason to think otherwise I'm going to assume it was put there to sell the publication on the theory that sex sells.

Great logic. I'll just assume you're a sex-crazed deviant and move along ;p

[thejeff]

TwoWolves wrote:

The other two figures have "directional" poses. Lyrie does not. Hence she is the natural choice for center stage.

What does that even mean? Did the artist draw the figures in those poses and then decide how to arrange them? I assumed she was drawn in that pose because she was in the center, not the other way around. Are the pictures pre-existent?

TwoWolves wrote:

Those looking to be offended will be, until everyone is in a burka. The fact that Lyrie is standing next to an armored non-cheesecake woman and people still find offense means they are looking for a reason to be offended.

I'm not offended by it. I think Paizo's done a pretty good job on this front and I believe James Jacobs when he says they turn down or have modified a lot more cheesecake than they print. I do see why some people would be bothered by it though.

I'm more bothered by some of the arguments for why it couldn't possibly be an issue and that's what I was responding to.

[thejeff]

Reckless wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If it's front and center on the cover of a publication, without some strong reason to think otherwise I'm going to assume it was put there to sell the publication on the theory that sex sells.

And at exactly $0.00 per copy, Paizo's making a mint on this baby. Oh yeah, they're really exploiting that fictional woman's sensuality to make a fast buck.

It's advertising for the hardcover that isn't free? If this catches your eye, you might be more likely to buy that?

But that response was actually to a hypothetical not directly related to this product.

[thejeff]

JohnF wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Again, it's not the outfit. Or not just the outfit.

It's the art.

The outfit in the original adventure is at least as risque, but the picture isn't drawn to emphasize her breasts.

Think of the difference between a photo of a buxom girl standing in a shirt that shows a hint of cleavage and another photo of the same girl in the same shirt, but this time she's bent over and the camera's looking right down her shirt showing most of her breasts. Both the same girl in the same clothes, but one is soft porn and one isn't.

Not necessarily. It's soft porn if the only reason the picture was taken is to show her breasts; if she's bending over for some genuine purpose, the photograph is mostly about whatever she's doing, and she'd be doing it whether or not there's a camera there, it isn't. It is, at worst, slightly tasteless reporting.

Of course if you then take that photograph, crop it to emphasise the cleavage, and post it to a public forum to complain about rampant pornography in the media, don't be surprised if people think that says rather more about you than it does about the photographer/publisher.

Just coming back to this, since I got sidetracked in my original response.

The whole point of this was that the outfit doesn't matter as much as the whole picture. Depending on the pose and what the artist emphasizes you can make a very daring outfit unsexual or a more modest outfit scandalous.

[Shisumo]

thejeff wrote:

Are the pictures pre-existent?

They are, in fact. All three are artwork from the RotRL Anniversary Edition book, as is usually the case with all the AP Player's Guides art. So that's how Lyrie looks in the book proper, for whatever you want to read into that.

[Reckless]

Yes, the artwork was done individually for each NPC, and then they were compiled for the cover. It's even possible that they were drawn by different artists (Eric and Wayne both have art credits, and the male doesn't really look like Wayne's work.)

If they wanted to use sex to sell the Anniversary Edition, maybe they shouldn't have covered up so much of Seoni with the title. But maybe that sideview is enough to titillate the perverts in the world who must have cheesecake with their game materials. Maybe that cover should have black bars on it so the children won't be harmed.

Every time an artist depicts a woman in revealing, light, or "unrealistic" clothing, this song gets played to death. And the people playing it don't care about the depicted character's personality, motivations, or backstory. All they see is an exploitation/pornography.

Personally, my eye was drawn to the awesomeness of the berserker next to her. Because damn, that is way cooler art than either of the other two on the cover.

[thejeff]

Shisumo wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Are the pictures pre-existent?

They are, in fact. All three are artwork from the RotRL Anniversary Edition book, as is usually the case with all the AP Player's Guides art. So that's how Lyrie looks in the book proper, for whatever you want to read into that.

Fair enough. Didn't realize that.

[HangarFlying]

TwoWolves wrote:

Have any of the people whining about this art READ the flipping adventure?? Lyrie is essentially trying to seduce/win over Tsuto, while herself being pursued romantically by Orik.

A) her outfit is not "fanta-porn" in the first place
B) her outfit is consistent with all previously seen on her
C) she has an in-character reason for dressing that way.

Go be professionally offended somewhere else.

Huh, interestingly enough, this was the EXACT same point I was trying to make. Unfortunately, to some, the context doesn't matter and they shoot first, but then don't bother asking any questions.

[TwoWolves]

Shisumo wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Are the pictures pre-existent?

They are, in fact. All three are artwork from the RotRL Anniversary Edition book, as is usually the case with all the AP Player's Guides art. So that's how Lyrie looks in the book proper, for whatever you want to read into that.

Since all three pieces of art on the cover are IN the guide, as individual pieces, on different pages, it would seem this is proof of people, ahem, judging the book by it's cover. Or in other words, just looking for a reason to be outraged, perhaps even outraged on someone else's behalf.

[Evil Lincoln]

"Outrage" is a little strong.

I chose the wording of the thread title carefully, to reflect the actual tone of the posts which were derailing another thread.

Nobody was "outraged".

Other than that, you're right, book by cover all that.

Just trying to tone down the rhetoric I am!

[Belle Mythix]

thejeff wrote:

If it's front and center on the cover of a publication, without some strong reason to think otherwise I'm going to assume it was put there to sell the publication on the theory that sex sells.

You might be surprised at how many people decided to go see the movie Brave just because they saw Merida accidentally ripping part of her dress in a trailer.

[thejeff]

TwoWolves wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Are the pictures pre-existent?

They are, in fact. All three are artwork from the RotRL Anniversary Edition book, as is usually the case with all the AP Player's Guides art. So that's how Lyrie looks in the book proper, for whatever you want to read into that.

Since all three pieces of art on the cover are IN the guide, as individual pieces, on different pages, it would seem this is proof of people, ahem, judging the book by it's cover. Or in other words, just looking for a reason to be outraged, perhaps even outraged on someone else's behalf.

Sorry. I thought it was possible to discuss the cover art without judging the actual book.

I may have been wrong about the origin of the cover artwork, though it's also quite possible the pieces were designed for the cover and split up for the individual pages. More likely both uses were in mind from the start.

And again, I'm not outraged by the art. More like irritated by some of the arguments.

[TheAntiElite]

I keep forgetting that underboob is a material component for casting Undergarment Sand

People have already beaten me to the Porn Vs. Gorn argument of acceptability. We've had self-righteous indignation and twisting of arguments to make simple appreciation into lecherous perversion and personal offense into raging puritanism.

Personally, I liked the art. I could see where some might not. I also see those who might not being the sort to prompt wailings of the Mrs. Lovejoy catchphrase, and why the oversanitization of the Off-Topic boards by a certain individual who will remain nameless has occurred, prompting the general sense of antagonization towards said complainers.

[Darwinism]

I love the arguments that because an artist made up a reason for her to dress in a way that makes her little more than a sex object it's totally reasonable for her to dress in a way that's entirely nonsensical! I mean, come on, there's a made up reason for her boobs hanging out for desperate nerds to ogle! That makes it totally cool, guys.

Seriously it's nothing more than standard-issue fantasy fap material. It's a huge part of why the hobby is so insular. You have this kind of 'art' that regular people see as no higher than those 'playing cards' back in the day that had naked chicks on them.

And the thing? That's all it is. It's not even 'art.' It's people targeting perceived weaknesses in other people's psyches and desperate-for-fantasy nerds falling for it and then defending themselves because obviously what they like can't be some base instinct that others are triggering to influence them! They're above that!

Except you're not.

[TwoWolves]

"The Artist" was James Jacobs, and he wrote the character over 5 years ago, I daresay not to be a major character nor a sex symbol.

Likewise, while not claiming to speak for Mr Jacobs, I believe he has stated that since Pathfinder #1 was an experiment at the time, the artwork wasn't exactly what they were looking for. Now that they can get a "do-over" with the Anniversary Edition, some of the more "cartoony" art is being replaced. Lyrie's art (and Vale's) fall under this category. So they have this brand new art that no one has seen before, so they stuck it in the free Player's Guide PDF...

And it causes some people to accuse anyone who buys the book or defends the editorial decision to include the art of being "desperate-for-fantasy nerds" with "weak psyches" who are "obviously" easily "influenced" because they want "fantasy fap material".

Really?
Really?

Forget undercleavage, THIS was the most insulting thing I've seen all year!!

[ShinHakkaider]

Darwinism wrote:

I love the arguments that because an artist made up a reason for her to dress in a way that makes her little more than a sex object it's totally reasonable for her to dress in a way that's entirely nonsensical! I mean, come on, there's a made up reason for her boobs hanging out for desperate nerds to ogle! That makes it totally cool, guys.

Okay personally I'm sick to death of "the all art that depicts women in anything other than full body covering is sexist/porn/offensive" argument it's just as narrow minded and stupid as black folk getting up in arms over the word niggardly or the use of the word "nigger" in literature.

But all that aside, basically what you're saying is that an artist (as in someone who is drawing or painting a picture) cant or shouldn't draw what he or she wants if it's not "realistic" or if it's offensive.

You're saying that if I have a character who is a high charisma seductress who uses her cunning and physical features to get what she wants that I have to depict her as a sullen bookwormish character or in a burka because if I draw her in form fitting clothing or clothing that accentuates her busom I'm pandering to the lowest common denominator?

Just so we're clear, that IS what youre saying correct?

[TheAntiElite]

TwoWolves wrote:

"The Artist" was James Jacobs, and he wrote the character over 5 years ago, I daresay not to be a major character nor a sex symbol.

Likewise, while not claiming to speak for Mr Jacobs, I believe he has stated that since Pathfinder #1 was an experiment at the time, the artwork wasn't exactly what they were looking for. Now that they can get a "do-over" with the Anniversary Edition, some of the more "cartoony" art is being replaced. Lyrie's art (and Vale's) fall under this category. So they have this brand new art that no one has seen before, so they stuck it in the free Player's Guide PDF...

And it causes some people to accuse anyone who buys the book or defends the editorial decision to include the art of being "desperate-for-fantasy nerds" with "weak psyches" who are "obviously" easily "influenced" because they want "fantasy fap material".

Really?
Really?

Forget undercleavage, THIS was the most insulting thing I've seen all year!!

It's the X-cake version of 'TV? I don't even OWN one.'

[Reckless]

ShinHakkaider wrote:

You're saying that if I have a character who is a high charisma seductress who uses her cunning and physical features to get what she wants that I have to depict her as a sullen bookwormish character or in a burka because if I draw her in form fitting clothing or clothing that accentuates her busom I'm pandering to the lowest common denominator?

Just so we're clear, that IS what youre saying correct?

No, (s)he's saying you're a horny geekwad for wanting such a character to exist in the first place. Shame on you.

Of course, that's because of his/her sexual repression and desire for a sterilized, sex-free, evolved world. So feel free to ignore him/her.

[The 8th Dwarf]

I used to argue that about context and appropriate dress should direct art.

Motivation is there the character is attempting to seduce another character. Most people attempt to dress to enhance their assets to attract the attention of the person they are trying to impress.

So the art is fine by me.

Now I have come to realise that in the real world a lot of people do not dress appropriately to their situation at all....

I work for one of the most powerful and evil financial institutions in the world. A lot of people at work dress like they are going clubbing rather than proper business attire. There are constant emails about what to wear to work and I have seen people sent home to change.

I also live in Australia - To stop skin cancer the best way to dress is long sleeve shirts, hats, sunglasses, and about 15 tons of factor 9999 sunblock. Does this happen or does it turn into a shoot for a swimsuit edition of sports illustrated...

I have come to the conclusion some people are smart and others think that flip flops are appropriate work safe footwear for operating heavy machinery.

So art should reflect the vanity and stupidity of the average person.

Also arguing that the men on the cover reflect something that men find aspirational is not true for anybody I know. It is the same as having a supermodel on the cover. Men must look like the Rock to be successful... A lot of young men ruin their bodies attempting to achieve what can be reached by a few people with the right genetics or chemical enhancements.

The grass is not greener.

[Darwinism]

The problem isn't that it's some woman wanting to dress provocatively.

The problem is that it's (almost entirely) men drawing women dressed provocatively specifically for other men.

It's not a matter of wanting some sterile world where sex doesn't exist. It's wanting a realistic portrayal of sex appeal; not fantasy wank material like Seoni or this character. This kind of art is horribly, horribly common and it's not empowering and it's not the character deciding this! The character is wholly fabricated and any justifications are not the character's but the creator's.

Hell, imagine a man in a banana hammock on the front cover in her place, thrusting his junk forward suggestively. Now imagine nearly every fantasy book had a slight variation of this. Would you have no issue with it? Or would you feel that it's excessive and trying to market towards certain people's base instincts in an extremely insulting manner to anyone who tries to think past their genitals?

Would you argue that it's empowering for a man to pose in a way that's not serving any purpose but to accentuate that he's an object for sex? Would you say that it's perfectly fine because that one woman on one cover had a little bit of her stomach showing? Would you feel alienated, as if the intended target were people you wouldn't want to associate with because the guy who describes a character like that is probably a total creep?

[Twigs]

TheAntiElite wrote:

I keep forgetting that underboob is a material component for casting Undergarment Sand

LOL

Darwinism, I would argue being an argumentative tit doesn't empower anyone either. Just a thought. I'll post more productively when HE finds me an artwork of a woman thrusting their crotch at the camera. I can wait.

[Darwinism]

Twigs wrote:

TheAntiElite wrote:

I keep forgetting that underboob is a material component for casting Undergarment Sand

LOL

Darwinism, I would argue being an argumentative tit doesn't empower anyone either. Just a thought. I'll post more productively when HE finds me an artwork of a woman thrusting their crotch at the camera. I can wait.

Really? That's your argument? That it's hard to find a direct 1:1 comparison so obviously my example is entirely different from women being drawn in poses and outfits that serve no purpose but to accentuate their sexual characteristics?

I get that you're not actually interested in an honest discussion but seriously put some effort into it.

[Vic Wertz]

I've got to run, and I don't have time to go through and remove the many, many inappropriate posts in this forum right now, though i did kick down the last three. Some other mod with more time can clear up more of this mess later.

Our big rule is "Don't be a jerk," and that means, among other things, don't attack people for having opinions you disagree with.

I'm locking this train wreck, which is no different from 100 other threads on the board, and a million different threads on the internet. Grow up, folks.