Potential offensiveness of AP covers (Please keep it friendly and polite)


Pathfinder Adventure Path General Discussion

151 to 200 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Landon Winkler wrote:
Tinkergoth wrote:
Asylum Stone pg 55: Hmmm. Yeah, visceral. Not as bad as the previous one, but without context pretty full on still. Troll doesn't appear to be in pain, but could easily be disturbing for young'uns, or those are are sensitive to that sort of thing.

With the context there, though, it's pretty awesome.

For what it's worth, young me would have freaking loved the Augurs. Old me freaking loves them too.

I was literally just pointing that art out on the Shattered Star pawn set to my spouse last night. Not because intestines are awesome, but because it's very representative of the Augurs.

Cheers!
Landon

I know right! They're a freaking awesome concept. I'd actually forgotten all about them (I'm running Shattered Star at the moment, but the party are only maybe a third of the way through Curse of the Lady's Light right now, so I hadn't read through The Asylum Stone in a while), until I was reading The Redemption Engine at lunch today. I loved the sense of shock Salim had at bumping into a troll in a crowded market, which is just compounded when he sees it pull out it's own intestines, examine them, talk to a merchant, then take some money and lumber off. It was a masterfully crafted scene.

Regarding the first part of your post. Thanks. It's good to get some first hand confirmation of what the general standards are in the US, and should be very useful for the discussion. Cheers :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
And from a scorching desert, but probably resistant to fire (Oracle of Flames)...which might help explain her clothing style, though I'm not sure it justifies it.

She's blind, isn't she? That might explain it. :p

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhudrew wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
And from a scorching desert, but probably resistant to fire (Oracle of Flames)...which might help explain her clothing style, though I'm not sure it justifies it.
She's blind, isn't she? That might explain it. :p

She is!

Also, she is at least is rumored to utilize her feminine wiles quite a bit...so it might be strategic in a sense. Hard to tell. But it's not inherently a problem as compared to, oh, Seltiyel, I don't think...except inasmuch as there are currently more women dressed like that than men among the Iconics.

Oh! By the way, we just got a bit of a look at the ACG Iconic Art, and there appear to be no scantily clad women, and one shirtless guy, so that helps...if still leaving the numbers at 3 scantily clad men men to 4 scantily clad women among the Iconics. But that's not too bad a ratio, really.

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A reminder: try not to make this conversation devolve into personal jabs. Let's dial it back and remember that there is another human on the other side of the screen. Please be aware of the messageboard rules before posting. Thanks!

Paizo Employee

Tinkergoth wrote:
I know right! They're a freaking awesome concept. I'd actually forgotten all about them (I'm running Shattered Star at the moment, but the party are only maybe a third of the way through Curse of the Lady's Light right now, so I hadn't read through The Asylum Stone in a while), until I was reading The Redemption Engine at lunch today. I loved the sense of shock Salim had at bumping into a troll in a crowded market, which is just compounded when he sees it pull out it's own intestines, examine them, talk to a merchant, then take some money and lumber off. It was a masterfully crafted scene.

That was a great scene! I'm strongly considering making all my players read it before we play Asylum Stone.

Judging by the fact that one's already read it, another plans to pick it up at GenCon, and the third is starting Death's Heretic now... I don't think I'll have too many problems :)

Tinkergoth wrote:
Regarding the first part of your post. Thanks. It's good to get some first hand confirmation of what the general standards are in the US, and should be very useful for the discussion. Cheers :D

You're welcome! It's a pretty complex issue, even from the inside, but hopefully I managed a decent overview.

Cheers!
Landon


Gorbacz wrote:

My problem isn't that much of gore itself. After all, I'm not running after White Wolf for what they do in Black Dog imprint. I'm even not that much bothered about the gore vs. kids problems because the more I grow old the more I slide towards "RPGs are for adults" mindset.

But the fact that nudity/sexualization is discussed constantly, but violence being completely glossed over, boggles my mind. And I really have a hard time understanding how you can go after the Sphinx Lady, but not have an issue with all those exploding brains elsewhere. And like Tinkergoth says - the gore isn't widespread just like potential cheesecake candidates are few and far between. But why do we keep ignoring the former, while we continuously bring up the latter?

Maybe I'm the odd one out and I should shut up and just paint those nipples in my books. Dunno. But the discourse is so one-sided that it hurts.

This is something I think I pointed out already, and the same item relates to this.

PF is basically PG-15 (or 17+ in the US), and a lot of it has to do with their portrayal of graphic violence. For kids and young teens, IMO, it is a little over the top for them. If you play the APs strictly, they also have themes that are occasionally not really appropriate (once again IMO). For older teens you'll still cover topics that could be uncomfortable (torture, extremism, graphic violence, terrorism...amongst other things) depending on which AP you use.

I don't think it would be a problem however as the solution is to simply have another RPG you play with kids and youth. Hence not as much a problem as they aren't exposed to such.

See it as it is, an RPG for an older audience and treat is as such. For me there are other options if I wish to play with younger audiences.

The harder thing I have to do with is when my group (all women) perceive an AP or other as being sexist or other difficulties I've had in the past (CoT part 2 about had me lynched at one point for example).


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

My problem isn't that much of gore itself. After all, I'm not running after White Wolf for what they do in Black Dog imprint. I'm even not that much bothered about the gore vs. kids problems because the more I grow old the more I slide towards "RPGs are for adults" mindset.

But the fact that nudity/sexualization is discussed constantly, but violence being completely glossed over, boggles my mind. And I really have a hard time understanding how you can go after the Sphinx Lady, but not have an issue with all those exploding brains elsewhere. And like Tinkergoth says - the gore isn't widespread just like potential cheesecake candidates are few and far between. But why do we keep ignoring the former, while we continuously bring up the latter?

Maybe I'm the odd one out and I should shut up and just paint those nipples in my books. Dunno. But the discourse is so one-sided that it hurts.

This is something I think I pointed out already, and the same item relates to this.

PF is basically PG-15 (or 17+ in the US), and a lot of it has to do with their portrayal of graphic violence. For kids and young teens, IMO, it is a little over the top for them. If you play the APs strictly, they also have themes that are occasionally not really appropriate (once again IMO). For older teens you'll still cover topics that could be uncomfortable (torture, extremism, graphic violence, terrorism...amongst other things) depending on which AP you use.

I don't think it would be a problem however as the solution is to simply have another RPG you play with kids and youth. Hence not as much a problem as they aren't exposed to such.

See it as it is, an RPG for an older audience and treat is as such. For me there are other options if I wish to play with younger audiences.

The harder thing I have to do with is when my group (all women) perceive an AP or other as being sexist or other difficulties I've had in the past (CoT part 2 about had me lynched at one point for example).

Yup, a lot of the APs certainly aren't things I'd run with the group of teenagers I'm GMing for. When we were playing Pathfinder, I made sure to pick modules that I felt were appropriate and run those (Murders Mark was the first one we ran, had drugs and talk of murder, but nothing too awful).

If I end up running a group for even younger kids like my aunt is asking me to, I won't be running Pathfinder at all. I'll find something simpler to pick up, and friendlier. I may even start out by introducing them to the concept of roleplaying by running a game of something like Project Ninja Panda Taco, rather than diving straight into a full RPG.

There are always options available to run games friendly for kids, I think we can all agree on that. But I think what Gorbacz is saying is "why is there this unabalance?" Look at what Landon said above. Why is it considered acceptable (even if it is at the edge of good taste) to show disembowelment and decapitation, but to not show nudity? More to the point, do we actually "need" either of these concepts in the books. As I said, I'm not offended, I'm not bothered in any way, shape or form by seeing sex and violence in my rulebooks, but at the same time, I don't consider it necessary. I enjoy the artwork, but having it depict less graphic violence wouldn't impact my enjoyment of the game one iota.

In the interests of keeping perspective here though, let's keep in mind that it's already been mentioned that Paizo, while having some very violent artwork in the books, aren't flooding us with it. It's an occasional thing. So we're not clamoring for change to the art content, just talking about potential issues some readers may have with it.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tinkergoth wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

My problem isn't that much of gore itself. After all, I'm not running after White Wolf for what they do in Black Dog imprint. I'm even not that much bothered about the gore vs. kids problems because the more I grow old the more I slide towards "RPGs are for adults" mindset.

But the fact that nudity/sexualization is discussed constantly, but violence being completely glossed over, boggles my mind. And I really have a hard time understanding how you can go after the Sphinx Lady, but not have an issue with all those exploding brains elsewhere. And like Tinkergoth says - the gore isn't widespread just like potential cheesecake candidates are few and far between. But why do we keep ignoring the former, while we continuously bring up the latter?

Maybe I'm the odd one out and I should shut up and just paint those nipples in my books. Dunno. But the discourse is so one-sided that it hurts.

This is something I think I pointed out already, and the same item relates to this.

PF is basically PG-15 (or 17+ in the US), and a lot of it has to do with their portrayal of graphic violence. For kids and young teens, IMO, it is a little over the top for them. If you play the APs strictly, they also have themes that are occasionally not really appropriate (once again IMO). For older teens you'll still cover topics that could be uncomfortable (torture, extremism, graphic violence, terrorism...amongst other things) depending on which AP you use.

I don't think it would be a problem however as the solution is to simply have another RPG you play with kids and youth. Hence not as much a problem as they aren't exposed to such.

See it as it is, an RPG for an older audience and treat is as such. For me there are other options if I wish to play with younger audiences.

The harder thing I have to do with is when my group (all women) perceive an AP or other as being sexist or other difficulties I've had in the past (CoT part 2 about had me lynched at one point

...

Check this out.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Also, she is at least is rumored to utilize her feminine wiles quite a bit...so it might be strategic in a sense.

I read an entertaining article on Cracked.com that, via satire, did a great job of tearing down the femme fatale archetype. Specifically, why do we see women using their sexuality to seduce/get their way, but never men? Why are men never portrayed as using their masculinity to seduce others? What I took away from it, is that the idea of a women wielding sex as a weapon isn't empowering - it's an overused, sexist trope masquerading as female empowerment.

Personally I don't have a strong feeling about this either way. I am not a woman, and thus won't (and shouldn't) suggest that I know how they feel about this sort of thing. On one hand, the femme fatale is a classic archetype; she gave us Lilith, the succubus, Cat Woman, the Underworld female lead, the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, and so many more. Archetypes are archetypes for a reason, and for whatever reason, people (men?) like the idea of gorgeous, busty, deadly ladies. On the other hand... yeah, I can definitely see how a woman could view the FF as degrading.

Personally, I'm all for a cute hunky dude who gets his way through raw sex appeal. And indeed, Paizo has even given us such a group with the Tallow Boys of Kaer Maga.

Liberty's Edge

Generic Villain wrote:
I read an entertaining article on Cracked.com that, via satire, did a great job of tearing down the femme fatale archetype. Specifically, why do we see women using their sexuality to seduce/get their way, but never men? Why are men never portrayed as using their masculinity to seduce others? What I took away from it, is that the idea of a women wielding sex as a weapon isn't empowering - it's an overused, sexist trope masquerading as female empowerment.

I was explaining the reasoning, not necessarily trying to justify.

Generic Villain wrote:
Personally I don't have a strong feeling about this either way. I am not a woman, and thus won't (and shouldn't) suggest that I know how they feel about this sort of thing. On one hand, the femme fatale is a classic archetype; she gave us Lilith, the succubus, Cat Woman, the Underworld female lead, the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, and so many more. Archetypes are archetypes for a reason, and for whatever reason, people (men?) like the idea of gorgeous, busty, deadly ladies. On the other hand... yeah, I can definitely see how a woman could view the FF as degrading.

Alahazra, as LG, doesn't really fit that particular model very well. Just for the record.

Generic Villain wrote:
Personally, I'm all for a cute hunky dude who gets his way through raw sex appeal. And indeed, Paizo has even given us such a group with the Tallow Boys of Kaer Maga.

Yeah, I'm cool with that, too. If it helps in terms of Iconics, Seltyiel has been stated to be somewhat mercenary in matters of sexuality...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Gentry wrote:

Could someone explain what's so contorted about the woman's pose? Because I sincerely, respectfully, do not see it. She is not twisting at the waist in that ubiquitous "butt + boobs" pose; her shoulders are pretty much inline with her hips; one hip is cocked up at, what, about 15 degrees? Which is normal, because she is clearly in the act of taking a step forward.

It's not a combat pose, but it's not a stripper pose or even anything like typical comic book cheesecake. It's hardly contorted at all. It's almost the exact same pose (minus the staff) as this.

Andrew R wrote:
It looks to me like she is leaning on the staff a little. I stand in a pose like that at work frequently enough to take the weight off my bad leg

You know, I wanted to say (and I don't mean this in a sexualized way, either), that... yeah. This woman looks like she's in a normal pose to me. I've seen my wife actually just stand that way - that exact pose - (though she usually wears black pants and a t-shirt, so...), when she's absentmindedly thinking about something, or as she's sometimes wont, thinking about something and walking. Heck, I've seen her hold stuff to lean on that way, absentmindedly, even.

(For the record: she is a High School teacher of English and - extracurricular - Drama.)

So... it looks naturally feminine to me.

I can't comment on the clothing or the specific musculature or gravity-whatevers, or things of that nature - that woman does not look like my wife, does not dress like my wife, and is probably (effective physically, at least, if not actually) younger than my wife (that sucker; groin' old's great!).

But the posture (including standing on one foot's toes - which I've asked her about before) reminds me of a way that she was surprised that I'd thought of at all, citing, "It's just comfortable right now." as her reasoning.

All that said, I'm all for gender equality in representation. Also, I totally stole the cover picture art to describe the "adventuring outfit" that Kendra Lorrimor (from Carrion Crown) started wearing when she was first recruited by the adventurers. (It shall quickly be replaced with something far, far more sensible.)

So, to answer the idea,

Lord Snow wrote:
The second thing I'd do to understand is to try and imagine her standing like that in a room with other people, and ask myself "what situation is this?" Will someone stand like that while talking to friends? perhaps while in combat? or while casting a spell? I think you'll find the answer to all of these potential questions to be "no" - this is simply no way for a human to stand. What it is is a way for a sex toy to be posed. Which is the problem, as far as I'm concerned.

... uh, no, it's the way a woman who's lost in thought about something important might stand. At least, you know, the one I married and see every day of my life (though she doesn't stand that way every day of my life - she has all sorts of different, natural poses). :)


Thanks Lord Fyre. That's actually really useful :D


Deadmanwalking wrote:


I was explaining the reasoning, not necessarily trying to justify.

I know, and I wasn't accusing you of anything. The article just sprung to mind when I read your post.

Generic Villain wrote:

Alahazra, as LG, doesn't really fit that particular model very well. Just for the record.

Agreed. And Paizo has been pretty sparring when it comes to femme fatales. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Worldwound's Areelu Vorlesh, Korvosa's Queen Ileosa, the Demon Lord Nocticula, Katiyana from Jade Regent, the Shackles' Tessa Fairwind, Runelord Sorshen, and more than one Red Mantis.

Again, I personally have nothing against this sort of character - as long as she's not a two-dimensional, boring excuse for softcore artporn. Paizo also uses plenty of female archetypes that don't rely on sex appeal, such as the crone (Baba Yaga, Runelord Belimarius), the stern warrior-woman (Queen Galfrey, Sabina Merrin), and the wise-woman (Ailson Kindler). Archetypes are great because they exemplify some aspect of our culture and are easy to identify. Archetypes aren't great because they can lead to laziness and stereotyping.

Femme fatales don't offend me, but I totally understand how a woman could see one and be immediately turned off.


It's not an issue for me.


Oh, hey, after having this conversation with her last night, I learned two things about my wife:

1) She totally agrees with me about the Egyptian woman's posture; she even sunk into a similar posture while talking with me about it without really being aware that she had done so (it was that natural).

and

2) Though she's really hot, and really hilarious performing the "Scarlett Johansson" (in an Avenger's poster, maybe?)/"Red Mantis Assassin" pose, as she thinks of it (the "spineless" pose), she says it's really uncomfortable.

So... just putting that out there.
EDIT: Putting this out there with her permission first. Just in case it wasn't clear. :P
:D

The Exchange

Tacticslion wrote:

Oh, hey, after having this conversation with her last night, I learned two things about my wife:

1) She totally agrees with me about the Egyptian woman's posture; she even sunk into a similar posture while talking with me about it without really being aware that she had done so (it was that natural).

and

2) Though she's really hot, and really hilarious performing the "Scarlett Johansson" (in an Avenger's poster, maybe?)/"Red Mantis Assassin" pose, as she thinks of it (the "spineless" pose), she says it's really uncomfortable.

So... just putting that out there.
EDIT: Putting this out there with her permission first. Just in case it wasn't clear. :P
:D

So, your posts had me doubt myself - I am not a very visually oriented person and I started to think maybe I just fell victim to my own bad visual memory - what if women do stand like that?

Well, I asked my girlfriend if that's the case, without revealing my stance on the subject. Now, just recently, she got accepted into the best, most prestigious art school in the country, and part of her work-file included sketches of naked women in sexual poses. For the reason, I decided to accept her judgment - if she deems the portrait as acceptable, I'll concede my point. If she's good enough for the best art school, her arbitration is good enough for me.

Well, she didn't. She said that the art was of a women standing in an obviously sexual, very uncomfortable position that is not natural to most people. Again, this is from the sketch artist specializing in female bodies.

So I don't know, Tacticslion. Either your wife is unique in that regard ( in which case... good for you ;) ), or the likeliest case is that you didn't figure out what was problematic with the pose. I'll try to describe it again - it's the "leaning your weight on one leg, hips twisted one way while the back is twisted the other way in order to better show off your curves" part, mostly.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything and not calling anyone stupid or something. I honestly felt unsure about my position because of your post, and I checked it out with the closest thing to an expert that I had available, in an unbiased way (I didn't say what I was thinking about the portrait until after my girlfriend past her judgment, so she couldn't have just been supporting me or something), and what you said didn't check out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The best, most prestigious art school in your country considers sketches of naked women in sexual poses for admittance? I'm moving there, like, tomorrow! :P

It looks to me like she's supposed to be standing with her hips cocked, leaning on her staff, which is not that out there a pose. (I mean, I can do it, it'll just look repulsive when I do because I'm a fat 42 year old gamer.) My issue with the painting is that it's flat and stiff enough that the pose looks a lot more ungainly than it should.


Yeah, Lord Snow, I don't know.

It just feels (due to personal experience) that the negative response to it is "because sexy women = sexist". (This is not a knock at you; I am explaining my own emotional reaction to the reaction of others - including you, but not exclusive to you - to that pose.)

I can only speak from experience, and my wife actually stands like that. What's more she stands like that without thinking about it, while citing it's comfortable.

To me, the judgement of someone else looking at it and going, "clearly that woman is uncomfortable and sexualized!" while the woman herself says, "actually, this is quite comfortable!" means that the woman (who is naturally and automatically more aware of her own comfort than someone who is not receiving the information her nervous system is granting her) is obviously correct.

Given that (at least) one person actually does, it's very likely that the artist has actually seen that pose in real life. Thus, it doesn't seem like it's something they're altering to make "sexier and uncomfortable".

I mean, and here's a really funny thing, we were driving home from church on Saturday (we attended the Saturday evening service instead of the Sunday morning one for time) and we were stopped behind a van... and all of a sudden we both noticed there was that same pose (from the waste down - the arms were doing different things) on the back of the van in front of us. It was an advertisement... for the school's cheer team. While it was an outline (instead of an actual person), the lower body posture (including the hip-cock, the forward leg, and the balancing on one foot's toes) was the same. The image was less... curvy than the woman or my wife (naturally), but outline of the pose was the same. Given that this was to a younger group, from a church-and-school, I pray, very strongly, that it wasn't intended sexually.

So... no. I more firmly reject your friend's assessment, and your assessment,

Quote:
So I don't know, Tacticslion. Either your wife is unique in that regard ( in which case... good for you ;) ), or the likeliest case is that you didn't figure out what was problematic with the pose. I'll try to describe it again - it's the "leaning your weight on one leg, hips twisted one way while the back is twisted the other way in order to better show off your curves" part, mostly.

... considering we were looking at the picture and comparing at the time, at least rejected as a general truth. It might be less common than some, but it's not so uncommon that a) my wife, b) whoever drew that picture, and c) whoever created that advertisement (after some digging, it seems like it might have been the - female - coach, though I certainly don't know for sure) are unfamiliar with it.

I mean, looking at it again, her hips are wide for her waist, her right arm looks a little too long to me (though I've seen people with those proportions), I have no idea how she gets her hair to all just stay there instead of (mostly) falling off to the sides (probably due to the power of modesty, but possible there's just hair-dynamics that I, as a guy who doesn't have interaction with that kind of hair at that length, just doesn't know about), all that gold stuff seems uncomfortably heavy (if appropriate to her apparent station/the idea), the staff goes down to a really fine point (compared to leaning weight on it - seems like it would quickly fracture and splinter, or rapidly dull, when repeatedly used on stone floors, though my own experience comes from wood, admittedly), and something about the right hand seems a bit off (I think it's the curvature of the front and rear fingers compared to the straightness of the middle two)...

I dunno, seems like a really well-done piece of art to me. (I could not, in a hundred years, do better, despite my own art classes and background.)

I mean, maybe - just maybe, as I'm wildly guessing here - it's not "natural" in the sense that not all women hold their bodies that way, but it's possible that it's trained natural. As in, those with certain physical training (even if they no longer continue that training) tend to find it comfortable? My wife was a cheerleader (for exactly one year in junior high or high school - I don't recall), the image was of a cheerleader, and it's possible that whoever drew the pose knew cheerleaders... so someone with that level of acrobatics training could well have that as a "natural" pose for some reason.

In that case, it's possible that your friend may just be unfamiliar with those people who've had that level or style of training... something that's certainly possible, regardless of her artistic talents.

On the other hand, perhaps it's that some people just have a higher natural dexterity agility (dang it, that needs to be renamed in-game) or something about the bone structure or muscle-form of certain individuals lends itself towards that (which might come out more in certain training styles

Besides, I've been told by physics students far more intelligent than I that bumble bees can't fly according to physics... so... experts aren't always correct, even in their chosen field, especially while studying. (My actual physics professors always demurred, indicating that they'd heard the rumor, but hadn't seen the math - and regardless, the math had to be wrong, somewhere, because bumblebees did, in fact, fly...)

I'll take definitive (if anecdotal, from your perspective) personal evidence that proves "yes" over someone telling me, "Nope!" every time. I have (living, current) proof that the "yep" exists - therefore the "nope" must be wrong, and must reassess it's conclusion or continue to insist on something that is not correct.

Thus,

Quote:

The distinction between mathematics and the application of mathematics often isn't made as clearly as it ought to be. In the mathematics classroom, it's important to distinguish between getting the mathematics right and getting the problem right.

The word problems typically found in textbooks often serve as rudimentary models of reality. Their applicability to real life, however, depends on the validity of the assumptions that underlie the statement of the problem.

So, no one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee.

Insect flight and wing movements can be quite complicated. Wings aren't rigid. They bend and twist. Stroke angles change. New, improved models take that into account.

... applies here. If something is true (in this case it is) and your experience or expertise tells you that it's false (in this case, yours does) than that experience and expertise must rely on something that is based on incorrect or, more likely, incomplete information.

There was a hypothesis: that the pose is uncomfortable and sexualized.
There is a disproof of that (as in, that's not why my wife stands that way, and she is comfortable).
Thus the hypothesis is incorrect. It may be tangentially correct in that some people would find it uncomfortable or that it looks "sexy". In that case, though, two very different things are being conflated to create an assertion that isn't (universally) true.

I mean, I can't stand on my head, but, clearly, people can. I can't touch my tongue to my nose, yet clearly, again, people can (and I used to know a guy in junior high who did it... absentmindedly... while he was thinking... out of habit... sounds eerily familiar).

So... if there is someone who can do something, and feels comfortable doing that something, I'm not going to call out art showing someone doing that thing as "obviously uncomfortable" just because it's uncomfortable to me. Because, you know, there are actually people that are actually comfortable, regardless of my own inability to do the same.

As far as the clothing, that's been addressed - it's actually done as a way of adding modesty. You're going to run into that as a side-effect of values dissonance between old and new cultures (although, based on exactly the one article I've read skimmed, today, it may be due an incorrect interpretation of historical art, or it may be a different dress altogether - I don't know, I'm not a fashion anything - I wear a blue jean shirt with blue jean pants for cryin' out loud, I don't know fashion from fascists).

Is the woman trying to be sexy? I 'unno. I've not read the thing.
If she was... would this be a case of artistic exploitation?
No.
Instead, it would be a case of artistic replication.

Now, with all that said, do I think that, somehow, this could be a case of artistic exploitation? Sure. It's possible. The artist might have gone, "dur-hur, this be hawt!" and completely ignored the logistics, personal history, and his (I'm presuming) own knowledge of females, their anatomy, and the like.

But I'm not going to presume that of anyone. That presumes malice, when, much more likely, they accepted what was handed them - either real-life demonstrations/experiences, or artistic depictions - and thought it fit well with what they were asked to do.

And that's really not any more sexist, than, say, this guy could be construed to be.

off-topic rant to my fellow conservative Christians, because guys we're making the message look stupid by our own silliness:
And also, for realsies, Western Hemisphere, and especially Christianity, if you're of an age/maturity not to giggle, point, and laugh at it the whole time, go read Song of Solomon/Song of Songs. Sexuality isn't evil - it's a wonderful, beautiful thing. Although modesty is a necessary and good thing, the precise definition of modesty changes from era to era - we shouldn't choose to be immodest, but we shouldn't condemn styles different from ourselves, if those styles are modest within their own society. And ALSO, also: ancient Hebrews didn't wear pants - they wore robes that were cut and worn differently from the females' robes... much like modern day female pants differ from males'. Blaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrg. /off-topic rant that's only tangentially related to the discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i'm with tactics lion (to be honest i skimmed the post, its really long:) but my wife also has a habit of standing that way occasionally, i did not tell her of the discussion, just observed her through every day life this weekend.
also in regard to the dude from Empty Graves

:
he has a strength of 8! and he is ripped like that!

i for one love all the art on the pathfinder book covers! i have yet to see a crappy cover on any book that Paizo has put out and i've yet to see any that i would deem offensive for sure!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was... really confused about Jask from Serpent's Skull for the same reason, actually. STR 9, middle-aged, and ripped like a beast. I mean his torn clothes actually kind of look like they tore because they dare try contain the manliness of him. Awesome character, though.


absolutely! i'm a big fan of the guy from empty graves as well!
if they put out anything by Crystal Frasier buy it! she is f#$#ing brilliant!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

:D

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, they have a godess that walk around naked in all her pics. Urganthoa surely is oversexualized.


my favorite is the Herald of Besmara,

:
a sentient ship that likes to watch and narrate people going at it on its deck

The Exchange

Quote:


There was a hypothesis: that the pose is uncomfortable and sexualized.
There is a disproof of that (as in, that's not why my wife stands that way, and she is comfortable).
Thus the hypothesis is incorrect. It may be tangentially correct in that some people would find it uncomfortable or that it looks "sexy". In that case, though, two very different things are being conflated to create an assertion that isn't (universally) true.

I.... I know what a disproof is. Honestly.

Anyway, not to insult you, but I don't really know you. What I do know is that a woman who impressed a number of very professional artists instantly told me that the portrait is anatomically odd for anything other than a bedside pose. I'm not saying that exceptions to this are impossible - let me quote myself here for a moment:

Quote:


Either your wife is unique in that regard ( in which case... good for you ;) )

So maybe you wife does stand in that exact way. If she does, I believe it is a hell of a rare case, though. In my life I've never seen anyone standing like that, and about 50% of the people I've seen were women (shocking, right?). What I find a LOT easier to believe is that the way your wife stands is different than that in a subtle way makes all the difference but is also hard to perceive. Again, not a personal insult against you, just seems like the likeliest explanation of what's going on here.

You claimed that you have a disproof of my hypothesis. The truth is more complicated than that - you, an imperfect source of information, claim that to be able to disprove my hypothesis. However, until stronger evidence is presented, I'll use the more reliable information I have - my own experience, and the expertise of my artist girlfriend. What I'm saying is that so far, the weight of the evidence is actually in my favor. Trust me, I'm a scientist :P

I mean, let's say you have a hypothesis that the world is round. Everything that you know points to that. But now someone you don't know in an RPG internet forum tells you, "dude, I've totally seen the edge of the world where there's a majestic waterfall into endless void", you wouldn't consider that a disproof of your hypothesis, right? You would deem it better to rely on your own judgment and experience. If you have the experience of experts at your side, all the better.

But here is something for you to consider - let's say your wife does stand exactly that way. When looking at other women you know though, do they stand like that too? Because if not, then you'll have to agree with me that it's likely that, when a random someone looks at the cover art, they'll not know that somewhere out there live a few women who do stand this way. And if for most observers that information is hidden, it becomes meaningless in the bigger picture.

And the bigger picture is this (highlighted so that skimmers could read this part only):

This cover art is not terrible, but it's also not as good as it could be. The combination of a seemingly uncomfortable, sexual pose with a revealing outfit gives a strong impression of a juvenile male sex fantasy. Just allowing the woman to stand with a straight back would have done wonders to improve that, without making her any less of a piece of eye candy. I don't have problems with sexy, scantly clad women on covers, I have a problem when they appear to be nothing more than sex toys. With most companies I wouldn't make an issue of this, but given Paizos' golden record and especially the great last few years, I came to expect more of them. There is nothing good about having the woman stand like this, but there's plenty of risk of alienating potential players or making players feel disrespected - so why do this? a little more restraint would have gone a long way.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Tacticslion, please go tell your wife that she should feel really, really, *really* bad about the way she stands. ;)

The Exchange

Hitdice wrote:

The best, most prestigious art school in your country considers sketches of naked women in sexual poses for admittance? I'm moving there, like, tomorrow! :P

That's only the start of it, man. One of her other pieces was a drawing of Misha Collins (Castiel from Supernatural) and the queen of England, him in pantaloons and her holding a pistol, riding a steampunk robot horse. She's pretty awesome ^_^

The Exchange

captain yesterday wrote:

so just to be clear, despite "Paizo's golden record" as you put it (and i would as well), you would not buy an egyptian themed adventure by Richard Pett just because the cover art is "sexy"

seems a bit much to me, i'd say making a mountain out of a mole hill but honestly how do you make a mountain out of one tiny kernel of dirt?

Just to make it clear, I never said that and am really looking forward to buying the adventure in question.

The course of events is detailed in the opening post of this thread - I got mildly irritated at seeing the cover art and made a sarcastic remark about it. A small discussion evolved around that and was essentially moved to a new thread by a moderator. Ever since then I've mostly been clarifying my intentions and getting accused of being something that I'm not by Gorbacz. This small discussion with tacticslion WAS a new development since he claimed the pose did make sense, I checked it out and was satisfied that I was probably correct in my initial judgment.

Not once during that time have I mentioned not buying the adventure. I own every single AP volume ever printed and intend to keep it that way. Paizo are awesome.

The Exchange

Gorbacz wrote:
Tacticslion, please go tell your wife that she should feel really, really, *really* bad about the way she stands. ;)

@$!&%%!#%

I'll quote myself once more -

Quote:


Either your wife is unique in that regard ( in which case... good for you ;) )

I made it clear that if indeed the wife stands that way, that's cool. I simply doubt that's true in the first place. I mean, for heaven's sake, my entire previous post was all about how even if the wife does stand like that, it doesn't matter because most people don't know someone who does. I even made sure to phrase it carefully - " I have a problem when they appear to be nothing more than sex toys." I specifically included the "appears" clause to make sure that I'm not insulting anyone's wife and saying that standling like that means you are a sex toy. Only that it most certainly appears that way from my experience, and I', sure most people's experience matches mine in that regard.

You really are getting to be quite insulting.

The Exchange

captain yesterday wrote:

... just because the cover art is "sexist"

Also, fixed the bold part for you. I have no problem with sexy, only with reducing women to sex toys.

The Exchange

captain yesterday wrote:

i recommend strongly you watch "Reynolds vs Reynolds: The Cereal Defense" its episode 12 of season 8 from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia.

basically science isn't always right and scientists aren't always right either, so until you show me definitive proof that a woman can't stand that way then you're also wrong:)

Read one single book about the scientific method, then come back here and post that you really apologize for that post and you get it now. Seriously, it would do you good. See how little I need to change the structure of your sentence to make is nonsensical: "basically science isn't always right and scientists aren't always right either, so until you show me definitive proof that a pineapple can't be invisible, you're also wrong:)"

And again, since apparently many details about this are confusing: I'm not saying that standing like that is impossible, only that it is an exceedingly uncomfortable, weird pose to stand in (for those of us not married to tacticslion) and that I've never seen anyone standing like that. If, out of the thousands upon thousands of people I've seen, nobody ever stood that way, this is enough of a proof for me and basically for any scientist. Every single thing that science is telling us about people was found out this way - we just watched a lot of people (sometimes in controlled environments, sometimes not) and figured out what they were doing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Going to have a belly-dancing friend of mine weight in on this later, she knows a lot more about A&P than I likely ever will. For now, interesting discussion. I appreciate not being the only one who ropes their friends and family into things like this. "Why am I standing like this?" "Because someone on the internet said something and I need to prove them wrong!" "..." "I also want to see if it is possible."

The Exchange

Lloyd Jackson wrote:
Going to have a belly-dancing friend of mine weight in on this later, she knows a lot more about A&P than I likely ever will. For now, interesting discussion. I appreciate not being the only one who ropes their friends and family into things like this. "Why am I standing like this?" "Because someone on the internet said something and I need to prove them wrong!" "..." "I also want to see if it is possible."

I'm really interested to hear what she has to say. Please phrase your question carefully though - not "is this pose possible?" or something, but "is this pose natural to the human body? would people just be standing like that? is it comfortable?".

Thanks!

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

My question to OP-Tinkergoth (as proxy for the anonymous person whose arguments they're repeating, although he pointed out several times that they are not his own opinions):

What do you hope to accomplish with this sort of thread?

Do you think Paizo is going to change its art style because "someone" was offended? Paizo, probably THE most progressive company in the game industry, is run by a woman, its senior art director is a woman, and has at least two woman on staff who are unafraid to give their opinions on whether or not they think something is sexist. All down the line we have female employees who make their art preferences known and have clout about those preferences, and you see the end result in the published art, which some people think is too risqué or sexualized.

Once or twice a year a "Paizo's art is too sexist/sexy" discussion pops up. Some boardspeople are concerned about the art, other boardspeople start to feel outraged about the art, other boardspeople point out that they are perfectly comfortable with the art, and in the end, the overall art style doesn't change. Perhaps Paizo likes this art style and is going to stick with it, and if that means a few people stop buying books, Paizo is okay with that.

In other words, do you think this discussion is going to change Paizo's stance on this issue? Is changing Paizo's stance the goal? To me, it looks like we have nearly four pages in this thread about a topic that the actual anonymous OP didn't bother to start a new thread about (I don't recall that person identifying themselves in this thread, so I don't know if they decided to join in the discussion [EDIT: maybe that's Lord Snow?]).

I get the "I am a customer and I want my feelings to be known" aspect of it (or, in this case, "this other person is a customer and I think their feelings should be known"), but do you think it'll accomplish anything? I can write to McDonald's or Chipotle and tell them I think eating meat is unethical, but they're not going to stop serving meat just for me. I can write to JRRM or HBO and tell them I won't read or watch A Game of Thrones because all the rape in it makes me uncomfortable, but they're not going to stop including that stuff in the books and show just because of me. And because there are other books I can choose read, and other shows I can choose to watch.

So, to restate using the Shadow question, "What do you want?"

The Exchange

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


In other words, do you think this discussion is going to change Paizo's stance on this issue? Is changing Paizo's stance the goal? To me, it looks like we have nearly four pages in this thread about a topic that the actual anonymous OP didn't bother to start a new thread about (I don't recall that person identifying themselves in this thread, so I don't know if they decided to join in the discussion [EDIT: maybe that's Lord Snow?]).

Yes, it is me, as I have stated in the first post I made in this thread.

In all honesty? no, I don't think Paizo would change their art style, especially not because of a small thread in their forum where the resistance to the art style is not even the popular voice.

However, my interest in posting in the threads is mostly the discussion itself - it's hard to find large numbers of Pathfinder players where I live and I enjoy spending time in this online international community Paizo created for us. When something concerns me, I also like to talk about it. It is also not always fruitless - a recent thread about what I thought was a very problematic representation of Iomedae in a AP adventure resulted in James Jacobs explicitly saying that the way things turned out was not the way they were intended, and I'm sure such mistakes are less likely to happen in the future because of that.

Also, this argument -

Quote:


Paizo, probably THE most progressive company in the game industry, is run by a woman, its senior art director is a woman, and has at least two woman on staff who are unafraid to give their opinions on whether or not they think something is sexist. All down the line we have female employees who make their art preferences known and have clout about those preferences, and you see the end result in the published art, which some people think is too risqué or sexualized.

Actually fits exactly what bothers me. Paizo is so impressive in it's progressiveness (as I've stated before in this thread numerous times) that I hold a higher standard for you folk. It's frustrating to me when (in my opinion) you fail it. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't make an issue about this cover art if it was any other gaming company.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
I was... really confused about Jask from Serpent's Skull for the same reason, actually. STR 9, middle-aged, and ripped like a beast. I mean his torn clothes actually kind of look like they tore because they dare try contain the manliness of him. Awesome character, though.

Not gonna lie, if being 'thin-framed' makes me look like that, please sign me up.

Also, You cannot contain my manliness!

*edit, will do Lord Snow.

The Exchange

Also, as an aside - Paizo nearly stopped with this kind of cover art. Looking at the APs from the last few years - starting randomly with Carrion Crown - there was ONE cover art that SLIGHTLY bothered me (that was the first one in Carrion Crown, where poor merisiel has to show her... ahem... bottom while in the middle of an action jump - somehow I don't think Valeros or Lemm would have been shown jumping like that). In earlier APs there are considerably more cover arts that I think are problematic.

So I feel that it's safe to say I have been growing more and more pleased as time passed, to the point where the cover of Secrets of the Sphinx is quite the aberration (not the Aboleth kind), which is why it bothered me.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Sean K Reynolds:

I can't speak for LordSnow or Tinkergoth...but as another customer who participated in this thread, my goals in doing so were solely to see if there was gender balance in sexy AP covers (which seems a reasonable goal to shoot for)...and having looked at them, it seems that there isn't.

Now considering Paizo's general awesomeness and tendency towards gender balance and inclusiveness, I thought it was possible for the folks at Paizo to not have caught this (it's pretty easy to miss unless you go back and count them)...and that, knowing of it, they might want to change it.

In short, my point was basically to first discern information, and then to point out a potential issue Paizo might wish to know of and correct in the future. If Paizo doesn't wish to do so, well yeah, nothing will come of it...but based on prior interactions I've seen on these forums, Paizo people pay attention to the forums, and generally care about gender imbalances. Which makes the idea that something like this thread (or at least the version we started with...) might accomplish something plausible.

So...that's what I wanted here. And I doubt I was alone in that general idea, either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
This cover art is not terrible,
Lord Snow wrote:
I have a problem when they appear to be nothing more than sex toys.

These two quotes are where there is a huge values dissonance to me. Enormous. Perhaps it's just your phrasing, but the primary reason that I'm honestly getting frustrated is the (seeming) insistence on the latter, while maintaining that your opinion is the former. That... doesn't seem to make sense.

EDIT, You know what, never mind:
Also, suggesting that my wife is "unique" means that it doesn't exist outside of herself. Similarly:

Quote:
only that it is an exceedingly uncomfortable, weird pose to stand in (for those of us not married to tacticslion)

I have: 1) her, 2) the artist who drew the thing, 3) the non-sexualized pose for the cheer squad from a church-school on the back of a van, 4) captain yesterday's testimony, and 5) that one picture linked by someone with a woman on a beach.

You do not have, to quote you,

Quote:
... the experience of experts at your side

... but rather the experience of one (probably very good) art student, and your own inability to do so. You also have a lack of observation on your part. This means that, since there is (at least two by current testimony, probably more, given that it's a thing) people that stand naturally this way, you're likely wrong.

As I said: those with experience directly related to the field of women standing have a 2:1 ratio of "women stand this way" v. "women don't stand this way". Evidence weighs in the "women stand this way".

I suspect your girlfriend doesn't. That's fine. She doesn't have to.

You seemed to ignore the fact that I admitted that it seemed that (sinc you and she had no experience with it) there were plenty of people who did not or could not do that; similarly, I linked to something else many people could not do: standing on your head and touching your tongue to your nose. In fact, you ignored everything else - all the other postulates, ideas, and evidence sited - in an effort to notify me that I'm actually wrong, and can't see art clearly, which, while an understandable conclusion to make, is, I hope comprehensibly, also somewhat insulting to suggest that I suffer from while you (in particular) lack confirmation bias of any sort.

I do not appreciate the disingenuous way you compared your own hypothesis to the round-world, and my actual experience to a flat earth. It's probably not on purpose, but that's actually a tactic utilized to discredit people by undermining their authority - comparing them to an obviously false conclusion or situation. At least with the bumblebee issue, I linked to something that explained why said presumption or belief could exist instead of, "Hey, you're wrong and you probably don't see things well. It's like you believe in a flat earth or something." which - again, possibly not intentionally, your rebuttal did imply. It would be far more similar to a situation in which there is the appearance of "plausible idea A" but evidence (which you have been provided) supports "plausible idea B", and then someone saying, "Well, since I've not seen it, and someone I know says "plausible idea A", I'm going to go with "plausible idea A", despite evidence for "plausible idea B" that I have been presented with" which, while understandable, isn't the correct position to maintain.

Also, I'm also going to stop you right here:

Quote:
I've never seen anyone standing like that. If, out of the thousands upon thousands of people I've seen, nobody ever stood that way, this is enough of a proof for me and basically for any scientist.

1) "I haven't seen noticed it so it must not exist or be exceedingly rare." is probably the worst thing a scientist can say.

2) You've seen thousands. Others have seen more. quick image search, part two and three, part four (though you can't see her feet - they look further forward -, the hip-angle is better), and striking a pose (warning: though she's wearing a uniform, she's not wearing much of a uniform; supposedly "safe" according to Google, however). Voila. Now, out of the thousands of people you have (if you followed the links) seen five very similar poses.

And before you say, "Ah, they're similar, but different!" allow me to introduce you to the idea (that you're probably very familiar with): "people are different". The above allows you to have some experience with the gist of the pose and (noting that several of them involve cheerleaders in some capacity or another) perhaps get an idea of where it might come from. (I dunno - I'm noticing a pattern, and suggesting it as a hypothesis - it could be wrong though.)

Look, I could care less about this cover in particular. I have no emotional attachment to it.

The only thing I wanted to add to this thread was that "this pose on this cover should not be setting off your alarms, and here's my life experience why". Your response boils down to, "you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about, despite others chiming in and showing me evidence" which, you know, is a rough position to hold. I am sorry for any apparent dismissal of your concerns - I'm generally all for less sexualized covers in general (and less gory ones, and so on), but that's because I'm generally conservative and would like to be able to run APs for my local kids (but currently cannot due to maturity and my own feelings on the matter).

From my perspective, you seem to be conflating a values dissonance with the style of dress (altered to be more modest by our own standards) plus a pose that you, personally, aren't familiar with (despite others chiming in otherwise) and generating a result that this is a sexualized picture. You seem to presume that many would agree that it is - and, in fact, some people do. But that in no way makes it a sexualized picture.

To me (and to many others) it seems naturally feminine and not over-the-top.

There are things I disagree with Paizo about. Being vocal about that isn't wrong.

But we're at the point where your insistence (and continuing the conversation) is getting slightly rude.

You don't see it as being comfortable (and some, including women, agree), and thus you presume everyone that thinks it's fine (including women) are practicing confirmation bias.

I, on the other hand, think that you are practicing confirmation bias, or the pose is the result of a particular type of training, a particular tendency of body structure, and/or some combination of the three (with the distinct possibility of myself also practicing confirmation bias).

One of those is more likely. I'm going to go with the one that more people seem to agree with (not always the best policy, but there is more weight when it's a question of "is this comfortable or forced?" to go with more peoples' answers).

EDIT: Let's just agree to disagree.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Sure, I'll try to explain. The easiest way to understand my problem with it would be for you to try to imitate the pose (I tried it myself and couldn't really manage it). Just try standing like that. Look at the way her hip is twisted sideways and to the back, while the lag on the other side is forward.

The problem I have with this reasoning is that it's incumbent on the presumption that illustrations need to maintain total fidelity to reality (at least insofar as drawing people goes).

Notwithstanding sketching a live model, or the artist otherwise making a deliberate attempt to draw a life-like picture (which quite often gets into a whole 'nother can of worms regarding "how do we judge the artist's intent?" and "to what degree does the artist's intent matter anyway?"), I don't see any reason to make that presumption.

Indeed, the idea that something is "bad art" because it's not completely realistic in some regard strikes me as being a poor metric for judging aesthetic works. Most artwork, in my opinion, has a strong symbolic element that runs counter to the very idea that it needs to be realistic in what it portrays.

This is especially true when it comes to the human form, which is easily recognized without needing to display it in a manner that's photo-realistic. Do the character designs in Order of the Stick warrant outrage for how unrealistic they are?

Hence why I don't respect this particular criticism.

Quote:
The second thing I'd do to understand is to try and imagine her standing like that in a room with other people, and ask myself "what situation is this?" Will someone stand like that while talking to friends? perhaps while in combat? or while casting a spell? I think you'll find the answer to all of these potential questions to be "no" - this is simply no way for a human to stand. What it is is a way for a sex toy to be posed. Which is the problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Likewise, I can't respect this particular critique either, because it hinges on your failure of imagination in contextualizing the image.

Given that the character is divorced from the background imagery - and so all we have insofar is contextualization goes is the picture of the character herself - the reasons why she's standing like that can be literally anything that can possibly be imagined.

Without any clues to go on as to what her situation is, any and every possible scenario becomes equally plausible. Is she seducing someone? Is she a spider-person polymorphed into a human form and isn't sure how to distribute her weight? Is she Tacticslion's wife, standing how she normally does? All are equally possible, since there's nothing - no clues or context - to narrow the range of what her circumstances could be.

To say that the way she's carrying herself is beyond any scope of possibility is not an indictment of the artwork; it's an admission that you can't think of any, rather than there not being any. This places the onus for a perceived lack of plausibility on you, rather than on the picture.

I can understand your objections, but understanding them doesn't mean that I think they're particularly cogent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:

Gorbazc is the winner!

as an actual father, not hypothetical, and the unnecessary gore has been my biggest issue with art, my daughter is 10 and has uncles that work in movies on special effects, so its not as big a deal for me as it is for some, but yes i'd rather they toned down the gore:)

also Gorbazc, you forgot about Carrion Crown, book 4 ** spoiler omitted **

Anybody already mention Imrijka exploderizing that vampires chest with a stake in the APG? Because that had to be the most gory violent thing I've seen in a Paizo product and bothered me far more than any depiction of (Oh noes!) some nude skin.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

It took longer then I expected.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

My question to OP-Tinkergoth (as proxy for the anonymous person whose arguments they're repeating, although he pointed out several times that they are not his own opinions):

What do you hope to accomplish with this sort of thread?

Do you think Paizo is going to change its art style because "someone" was offended? Paizo, probably THE most progressive company in the game industry, is run by a woman, its senior art director is a woman, and has at least two woman on staff who are unafraid to give their opinions on whether or not they think something is sexist. All down the line we have female employees who make their art preferences known and have clout about those preferences, and you see the end result in the published art, which some people think is too risqué or sexualized.

Once or twice a year a "Paizo's art is too sexist/sexy" discussion pops up. Some boardspeople are concerned about the art, other boardspeople start to feel outraged about the art, other boardspeople point out that they are perfectly comfortable with the art, and in the end, the overall art style doesn't change. Perhaps Paizo likes this art style and is going to stick with it, and if that means a few people stop buying books, Paizo is okay with that.

In other words, do you think this discussion is going to change Paizo's stance on this issue? Is changing Paizo's stance the goal? To me, it looks like we have nearly four pages in this thread about a topic that the actual anonymous OP didn't bother to start a new thread about (I don't recall that person identifying themselves in this thread, so I don't know if they decided to join in the discussion [EDIT: maybe that's Lord Snow?]).

I get the "I am a customer and I want my feelings to be known" aspect of it (or, in this case, "this other person is a customer...

Huh. Thread has no new posts for almost a whole day when I go to bed, wake up and it's taken off again.

Spoilered for length:
Anyway. Do I have to have some kind of ulterior motive? I just thought it was an interesting topic to discuss. I'd explained my thoughts on it in the product discussion thread when Jim Groves asked for input, but before I could see what other people had to say, the posts were removed (and I don't have a problem with that, as it was off topic to the discussion of the AP volume). So, I came over to the AP general discussion board and started up a new thread to see if anyone had anything to add. It's a pretty natural reaction for me, my friends and I do something similar, where we'll pick a topic, sit down and discuss it for anywhere for 10 minutes to a few hours. Only differences I see here are that it's taken place over days instead of a single sitting, and it involves people outside my usual circle of friends.

Do I expect Paizo to change their art style? Nope, not in the slightest. Overall I'm very happy with the art across all their books. As you noted, I've clearly stated that I don't actually have any issues with the art. I really just wanted to see what other people thought. I also agree that yes, Paizo is almost certainly the most progressive company in the game industry, and as I said early on in the discussion, I personally think they're above reproach in their attitude towards inclusiveness both in the game and in the community. As for the previous threads about Paizo's art being too sexy or not, I don't recall seeing them or being part of them (if I was then I've forgotten long ago), but I don't think the fact that something's been discussed before should disqualify it from being discussed again when something prompts it.

So, 'what do I want?'

Well that's easy, just to create a thread where people could discuss (hopefully in a friendly manner) their thoughts on the art in Paizo's books. I think it's important that people have somewhere to talk about their views on pretty much any issue they want to. Given that we're at nearly 4 full pages, with most of it being friendly, I'd say mission accomplished. I probably could have worded the title a little better to make it clear that it's just meant to be a general, but it's too late for that.

I'd kind of bowed out of the conversation prior to seeing your comment, since I felt I'd said everything I could say on the topic, but I was still keeping an eye on it and enjoying seeing what people had to say.

So to summarize -

My views: Personally I disagree with Lord Snow's interpretation, but I can see where he's coming from and respect his opinion. I don't have an issue with this piece of art, and rarely, if ever, do for Paizo's work. I'm closer to agreeing with Gorbacz about the violence in art than I am on this issue, but I still don't have any real problem with it.

What do I want?: To just get a rational and polite discussion started, to see what people think, and to see if I can get an understanding of where they're coming from.

Do I think Paizo should change their art style?: Nope. I think if the discussion shows anything, it's that most people are perfectly happy with how things are going.


magnuskn wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

Gorbazc is the winner!

as an actual father, not hypothetical, and the unnecessary gore has been my biggest issue with art, my daughter is 10 and has uncles that work in movies on special effects, so its not as big a deal for me as it is for some, but yes i'd rather they toned down the gore:)

also Gorbazc, you forgot about Carrion Crown, book 4 ** spoiler omitted **

Anybody already mention Imrijka exploderizing that vampires chest with a stake in the APG? Because that had to be the most gory violent thing I've seen in a Paizo product and bothered me far more than any depiction of (Oh noes!) some nude skin.

Yup, As Lord Fyre linked above, we did discuss that one. I was a bit surprised when I saw it, had never noticed it before. I agree that it's the more "off" image to me than any of the "sexy" artwork, but I still don't really have an issue with it.

The Exchange

Quote:


The problem I have with this reasoning is that it's incumbent on the presumption that illustrations need to maintain total fidelity to reality (at least insofar as drawing people goes).

Actually a really interesting point. I don't think it matters in this case though, because I'm not complaining about the quality of the art - rather, I feel like it has the potential to be harmful. In this case, the quality - perceived or absolute, it doesn't matter - is irrelevant. Looking at this makes me feel bad and has the potential to do so to others. I'm not looking for photo-realism or for realistic depictions of humans - it's just that this specific brand of non realistic is potentially harmful.

Quote:


Given that the character is divorced from the background imagery - and so all we have insofar is contextualization goes is the picture of the character herself - the reasons why she's standing like that can be literally anything that can possibly be imagined.

Without any clues to go on as to what her situation is, any and every possible scenario becomes equally plausible. Is she seducing someone? Is she a spider-person polymorphed into a human form and isn't sure how to distribute her weight? Is she Tacticslion's wife, standing how she normally does? All are equally possible, since there's nothing - no clues or context - to narrow the range of what her circumstances could be.

Another theoretically interesting point - this one much more important to me than the first one. My point, however, is not really that it is absolutely impossible to come up with any sort of scenario at all where she is standing that way... it's that it's really, really hard (with the caveat that I don't think that there are many people who just stand like that normally - that is a point on which tacticslion and I would have to disagree on).

Compare this with other portraits from cover arts of the last AP or two and you'll find that for most of the other ones, it's MUCH easier to come up with a situation (that has nothing to do with sex) where they stand that way. I mean, in your own post the only other option you brought up was that she wasn't really a women but a polymorphed spider, which kind of plays into my "this pose is probably dehumanizing" point. In the case of your example, literally making her not a human.

So the point is not that it's impossible (that is, indeed, something I can never fully know), but rather that I failed, and therefore think it's really hard to do, which is unlike many other covers. This begs the question, "what's the difference?". In my opinion, that difference is that other portraits are of people allowed to stand in a way a human believably would in a non-sex related situation.

Thank you for your post, Alzrious. I am truly impressed with your analytic skills and really wish that the entire discussion would have been in your level. I'm not being sarcastic here - thank you.

The Exchange

Tacticslion wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
This cover art is not terrible,
Lord Snow wrote:
I have a problem when they appear to be nothing more than sex toys.

These two quotes are where there is a huge values dissonance to me. Enormous. Perhaps it's just your phrasing, but the primary reason that I'm honestly getting frustrated is the (seeming) insistence on the latter, while maintaining that your opinion is the former. That... doesn't seem to make sense.

** spoiler omitted **...

Just wanted to let you know that I was not at any point attempting to belittle you - for example, the "world is round" example was only used because it was the first thing that sprang to my head as "we would both obviously agree on what's true here". There was no attempt made to insinuate that your ideas were ludicrous, only that I was not going to accept something that someone I don't know said in the internet over my own experience.

Now you've mentioned being irritated at me and not wanting to continue the conversation. For the sake of getting my thought documented I'm going to replay to some of the things you said (not all of them, only those about which I have something interesting to say). I will not be insulted in any way if you chose to ignore the spoilered part and stop the discussion.

some points:

1)About what evidence exactly each of us wields - what I was trying to say there is that I have seen many people in my life, and none of them were just naturally standing like that for comfort. Which leads me to the very reasonable conclusion that most people don't. Speaking of which,

2)""I haven't seen noticed it so it must not exist or be exceedingly rare." is probably the worst thing a scientist can say." - Obviously saying something like that opens you to being wrong sometimes, but then again, there is a huge difference between, say, biology, and social studies. Social studies are less scientific, and relay on observing humans. If a serious, respected social researcher would have written a paper based on studies of all the people I have seen during my entire life, and found that not one of them stood in a certain pose just for comfort, and therefore reached the conclusion that it's safe to say most of society don't - his words would have been accepted.

I don't know if you are familiar with the mathematics involved in statistics, but they do say something very strong about large sample sizes behaving consistently - namely, that it means there's a reason. For example, if you want to do a survey about people's favorite ice cream flavor, you'll have to ask about 500 people out of every million to be reasonably certain (if, that is, you make sure to choose people in a completely randomized fashion) that you have the right answer. So, potentially, me seeing thousands of people accounts for much more than that. I'm not saying I can't possibly be wrong about this, only that it will be foolish of me to believe I'm wrong, given the evidence I have.

3) About all the images you link - not one of them is of a human in a natural position. There's a cheerleader in a pose she probably practiced for hours. There's an athlete, a pretty lady who's basically modelling, and what appears to be a computer simulation (the one with the numerous poses). Then there's the girl standing on the dirt path - let me tell you this. Had her pose been the one of the woman on the cover, I wouldn't have any trouble with that AT ALL. That's a completely natural pose that many people I know, both male and female, stand in. Notice how her hip is NOT thrust to the side and her back is not twisted to the side opposite of her hip. She also appears to be standing squarely on one of her feet, while the woman on the cover is standing on her toes, as if wearing heels on both feet. In short, I find all the linked pictures to be irrelevant to the case - which is: people don't NATURALLY stand like the woman on the cover. Some are capable of it if they are posing, but they wouldn't just stand like that alone in a room. Some may stand like the woman on the dirt path, but that is just a different case.

Cheers!

151 to 200 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / General Discussion / Potential offensiveness of AP covers (Please keep it friendly and polite) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.