| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you, presumably a straight male, are more well-versed, aware, and are a more trustworthy authority to determine whether male characters are hypersexualised than women and non-straight men?
Because that's what you're arguing here. You're arguing that you are more informed on a matter that does not relate to you or your sexuality than the people who are actually well-versed on the subject.
Let's look at what Shadow Knight 12 just actually said.
"Women are not well-versed, aware, or more trustworthy as authorities to determine whether female characters are hypersexualized than men and non-strait women".
It's so interesting once you get through all the auroch-patties.
Now I am not saying that male power fantasies don't exist, but the term itself is very often misused and very rarely applies to discussions of Pathfinder art.
Be aware that their is a difference between Sex object aimed at those who find the male form attractive and testosterone overloads
I felt this needed to be requoted with the new thread direction.
Do Male power fantasies exist? Yes, they are real and exist.
However a lot of times something is accused of being a male power fantasy when it really isn't and I don't like seeing good art being mislabled.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop bringing up Isabella Locke as an example of the hypersexualization of women in the material.
Her art does NOTHING to give away the horror that she is. I can only imagine that is by design. I like that my players probably wondered when they're going to meet 'the tatt'd up pirate girl' rather than 'oh gawd when do we fight the scary-as-hell shark-teeth woman on the cover doing the throat-slitting gesture while spitting my PC's own blood in his face?'
I thought about not spoilering all this, since I am tired of seeing her brought up in this thread as an example of hypersexualization by folks who have obviously not read any more of the material than the cover to Skull & Shackles #2. Odds are, this will just get glossed over. Bring up Sandara Quinn. Bring up Tessa Fairwind. Hell, bring up the lady of Tidewater Rock or Caulky the Cabin girl. But don't bring up Isabella Locke to lend credence, when if anything, she proves the exception.
Isabella Locke is your abject lesson in assuming that baring skin = sex and it is a lesson that will most likely cost your PC some raise dead and restoration gold.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading this thread and at times I've been nodding at both sides.
However, I remember when I was offended by that other company because they removed ANY reference of sexuality from their work, for example, removing any hint of the dryad as a sexual being. I never picked up a 4e book again because I felt they were taking out something important.
Paizo did not do this. It has instead dealt with issues like same-sex couples, free will, bigotry in complicated situations where there is arguably justification for it. It has in my opinion been better than any company before in its presentation of women, (though I admit the past standard has not been high).
You may or may not think they have done enough, I have enormous respect for how they have not taken the easy way out of presenting controversial content.
Refered to as? no, but fabio is on the cover of all of those romance novels for a reason. Fanservice is used for excessively sexualizing a character out of context (almost more of a joke in animie) than just a drawing that is "sexy"
Romance novels with Fabio on the cover are typically aimed at women. That would be, in fact, fanservice.
My question was directly referred to as "towards a straight male audience". Does wrestling refer to their male wrestlers as "fanservice" when they do something cool for the (straight male) audience? I wouldn't say so, no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You really can't see how that came off as you saying that fanservice only exists in the context of art that appeals to men?You really can't see how that was a response to his example, which used a female artist, a female character and a female audience?
The conversation the OP started is one about sexual inequality. They imply several times that females are more sexually exploited in the art more than males, but that it wouldn't be an issue if the exploitation was equal.
I've responded and discussed the fact that the male iconics are far more hyper-sexualized than the females. The OP requested a male deity who needed a floating bit of material to disguise...
So you, presumably a straight male, are more well-versed, aware, and are a more trustworthy authority to determine whether male characters are hypersexualised than women and non-straight men?
Because that's what you're arguing here. You're arguing that you are more informed on a matter that does not relate to you or your sexuality than the people who are actually well-versed on the subject.
As opposed to all the others saying everything with boobs is male sexual fantasy???
Let's look at what Shadow Knight 12 just actually said.
"Women are not well-versed, aware, or more trustworthy as authorities to determine whether female characters are hypersexualized than men and non-strait women".
It's so interesting once you get through all the auroch-patties.
What's the problem with that statement? Straight women wouldn't be as well-versed in knowing when a female character is being hypersexualised as a man, because of the incompatible sexual orientation. That doesn't mean they aren't aware at all. Especially when the hypersexualisation of women is as pervasive and common to the point where it's obvious to everybody, even to complete strangers to the hobby.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there ever an occasion in which "Artists" are creating "Art" for "Gamers"?
Or does everything everywhere ever have some kind of Freudian psycho-sexual ovetones?
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Refered to as? no, but fabio is on the cover of all of those romance novels for a reason. Fanservice is used for excessively sexualizing a character out of context (almost more of a joke in animie) than just a drawing that is "sexy"Romance novels with Fabio on the cover are typically aimed at women. That would be, in fact, fanservice.
My question was directly referred to as "towards a straight male audience". Does wrestling refer to their male wrestlers as "fanservice" when they do something cool for the (straight male) audience? I wouldn't say so, no.
You keep making these sweeping generalizations that really just come off as... I'm going to go with uninformed.
I know far more female fans of WWE (my grandma and several co-workers included) than I do male, and yes, those guys are absolutely performing fanservice for the female members of the audience. In fact, at least 35% of the pro wrestling audience is female. And a lot of them are there for the man meat. There's also at least one gay pro wrestler, and I'm sure he has an audience that shares his preferences and is there to watch large muscled men with oiled muscles wearing nearly nothing. I would guess that probably 50% or less of the WWE audience are straight males.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop bringing up Isabella Locke as an example of the hypersexualization of women in the material.
I won't, because I find the relationship between her art (and yeah, this thread isn't about art, but whatever) and her purpose in the plot the most offensive of any Paizo AP NPC ever.
I don't have a problem with an evil chick wearing a bikini; I have a problem with an evil chick whose body is supposedly concealing a super-secret map wearing a bikini.
EDIT: I should also point out that, iirc, the disconnect between the art and the character write-up was due to a miscommunication between Paizo and the artist. I complained about it at the time, and I believe Erik indicated it was a case of the art coming in and not really being what they were going for, but they didn't have time to redo it. If I can find the post, I'll link it.
Stop bringing up Isabella Locke as an example of the hypersexualization of women in the material.I won't, because I find the relationship between her art (and yeah, this thread isn't about art, but whatever) and her purpose in the plot the most offensive of any Paizo AP NPC ever.
** spoiler omitted **
Lets not forget how bad her tactics are! She begins combat at the front of a small boat right after the party get Iron Bert's Iron Shirt! Guess what our Barbarians first action was? Charging her and taking away most of her health. Following that our alchemist and wizard killed her with bombs/fireball. Quick mop up later we cut the map off her back, alchemically preserve it, and laugh at the stupid sorceror who didn't begin combat flying and invisible despite knowing our party composition and tactics!
And now we get to the point. You have assumed that I am male and straight, and drawn from that assumption the conclusion that my insight or input has no value. Despite the fact that you have no idea what my background or experience are, you have decided that I, as a male, don't get to talk about whether or not men are being exploited just as much as women in art. And instead of having a discussion about it, you are attacking me, personally, and stating that my opinion is of no value. That is sexism. It is a two way street, and from what I've seen very few people are willing to explore both sides of it, and those that have risen to the challenge posed by the OP come under fire for daring to have a difference of opinion.
Art that I know a fair number of women find attractive, because they've talked about it, is dismissed as being contextually irrelevant, despite the fact that the existence of that context is unique to each viewer. I've played D&D and Pathfinder with at least as many women as men, and I've had conversations very much like this one. I've listened to girls talk about how much they appreciate Paizo's art and the steps they've taken to portray women of numerous builds with more realistic garb. I've also heard them make all of the little "ooh lala" comments about Seltyiel, or "he can park his slippers under my bed" in regards to PF's Connery-esque iconic Wizard.
First of all: Sexism is defined by the presence of prejudice and the institutionalisation of that prejudice. Prejudice against men, while it indeed exists, is not institutionalised, and therefore does not fall under the umbrella of sexism. What you are accusing me of is prejudice against a gender, not sexism.
Second of all, just because a person finds X attractive doesn't mean X has been made with the specific intention of being found attractive. Intention matters. The way in which male characters are depicted in Paizo materials is different than the way female characters are depicted, and the intentions behind those depictions are made extremely obvious when sufficient attention is paid to both cases.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, that is a false definition. Go look in an actual dictionary to find the real definition of sexism. Don't bring a fake vocabulary into a discussion with people who don't subscribe to your specific group.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Joanna, you really need to go back and re-read her stuff if you're going to argue this with me.
Second, why do you think she even knows what the tattoo on her back IS, or that she should hide it? To her, it's just another of the many, horrible things (including a number of other rough tattoos as well as knocking out her teeth with a mallet) that Soshimira did to her. Even if for some reason he told her (which it does not state he does nor would it make much sense for him to do so) what the map is, WHY would she hide the secret of a dead man that she hated more than life itself, the man who is the reason for her being an inhuman murdering psychopath? After a young life of horror, do you really think she's worried about covering up her tattoos? Do you think other than killing and revenge against the world, that she really has deep thoughts about style and modesty?
Sure, stand behind Isabella Locke and copy her tattoo. Reason with her and ask for her to stand still. But first count your PC's gold. Your allies will need it after she pulls your PC apart, joint by joint.
I could also care less about your edit, because I already gave a solid reason why the art works for this character, for the very reason that skin shown does NOT equate to sexualization in the material...and that if as a player, you draw that correlation, then your PC will most likely pay for it.
The only way Isabella would be as dangerous as you said would be if you completely rewrote her encounter so she wouldn't be instagibbed by the end of the first round.
As written she is incredibly foolish.
Edit: To clarify why I think this is important. I find it offensive that this character is just a pretty face to the players. From their perspective she comes out of nowhere, practically kills herself, gives them a treasure map off her back, and accomplishes almost nothing.
That's embaressing for any character, but doubly so for one who is used as cover art cheesecake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only way Isabella would be as dangerous as you said would be if you completely rewrote her encounter so she wouldn't be instagibbed by the end of the first round.
As written she is incredibly foolish.
Edit: To clarify why I think this is important. I find it offensive that this character is just a pretty face to the players. From their perspective she comes out of nowhere, practically kills herself, gives them a treasure map off her back, and accomplishes almost nothing.
That's embaressing for any character, but doubly so for one who is used as cover art cheesecake.
I think that's a function of poorly written tactics, rather than a thematic intent. There are a lot of characters in APs that don't fight very intelligently, especially the vast number of creatures that are willing to fight to the death for... dubious reasons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is like saying that straight woemn can not talk about hypersexualised women.So you, presumably a straight male, are more well-versed, aware, and are a more trustworthy authority to determine whether male characters are hypersexualised than women and non-straight men?
Because that's what you're arguing here. You're arguing that you are more informed on a matter that does not relate to you or your sexuality than the people who are actually well-versed on the subject.
Right? If a straight male is not qualified to comment on the hyper-sexualization of men, then clearly a straight woman cannot be qualified to talk about the hyper-sexualization of of women.
I'd assume that most reasonable people would not hold that stance, and would instead promote equal and open discussion from all demographics, especially in a discussion that is specifically talking about whether the male/female sexual portrayals are out of whack, since that would require people to have a viewpoint that looks at it from both the male and female perspectives.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you draw attention to what is specifically uglier and/or needs to be dialed back? It would help a lot, because likely people aren't going to recognize what they are saying that's a problem because they don't intend it to be a problem.
A little direction would help a ton.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is like saying that straight woemn can not talk about hypersexualised women.So you, presumably a straight male, are more well-versed, aware, and are a more trustworthy authority to determine whether male characters are hypersexualised than women and non-straight men?
Because that's what you're arguing here. You're arguing that you are more informed on a matter that does not relate to you or your sexuality than the people who are actually well-versed on the subject.
Right? If a straight male is not qualified to comment on the hyper-sexualization of men, then clearly a straight woman cannot be qualified to talk about the hyper-sexualization of of women.
I'd assume that most reasonable people would not hold that stance, and would instead promote equal and open discussion from all demographics, especially in a discussion that is specifically talking about whether the male/female sexual portrayals are out of whack, since that would require people to have a viewpoint that looks at it from both the male and female perspectives.
This is exactly what I was saying. If a girl comes to me and says "I feel like this is objectifying women" and she shows me a picture of a sexy lady, and a boy comes to me and says "I feel like this is objectifying men" and shows me a picture of a sexy guy, I'm not going to treat those cases as any different. To do so would be unjust and bigoted.
So to say "your sexual orientation disqualifies you from commenting on your gender" to a specific gender, then you're a sexist bigot. So I'd consider rethinking your position if that is your position and you are railing against bigotry.
"Those who fight monsters should look to it that they themselves do not become monsters. For when you looks into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
in regards to Isabella "Inkskin" Locke
i think its funny that a character with tattoos is being put up as a pure cheesecake example, have you ever seen people with lots of tattoos? they never wear clothes unless they have to (men and women!)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems that Paizo could save a lot of money and headache by not including any art in their products ever again.
What's more amusing is that this thread started out as one specifically talking about roles in the story, not the art. Invariably, however, with these sorts of things, it always ends up turning into an art debate.
Right? If a straight male is not qualified to comment on the hyper-sexualization of men, then clearly a straight woman cannot be qualified to talk about the hyper-sexualization of of women.
False equivalence. I never said straight men aren't qualified to talk about the hypersexualisation of men. What I said that you in particular keep making categorical assertions as though your sole opinion mattered more than the opinion of non-straight men and women.
You keep repeating over and over that because X and Y characters are found incidentally attractive by a few people, that it's exactly the same as the far more cases of female characters being deliberately sexualised.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right? If a straight male is not qualified to comment on the hyper-sexualization of men, then clearly a straight woman cannot be qualified to talk about the hyper-sexualization of of women.False equivalence. I never said straight men aren't qualified to talk about the hypersexualisation of men. What I said that you in particular keep making categorical assertions as though your sole opinion mattered more than the opinion of non-straight men and women.
You keep repeating over and over that because X and Y characters are found incidentally attractive by a few people, that it's exactly the same as the far more cases of female characters being deliberately sexualised.
Given that at least three people you are conversing with got a drastically different impression, we might all be better off trying very carefully to express our thoughts in the most logical and clear terms possible. EDIT: Especially since your assertion came off as if suggesting that the opposite was quite true, in that the opinions of a strait male mattered less than a strait woman or a gay male's opinion on the sexualization of males as depicted, which is nonsense.
But if that's what you meant, then defining him as a "strait male" was entirely redundant and not needed, and it could have been condensed as "your opinion is worth no more, and no less, than anyone else's", but that's not what you said.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except this thread was not an argument about sexism. It was a claim of disparity.
However, every arguement contrary to that point is met with claims that all of us terrible, world dominating, straight guys have no understanding or authority to make any claims of anything AND somehow we are still manipulating the executive decisions of Paizo with our boob-lust and penis-dollars.
|
Can you draw attention to what is specifically uglier and/or needs to be dialed back? It would help a lot, because likely people aren't going to recognize what they are saying that's a problem because they don't intend it to be a problem.
A little direction would help a ton.
I can't speak for Paizo, but I think a good chunk of it is just unnecessarily escalating heat, questioning/assigning motives, and dismissal of each other flying back and forth. The last of which is really problematic when it comes down to matters as subjective as this.
Also where we get derailed into semantics fights and whatnot rather than anything productive. That and way too many people seeking to shut the discussion down when Paizo themselves have said they find it useful(which is what I hope this thread can become again and remain for a while longer).
The (now mostly deleted" derail onto a certain nasty subject really didn't help the tone either. I skipped out for quite a bit when it got on that track. :(
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems that Paizo could save a lot of money and headache by not including any art in their products ever again.What's more amusing is that this thread started out as one specifically talking about roles in the story, not the art. Invariably, however, with these sorts of things, it always ends up turning into an art debate.
While I believe artwork is an important part of the equation, it is frustrating that the actual original subject keeps getting pushed aside.
Regarding the examples of Beselius and Zon-Kuthon as fanservice...I'd be hard pressed to take the latter seriously at all. He's fetishized horror, but not really meant to be appealing at all, I believe. Some of his followers, sure, but the god himself, I'm not seeing it.
As for Beselius...I don't know if it was intended or not, but his face sabotages any allure he might have had, personally. He comes really close, but the "dark seducer" image falls apart as soon as you look at his mouth.
Of course I'm more a fan of the Lymnieris type, so...
Yay, Mikaze! ^_^
I can't speak for Paizo, but I think a good chunk of it is just unnecessarily escalating heat, questioning/assigning motives, and dismissal of each other flying back and forth. The last of which is really problematic when it comes down to matters as subjective as this.
I haven't noticed escalating heat, but then I might be failing my Perception checks. :P
Also where we get derailed into semantics fights and whatnot rather than anything productive. That and way too many people seeking to shut the discussion down when Paizo themselves have said they find it useful(which is what I hope this thread can become again and remain for a while longer).
Unfortunately when dealing with stuff like this, semantics are unusually important because of how loose people are with definitions. That makes actually getting a clear an concise understanding of what people are talking about is important, because then the real communication can begin.
The (now mostly deleted" derail onto a certain nasty subject really didn't help the tone either. I skipped out for quite a bit when it got on that track. :(
Perhaps a bit morbidly, I was rather anxious to see where that conversation went because of the nature of enchantment magic and the stuff involved. There's no denying that creatures like Satyrs are even described as using their enchantment magics to facilitate their interests. Even the elixir of love in the Core Rulebook (see wondrous items) mimics the effects of a charm spell upon the imbiber.
It's also of interest to me because in my games I get pretty deep into the psychology of NPCs, villains, and the like. Some of it can get pretty dark. For example, Au'hare the terrible Rakshasa and his daughters, or the vampire lord that my PCs in my ongoing campaign have recently slain who definitely was a bad person and wouldn't (and didn't) hesitate to use his powers to "own" people (he favored beautiful women, though his primary lover was a transgendered vampire named Victoria).
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zon-kuthon was less a fanservice example and more a "someone requested a figure who was wearing just enough clothing to cover his sexy bits and carried weird sexual overtones".
Frankly, I don't think he's any more or less scary than a lot of these examples of supposedly sexualized women that are really just horrific freak shows who don't happen to be wearing layers of clothing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zon-kuthon was less a fanservice example and more a "someone requested a figure who was wearing just enough clothing to cover his sexy bits and carried weird sexual overtones".
Frankly, I don't think he's any more or less scary than a lot of these examples of supposedly sexualized women that are really just horrific freak shows who don't happen to be wearing layers of clothing.
I'll second this. If we're counting the horror show that is Urgathoa, because... once again, boobs... then Zon Kuthon counts.
|
Design Manager
|
Right? If a straight male is not qualified to comment on the hyper-sexualization of men, then clearly a straight woman cannot be qualified to talk about the hyper-sexualization of of women.False equivalence. I never said straight men aren't qualified to talk about the hypersexualisation of men. What I said that you in particular keep making categorical assertions as though your sole opinion mattered more than the opinion of non-straight men and women.
I think you're confused. That's what you were doing. I never pretended my opinion was worth more or less than anyone else's, while you explicitly did. It's even been quoted a couple times.
The OP didn't make claims of sexism, they made claims of imbalance, and even explicitly said that it wouldn't be a big deal if men got the same treatment. I'm saying, at least as far as the art goes, they did.
I also know that whenever they introduce a mechanic for romance there's usually options for characters of all genders and preferences. In our last Jade Regent playthrough, Sandru was gay. In our Wrath of the Righteous game, the party failed to help Aron break his addiction and find redemption, and Sosiel ended up with one of the party members (Sosiel and Aron are also gay).
All I've said is that there's a lot of claims of imbalance and I think many of them are not accurate.
I do agree that there are more female oriented monsters whose fluff or mechanics are of a seductive nature, but few monsters are truly original. Most of them are drawn from or inspired by real world mythology, and I suspect there's just more female sexually oriented critters than male, and some of the male critters in mythology are less seductive and more... unsavory and inappropriate for a PG-13 game.
|
I'll second this. If we're counting the horror show that is Urgathoa, because... once again, boobs... then Zon Kuthon counts.Zon-kuthon was less a fanservice example and more a "someone requested a figure who was wearing just enough clothing to cover his sexy bits and carried weird sexual overtones".
Frankly, I don't think he's any more or less scary than a lot of these examples of supposedly sexualized women that are really just horrific freak shows who don't happen to be wearing layers of clothing.
Personally i think the attractive upper half contrasting to the lower half does nothing but emphasize the horror of her appearance. I think that is the point to some of the "monster girl" pics, especially the most morbid ones. Someone actually finding them sexually appealing is beside the fact and frankly odd to most
Hitdice, any "official" stance I have on that particular topic would be marred by the fact that I have drawn my fair share of fan service, of which there is a very small percentage of male figures, and I do not wish to provide ammunition for arguments for/against fan service and "sexy"/erotic art, so I try and stay out of that discussion (as best I can). So my thoughts on the matter are my own, and should not be considered "official Paizo ex cathedra" (which is why I post under "Lilith" for these sorts of things).
But I do not believe there is a false equivalence, nor do I believe that having sexy characters is a bad thing. I think that we are including many different character types is a very good thing, and perhaps it is because we have been bucking the long history of "white dudes in armor" for as long as I've been associated with Paizo, and that more eyes than ever are on our products is why we frequently see a resurgence in this particular topic. My number one problem with many fantasy (and science fiction, and comic) art is when there *isn't* variety. I want steel-clad Amazon warriors as much as I want bare-chested, pale-skinned magi yaoi fuel, and I am upset when I am forced into a stereotype. Art is very subjective, though, and attempts to quantify it will always differ depending on who you ask. Sex, sexuality, and gender are also not so easy to file away into neat little piles to suit everybody. It's a complicated subject, with answers full of "maybes" and "sometimes" and "not always." (Much like engaging the customer base. :D )
The best we can do is ask, and listen.
Thanks for the answer, I certainly wasn't trying to catch you out with an *official* question.
On the other hand, given the way the thread's going and Lord Lambertz's and Daigle's caution, maybe I should just say it: in B4 the lock!!
has anybody noticed that modern western society is hyper-sexual and we are talking about band-aids on whales here?
-Only 50 years ago if you had said that it was normal for people to wear fur suits while 'doing it' you'd have been considered seriously insane, or an utter liar...
-So come on everybody, although everybody has made some valid points, unless you are arguing for a complete and radical change in society as a whole, which isn't going to happen overnight, the premise of the thread is silly.
Stop bringing up Isabella Locke as an example of the hypersexualization of women in the material.
** spoiler omitted **
She is. Fact.
Fact: Isabella Locke is a character in a game written as being abused, maimed, and branded with ugly tatoos, with a death look.
Fact: The art is victoria secret level sexy.
Fact: These two things show a wickedly out of place art that is hypersexualized and goes against everything the character is shown to be in print.
That is the definition of art that is made sexy for no reason.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP saw there as being two options: Either add the matching male subservience and romance options and so on that he found lacking, or remove it from the female side too. A pointless example of succubi notwithstanding, I am willing to agree that there may be a point to this. If the choice must be made, however, I do not believe it is in anyone's interest to remove power dynamics, romance and such from the game. Any new policy to that effect would probably mean that Pathfinder becomes a game focused on PG-13 action. This would be a sad thing for so many reasons.
Now, I agree that roleplaying is more than just power dynamics and relationships, far more, but without them, it's still going to be a scuttled boat to row. Yes, you could claim that "all you need to do is add it yourself, what's the problem?", but honestly, the NPCs are one of the brightest points in the game. Removing them makes nothing better.
Paizo has broken new ground in roleplaying, in specifically this area. Not every decision they made was perfect, but enough were brilliant that I fully trust them to keep doing better if they so choose. Art mistakes that they had no time to correct, whether it was two or three possible male relationship NPCs to two or three female, that's not what's important. Further, Paizo has changed in this area as well, and it was several years since they did Hook Mountain Massacre and Souls for Smuggler's Shiv. Don't hold it against them.
Come on, Paizo. Give us intriguing male NPCs for those who enjoy that. Give us more nuances of possible relationships, seduction, power dynamics, desires and emotions. Give us cheesecake, beefcake, beardcake and greencake. But as you say, perhaps it's time to give the succubi and demons a bit of a rest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And as many folks who have said they would like more diverse potential NPC interactions, no individual situation is the problem. It is the trend. Part of the problem might reside in the fact that many of the materials are written by various game developers. So a 6 part adventure path might be the product of 6 different people. Now if one person only puts in more traditional NPC interactions, that is not a problem. The problem arises in that the left-hand doesn't know exactly what the right-hand is doing, so to speak. So if all six end up putting in only those traditional NPC interactions, it comes across as a trend.
That is why I say that I believe there is no intentional bias on an individual level, but why it is good to bring these ideas to the people who can look at the big picture and point out the trends. Then they can help to alleviate some of the inherent bias we all have due to our being members of our culture.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Come on, Paizo. Give us intriguing male NPCs for those who enjoy that. Give us more nuances of possible relationships, seduction, power dynamics, desires and emotions.
Come to think of it, I just realized that I feel that most interesting NPCs in APs are usually NOT heterosexual males. They are often females and, more recently, transgendered characters.
I might be mistaken, though, as I have not read all APs and modules, far from it. But I have this feeling that there is a great care of strong character development for female NPCs and transgendered NPCs, and not so much for male characters. The latter seem to me not exactly boring (Paizo writers are good at their job after all), but plain and rather simple/straightforward in their motives and behaviors.
Come to think of it, this may apply to male homosexual NPCs too, as none comes to mind right now as an amazing NPC.
|
I'll say it again : I find nothing wrong with fanservice.
I don't think paizo art is any kind of porn, nor nowhere coming close and but I think that a lot of people are awfully too quick to get offended.
Now, on the NPCs, I think the real question should be : are they interesting to roleplay for the DM, so that they can stand out, and make the story more appealing than just offing them as a bag of hps.
In reply to the OP (I can just about remember it!)...
Most of our current stock of monsters we have inherited from ancient tales, legend and mythology; and these were based on luring foolish travellers to their doom. No-one sensible would wander into a lair out of choice, unless there was an incentive - be it a compulsion, seduction, enchantment or a promise of reward. A lot of this would be sexual in nature, it is easy to understand as a concept and translates across languages and cultures. Most of these lures would be female because, at the time, women were not empowered and the concept of a male using a seductive lure would be a difficult concept to grasp.
Fast forward a few centuries and millennia and we have invented new monsters, lures and myths - but used the existing ones as templates. It's not so much as enforcing a stereotype as falling into the trap of re-using old tropes.
In the end though we like to think of ourselves as intelligent and enlightened, and should always try to act as such. It's a difficult concept to think differently, which is why it is used sparingly, but that doesn't mean ought not to try. Something Paizo does more often than most.
Please note that I am only talking about the monsters and why more of them are female and seductive in nature; the role of NPCs is entirely within our control and we need to be more intelligent about their use.
I'll say it again : I find nothing wrong with fanservice.
I don't think paizo art is any kind of porn, nor nowhere coming close and but I think that a lot of people are awfully too quick to get offended.
Now, on the NPCs, I think the real question should be : are they interesting to roleplay for the DM, so that they can stand out, and make the story more appealing than just offing them as a bag of hps.
Sometimes I do feel the cover art to be... not the best choices.... Inner Sea Gods for example. The cover is a great piece of art, but the wrong one for the cover.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's nothing, if you've seen Exalted book covers.