(Actually, it should be in under Do We Really Need to Have This Discussion Again, but that's neither here nor there.)
Yes. We. Do.
Why?
Because like Sitri, the OP of this thread, what I enjoy as recently become classified as BadWrongFun.
As long as the "Realism vs Fantasy" conflict remains in the PathfinderRPG (in RPGs in general) this subject will return again and again and again and again.
I have read several threads somewhat lately where people have been complaining about art where some of the women display some level of sexuality. I can't help but think that contributed to the very sterile looking new iconics. If they pull up the brawler's belt a half inch, the entire female lot is ready to go for 1960's prime time television decency standards. Obviously there are some people that are very happy about this, but does anyone besides me find this a bad thing?
It's the inevitable result of the philosophy driving it. Trying to be everything results in being nothing. Things considered 'mainstream' are oppressed with the belief that mainstream's very existence oppresses everything else. It's why, under the aegis of religious freedom, religion is forbidden in public institutions whether it's a manger scene in front of the local library or the inclusion of God in the pledge of allegiance. The phenomenon is evident in many places in modern culture and we're seeing it here - stylized or accentuated male and female sexuality is repressed because somehow it's very existence oppresses gay and transgender individuals... which in turn results in the 'saming' of the sexes or, ultimately, a complete lack of any sexuality whatsoever.
Predictable as the sun rising I'm afraid.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wiggz I have to congratulate you on not seeing the point at all. Like at all at all.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Actually, it should be in under Do We Really Need to Have This Discussion Again, but that's neither here nor there.)Yes. We. Do.
Why?
Because like Sitri, the OP of this thread, what I enjoy as recently become classified as BadWrongFun.
As long as the "Realism vs Fantasy" conflict remains in the PathfinderRPG (in RPGs in general) this subject will return again and again and again and again.
When you come to the point where you can say "what I enjoy…may be sexist [, but/and] I do not care," then I think that it's a prime example of a time when a) I'm absolutely comfortable calling your style badwrongfun and b) the conversation really doesn't need to happen again.
If you or Sitri or anyone else came on here asking if it was a good idea that black Iconics are shown as just as competent and heroic as white characters, instead of remaining simple stereotypes because you enjoy an older style and you don't care if it's racist, then this conversation would't be occurring because as a society we've all come to terms with the fact that that is badwrongfun. Same thing here. It's really that simple.
There is badwrongfun. If your enjoyment of Pathfinder or of anything else relies on sexist tropes, if you can't enjoy a female character unless she's showing ample skin, then there's something wrong there.
Paizo hasn't censored anything. Paizo isn't removing sexiness from the game. Paizo isn't telling you that you can't prefer what you prefer. Paizo is providing iconics that cover more awesome ideas than "pretty ladies sure are fun to look at."
As for Wiggz's comment - there is a major and fundamental difference between religion in government (in the U.S.) and religion in public. That discussion would be a severe derailment of the thread, however.
When you come to the point where you can say "what I enjoy…may be sexist [, but/and] I do not care," then I think that it's a prime example of a time when a) I'm absolutely comfortable calling your style badwrongfun and b) the conversation really doesn't need to happen again.(Actually, it should be in under Do We Really Need to Have This Discussion Again, but that's neither here nor there.)Yes. We. Do.
Why?
Because like Sitri, the OP of this thread, what I enjoy as recently become classified as BadWrongFun.
As long as the "Realism vs Fantasy" conflict remains in the PathfinderRPG (in RPGs in general) this subject will return again and again and again and again.
Thank You for illustrating why this type of thread keeps coming back, and why they need to.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shardra's got that hip-stance and thigh-reveal going on, too!
That is one of the funniest things I have read all night, kudos!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came into this thinking that it would be an interesting discussion about the iconics being, in essence, changed from beings with two at-least-semi-distinct sexes (male/female) into sexless, humanoid-shaped characters. I'd actually be interested in seeing that, removing any semblance of masculinity or femininity from the features, and just make them look... "generic". See how it changes the perception of the average person. Names for most of them would probably have to change as well, since a name can be a good indicator of a person's sex and/or gender.
And instead I come in here and it's talk about the "sexiness" vs. "non-sexiness" of their clothes. Somehow, I feel disappointed.
Strangely, this is actually what drew me into this thread also and I was likewise disappointed.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank You for illustrating why this type of thread keeps coming back, and why they need to.When you come to the point where you can say "what I enjoy…may be sexist [, but/and] I do not care," then I think that it's a prime example of a time when a) I'm absolutely comfortable calling your style badwrongfun and b) the conversation really doesn't need to happen again.(Actually, it should be in under Do We Really Need to Have This Discussion Again, but that's neither here nor there.)Yes. We. Do.
Why?
Because like Sitri, the OP of this thread, what I enjoy as recently become classified as BadWrongFun.
As long as the "Realism vs Fantasy" conflict remains in the PathfinderRPG (in RPGs in general) this subject will return again and again and again and again.
So, Lord Frye, are you willing to have a conversation about why Paizo's art should depict black characters and white characters as equally competent? (It does, to the best of my knowledge, this is a hypothetical argument.) Or are you asserting that portraying women as equal to and as competent as men is less important than showing various races as equally competent? Or are you making some other point?
Again, this isn't a censorship issue. There's been no Mapplethorpe-esque congressional pressure to suppress the waist high slit in the cut of Soeni's garb. There's been no putting previous editions of the PF CRB to the fire for impropriety - or indeed, of revising the art in previous printings. There's been no pursuit by Paizo of fans who produce Freiya inspired hentai. (I'm sure this exists and that there's a "rule" for it - this is the internet, after all.) It's a matter of not always getting cheesecake in your RPG products. As I said in my first post in this thread, I like cheesecake, but I'm not going to say that it's a downfall of society or a failure of Paizo's because I don't get to apply my tastes monolithically across a hobby anymore.
I would say that Jirelle is pretty damned sexy. When Keira Knightly dressed similarly in Pirates of the Caribbean, I don't recall a lot of people claiming that she looked "desexed." The only difference between these iconics and the earlier ones is that the examples we've heretofore seen of the new iconics don't show as much skin as some of the earlier ones.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is funny to me is I showed my wife the picture of Kess and didn't say anything. She looked at, looked at me, looked at it, and then rolled her eyes. "Yeah, leaving your stomach open to have your guts cut out makes a lot of sense."
I responded, "Are you suggesting you think she is sexualized?"
"Of course she is. Not as bad as some I've seen, but yeah."
"What if I told you that some people thinks she is 'desexed'."
It took her a bit to catch her voice from laughing so hard.
As we looked at some of the other new iconic females, we noticed that Jirelle is either double-jointed or has broken her leg. LOL
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Count me as a fan of the epilepsy inducing gear/buckles/straps/pouches/bags/hammock sticks/javelins/headgear/knives/potion bottles/familiars.
And not at all unrealistically: link
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As we looked at some of the other new iconic females, we noticed that Jirelle is either double-jointed or has broken her leg. LOL
Ah yes the iconic WAR hoof foot, may it live on forever.
Dustin soldiers carried a lot with them but it was usually in backpacks or left at camp rather than being strapped into hundreds of pouches.
Man, I think a lot of people approach "sexualization" from the wrong angle. The clothes are less important than the stance. Kess and Amiri are clearly aggressive and ready to fight. They are not sexualized, no matter if their stomach is showing. They look ready to fight, and they still wear more than, say, Sajan.
I don't have a problem with a conversation about pathfinder and sexualization, but when you start dragging characters into it that are clearly not sexualized, that's where I have a problem.
Also, There's more to this problem then clothes, and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sexualization is a problem when it is a trend, which I certainly don't think Pathfinder has been doing that. A character can be sexy. The answer isn't to ban sexiness, but to have it in moderation, where it is appropriate.
So, in summation, showing skin isn't all there is to sexualization and sexualization is really only a problem with it if it is a trend (which it is not).
As we looked at some of the other new iconic females, we noticed that Jirelle is either double-jointed or has broken her leg. LOLAh yes the iconic WAR hoof foot, may it live on forever.
Dustin soldiers carried a lot with them but it was usually in backpacks or left at camp rather than being strapped into hundreds of pouches.
That's right. Where are the backpacks WAR? Where are the backpacks?!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand where Lord Fyre is coming from. I like Seoni and I like a lot of the pin-up style artwork on Paizo's covers.
Paizo made a choice—focus on art that makes their products appealing to a broader audience. It was a good choice. I'd rather have a game that's more inclusive and more likely to get female gamers into the fold then see fantasy pin-ups on the cover of Paizo products. There is a ton of fan art in the pin-up style and a *lot* of it is quite good. Much of Paizo's interior artwork is also in the pin-up or classic fantasy style as well, so it's not as if we're being deprived of it.
I like pin-up fantasy art, but I'd much rather have a game that is more inclusive and play in a game where young women can have heroic iconics that aren't necessarily sex-objects. Fortunately, we can have both (but the pin-up art isn't necessarily on Paizo product covers).
What is funny to me is I showed my wife the picture of Kess and didn't say anything. She looked at, looked at me, looked at it, and then rolled her eyes. "Yeah, leaving your stomach open to have your guts cut out makes a lot of sense."
I responded, "Are you suggesting you think she is sexualized?"
"Of course she is. Not as bad as some I've seen, but yeah."
The only reason that Kess (or Amiri for that matter) fails to be "sexy" has to do with WAR's art style.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason that Kess (or Amiri for that matter) fails to be "sexy" has to do with WAR's art style.What is funny to me is I showed my wife the picture of Kess and didn't say anything. She looked at, looked at me, looked at it, and then rolled her eyes. "Yeah, leaving your stomach open to have your guts cut out makes a lot of sense."
I responded, "Are you suggesting you think she is sexualized?"
"Of course she is. Not as bad as some I've seen, but yeah."
Or, maybe, they aren't trying to be sexy. Crazy idea, I know, but it takes more than a midriff to be "sexy".
Or, maybe, they aren't trying to be sexy. Crazy idea, I know, but it takes more than a midriff to be "sexy".The only reason that Kess (or Amiri for that matter) fails to be "sexy" has to do with WAR's art style.What is funny to me is I showed my wife the picture of Kess and didn't say anything. She looked at, looked at me, looked at it, and then rolled her eyes. "Yeah, leaving your stomach open to have your guts cut out makes a lot of sense."
I responded, "Are you suggesting you think she is sexualized?"
"Of course she is. Not as bad as some I've seen, but yeah."
You know that may not actually be true.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a strawman argument that claims removing sexism is oppressing sexuality.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
New puritanism, as it relates to this community, refers to the overreaction to such things as cleavage, exposed legs, etc. That by us seeing such things, and enjoying said objectionable things, somehow makes us sexist neanderthals.
Man, I think a lot of people approach "sexualization" from the wrong angle. The clothes are less important than the stance. Kess and Amiri are clearly aggressive and ready to fight. They are not sexualized, no matter if their stomach is showing. They look ready to fight, and they still wear more than, say, Sajan.
I don't have a problem with a conversation about pathfinder and sexualization, but when you start dragging characters into it that are clearly not sexualized, that's where I have a problem.
Also, There's more to this problem then clothes, and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sexualization is a problem when it is a trend, which I certainly don't think Pathfinder has been doing that. A character can be sexy. The answer isn't to ban sexiness, but to have it in moderation, where it is appropriate.
So, in summation, showing skin isn't all there is to sexualization and sexualization is really only a problem with it if it is a trend (which it is not).
I think it depends on the particular image to determine if the clothes or the pose are the most important. I will agree that the character doesn't look like a candidate for the Hawkeye Initiative. Still the mid-drift being unarmored serves exactly no purpose but to be appealing to the male (or other individual who finds the female form attractive) eye.
I think it depends on the particular image to determine if the clothes or the pose are the most important. I will agree that the character doesn't look like a candidate for the Hawkeye Initiative. Still the mid-drift being unarmored serves exactly no purpose but to be appealing to the male (or other individual who finds the female form attractive) eye.
Showing a rocking sixpack while having a defiant (Kess) or stoic (Sajan) pose is specifically about empowerment. Now the bare crotch is stupid and sexist but the swole muscles are exploitative in a different direction.
Showing a rocking sixpack while having a defiant (Kess) or stoic (Sajan) pose is specifically about empowerment. Now the bare crotch is stupid and sexist but the swole muscles are exploitative in a different direction.I think it depends on the particular image to determine if the clothes or the pose are the most important. I will agree that the character doesn't look like a candidate for the Hawkeye Initiative. Still the mid-drift being unarmored serves exactly no purpose but to be appealing to the male (or other individual who finds the female form attractive) eye.
Right, because adventurers are worried about appearing "empowered" rather than just you know protecting their lives.
*Dying of a gut wound* "I might not live, but I definitely looked tough not doing it."
How about the crazy idea that characters dress appropriate for their life style and current situation and not worry about appearing "sexualized" or "empowered"?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
FINALLY!
This is something I have thought about for months, even before the new iconics were revealed (the terrible artwork in the NPC Codex and Inner Sea Gods hardcover being the reason for that)
Of course, we're still waiting for the Hunter iconic to make an appearance, but really, my hopes aren't very high. All the iconics until now are so terribly generic, it's not even fun anymore. And they are nothing of what I have imagined.
The Swashbuckler for example: That's not how I imagine daring swashbuckler with all their teasing and taunting I grew up with. Swashbucklers I know were, granted, all men but they NEVER wore armour, most of the time they wore a shirt opened to the navel. And now we have Jirelle, who looks more like she's heading to a costume ball at a slightly more liberal catholic girl school. Not cool.
Kess, I don't even want to think about her. Yes, she has a naked stomach (oh, wow...) but she totally does not look like a badass brawler. She looks more like someone I would hold my breath when I passed her. Really...
And the arcanist halfling lady, while surely looking nice, looks more like the friendly priestess in a village, not like an adventurer (all these robes! Wow!)
The men aren't better, either. Sure, the bloodrager has a naked chest but, you know, revealing clothing does not make one sexy.
Concerning Seoni: Yes, she wears revealing stuff, but she doesn't back it up with the proper attitude, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm a female gamer. I live in Europe (sometimes I wonder if that is a huge impact on how these things are perceived) and I always like my female heroes and adventurers being cool, badass, sexy and sometimes seductive. Really, I see enough normal people in real life, some of them not pleasant to the eye. I don't need normal looking iconics in my FANTASY game. When I look at a class and the character representing it, I want it to be badass. Cool. Teasing me to play that class. None of the iconics does that.
And it's not a problem that it's sexist to like sexy artwork. The real problem is that people who want sexy artwork are pressured into feeling they are sexist.
Right, because adventurers are worried about appearing "empowered" rather than just you know protecting their lives.
*Dying of a gut wound* "I might not live, but I definitely looked tough not doing it."
How about the crazy idea that characters dress appropriate for their life style and current situation and not worry about appearing "sexualized" or "empowered"?
Oh yeah I can totally get that view. I was just making a quick semantic point.
I'm a female gamer. I live in Europe (sometimes I wonder if that is a huge impact on how these things are perceived) and I always like my female heroes and adventurers being cool, badass, sexy and sometimes seductive. Really, I see enough normal people in real life, some of them not pleasant to the eye. I don't need normal looking iconics in my FANTASY game. When I look at a class and the character representing it, I want it to be badass. Cool. Teasing me to play that class. None of the iconics does that.
And it's not a problem that it's sexist to like sexy artwork. The real problem is that people who want sexy artwork are pressured into feeling they are sexist.
What would be an example of something you consider "badass" then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would be an example of something you consider "badass" then?I'm a female gamer. I live in Europe (sometimes I wonder if that is a huge impact on how these things are perceived) and I always like my female heroes and adventurers being cool, badass, sexy and sometimes seductive. Really, I see enough normal people in real life, some of them not pleasant to the eye. I don't need normal looking iconics in my FANTASY game. When I look at a class and the character representing it, I want it to be badass. Cool. Teasing me to play that class. None of the iconics does that.
And it's not a problem that it's sexist to like sexy artwork. The real problem is that people who want sexy artwork are pressured into feeling they are sexist.
I want someone who seems to me like they can handle things. With a good self-conscience and ego. Who is able to say: Let me do it, I'm a pro.
An attitude. Amiri, for example, is what I would consider "badass"-looking. She has the appearance and the attitude to back it (at least in the artwork of the barbarian class). She's sexy, in her own way, yes.
Jirelle, on the other side, looks quite tame to me. And that's not even the clothing, it's her face. She looks nice, but not like someone I would expect to taunt me with a flashing smile when I battle her.
The halfling arcanist is a completely different matter. She doesn't seem like someone who excells at anything. To me, her artwork screams "marriage councellor" or "nice lady at the temple". If I am a master (or soon-to-be master) of all things arcane, I wouldn't want to look like this.
Really, I truly believe that you can make great characters with an amazing backstory that are sexy. Not only in their artwork (or not necessary) but in their attitude. And I miss that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still the mid-drift being unarmored serves exactly no purpose but to be appealing to the male (or other individual who finds the female form attractive) eye.
She's partially based on modern boxers and competition fighters. You are just entirely wrong.
So, I'm approaching this matter from two angles. Sexuality isn't bad and merely showing skin isn't sexual. This idea that characters have to cover up or they are being sexualized is stupid. Hell, out of all of the iconics, there isn't only one I'd consider anything close to a "pin-up" (Seoni).
Sexuality isn't just a product clothes. With all of these arguments, there seems to be an underlying implication that women are sexual by simply being. A character could be fully nude and not be "sexual".
The answer isn't to fall into extremes. Constant female pin-up character is wrong, but so is abolishing all showing of skin on female characters. A character is allowed to be sexy. Sexism is a system and a trend, not an isolated piece of art.
These threads are constant, but they usually have some good, insightful conversation. This one, however, is just frustrating me and boggling my mind. It certainly has well-intentioned people on both sides, but that's not enough. We should land in the middle, not swing to both far ends.
And on the subject of "practicality". Practicality is often boring. A company is allowed to have stylized characters if they want. it's not a crime.
So, I'm approaching this matter from two angles. Sexuality isn't bad and merely showing skin isn't sexual. This idea that characters have to cover up or they are being sexualized is stupid. Hell, out of all of the iconics, there isn't only one I'd consider anything close to a "pin-up" (Seoni).
Sexuality isn't just a product clothes. With all of these arguments, there seems to be an underlying implication that women are sexual by simply being. A character could be fully nude and not be "sexual".
I think that is something that can't be stressed enough. On the other hand, if I go out of the house and wear something that exposes my stomach and has some cleavage (and sometimes, I do this) it is because I feel good. I like my body enough to wear something like this. And I have no problem with other people seeing me like that. However, I don't really have the sexy attitude to compliment it. I wear it because I like it. It's not very clear to me while this kind of dresscode is sexist and objectifying when it comes to fictional characters. I still like Seoni's artwork very much and I still wonder if she wears panties underneath.
I want someone who seems to me like they can handle things. With a good self-conscience and ego. Who is able to say: Let me do it, I'm a pro.
An attitude. Amiri, for example, is what I would consider "badass"-looking. She has the appearance and the attitude to back it (at least in the artwork of the barbarian class). She's sexy, in her own way, yes.
Jirelle, on the other side, looks quite tame to me. And that's not even the clothing, it's her face. She looks nice, but not like someone I would expect to taunt me with a flashing smile when I battle her.
The halfling arcanist is a completely different matter. She doesn't seem like someone who excells at anything. To me, her artwork screams "marriage councellor" or "nice lady at the temple". If I am a master (or soon-to-be master) of all things arcane, I wouldn't want to look like this.
Really, I truly believe that you can make great characters with an amazing backstory that are sexy. Not only in their artwork (or not necessary) but in their attitude. And I miss that.
I'd agree with you on that for the most part. However I don't really understand the issue with Jirelle. Having a sort of cheerful confidence similar to Wesley from the Princess Bride is pretty textbook as far as swashbucklers go. She doesn't take things seriously because she doesn't have to.
I'd agree with you on that for the most part. However I don't really understand the issue with Jirelle. Having a sort of cheerful confidence similar to Wesley from the Princess Bride is pretty textbook as far as swashbucklers go. She doesn't take things seriously because she doesn't have to.
Hmm, reading your answer I looked closely at Jirelle's picture. I don't know Wesley or Princess Bride (Okay, I only knew male swashbucklers from films and the like) but swashbucklers always seemed a bit... cocky to me. However, I have some other issues with the artwork. Somehow, her face seems a bit off (I don't really know how to describe it, but it has a weird angle, or composition?) and I don't like her HUGE bootshafts (but that is only aesthetics). Still, I think her face doesn't convey what I think of the swashbuckler stereotype, and I think she's way too armoured, but maybe I have just other memories of this kind of stuff.
The bootshafts are just something you have to live with in WAR's drawings. I love the man's work but his lower legs and feet are either obscured or hooves, always have been and always will be.
Yeah, I can't unsee his weird feet since the core rulebook. But Shardra's visible arm is a whole different matter...
I don't know. There's some use to looking tough.Sajan can't wear armor anyway, so there's no harm in showing off his abs.
Kess can, but she's apparently as focused on prizefighting as actual adventuring. In the ring, gut wounds aren't as big a deal and looking tough can help intimidate your opponent.
What you are calling "looking tough", I might call looking like a douche.
LOL, Sandpoint Shore.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I think a lot of people approach "sexualization" from the wrong angle. The clothes are less important than the stance. Kess and Amiri are clearly aggressive and ready to fight. They are not sexualized, no matter if their stomach is showing. They look ready to fight, and they still wear more than, say, Sajan.
I don't have a problem with a conversation about pathfinder and sexualization, but when you start dragging characters into it that are clearly not sexualized, that's where I have a problem.
Also, There's more to this problem then clothes, and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sexualization is a problem when it is a trend, which I certainly don't think Pathfinder has been doing that. A character can be sexy. The answer isn't to ban sexiness, but to have it in moderation, where it is appropriate.
So, in summation, showing skin isn't all there is to sexualization and sexualization is really only a problem with it if it is a trend (which it is not).
I think it depends on the particular image to determine if the clothes or the pose are the most important. I will agree that the character doesn't look like a candidate for the Hawkeye Initiative. Still the mid-drift being unarmored serves exactly no purpose but to be appealing to the male (or other individual who finds the female form attractive) eye.
The problem with the "hawkeye initiative" is that it ignores the difference between male and female body structure and how we as a whole dress every day. Women in comics wear what looks like modified swimsuits, so of course they look odd on men. But that said do you think women should no longer wear swimsuits at all? i mean since they look odd on men does't that mean they should cease to exist? Of course i see no fault in arguing that they should have whole body suits like the men have, or that neither gender should wear spandex. But to argue that what they wear looks odd on men is an argument to end pretty much all women's clothing...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is usually in the stupid poses. A lot of them have the guys in their normal outfits and it still looks disastrously stupid.
Wow, I wonder how characters like Seoni would be perceived if they were portrayed in "action" poses and not with "breats and butts forward".
On a whole different note, I think that Seltiyel's arms in the class artwork look really weird and freakish. I wouldn't mind a male iconic with a more... slender physique. I think beefcakes (what a word!) aren't really that sexy. Which gets me thinking: Are the tastes in men much more flexible compared to the tastes in women? For that matter, I am quite glad that Paizo has reasonable sized breasts on their women.
And I think that male iconics should be sexy, too. Because of gender equality. Yes.
Well in WAR iconic art everyone tends to be a bit static. I assume this is to help establish what their whole look should be, but it does make them somewhat boring. Amiri and Kess are about as actiony as you get in a class image and they're pretty acceptable at least in my eyes (minus lack of crotch cloths, but that is my White Whale). Alahazra is the only one where the aggressive stupidity of the outfit goes far enough that I can't really forgive it and Seoni is the only one with anything really really approaching a boob pose.
Outside of their main class images quality of poses varies depending on work and artist, but that's kind of the nature of art.
I like Alahazra's outfit...