Sorry, there's really no good answer to this. I think Paizo has done as well as they can by having several women in the design team who have a level of artistic control over what is published (I remember Jessica Price mentioning something about a female Trox depiction for Bestiary 4 she had specifically denied.) but you're never going to find the perfect balance.
Oops, nope, think you have me confused with someone else. I sometimes get asked my opinion on art, but usually what ends up in or out of a book, art-wise, is between the book's lead developer and the art director.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make of that what you will.*Looks at almost all armored males.*
Rrrriiiiggggghhhhhhtttt
Well, the best analog to Amiri the Barbarian is Crowe the Bloodrager.
Again, I'm not saying anything about whether or not any piece of art is sexualized. I'm only combatting the argument that the *only possible reason* for lacking a particular piece of armor is to present sexuality.
I thought that the artist's stated reason for why he drew Amiri the way he did would be helpful information.
Now, I'm not an expert, but I do have done enough medieval combat to know that a helmet, gloves, and boots are the only non-negotiables when it comes to armor. Everything else is a trade off between weight, flexibility, and protection. Personally, I like very little armor -- but a really big shield.
Well if Crowe had been drawn first, then I might give his art work some weight. Since it was drawn long afterwards, with people talking about how silly the original female artwork looks, Crowe's artwork might be a real effort to have meaningful armor or it might just be an attempt to justify the previous choice. "See guys can dress like that too. See, not silly at all."
Given that Crowe is the artist's actual character -- I think his character design is more than "an attempt to justify the previous choice".
Well, this kind.
What kind of armor, by the way, only has arms and limbs covered and not the torso? I'm just wondering so that I can perhaps combine it with a breastplate armor for my character and get twice the armor bonus.
And the armor bonus you'd probably get from that is ...
Though, maybe you can convince your GM to give you a +1 shield bonus, if you are lucky.
|
Well, this kind.
What kind of armor, by the way, only has arms and limbs covered and not the torso? I'm just wondering so that I can perhaps combine it with a breastplate armor for my character and get twice the armor bonus.
And the armor bonus you'd probably get from that is ...
** spoiler omitted **
For just the Munica (the sleeve) but for the whole kit and kaboodle it's +2 Observe.
I don't mind that the fantasy characters have fantastical armor or weapons, nor do I mind sexualizing the iconics; just wish it was more even. This goes hand in hand with my argument against the Adventure Paths ALL featuring hot female patrons the group works for or with.
Now if you want to see an example of male armor in classic D&D that is silly, consider this is supposedly half-plate.
P.S. I actually love the character, but calling his "armor" half-plate is ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not what the term "power fantasy" is referring to. It's a fantasy about power, rather the power you have over your fantasy.
I define power as agency, potential even, at its most basic concept. "Power fantasy" is usually preceded by "male" and was originally intended to give a voice to those falling outside a product's perceived target audience. A better phrase might have been "conqueror fantasy" or "savior fantasy", but that doesn't have the same emotional impact. I deal in specifics and "power fantasy" is too broad of a term to be left unchallenged.
A submissive fantasy is not a fantasy about being powerful, even if, since it's your fantasy, it's safe and you have the power to end it.
You're seeing the term as redundant and offensive because you're misunderstanding it.
I'm not see the term as offensive (although the speaker's intent might be), only redundant.
I am actually now very curious to see several different women draw their version of a sexy Batman. It would be enlightening.
Emphasis on muscle structure, Adonis belt, jawline, and lips.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not what the term "power fantasy" is referring to. It's a fantasy about power, rather the power you have over your fantasy.I define power as agency, potential even, at its most basic concept. "Power fantasy" is usually preceded by "male" and was originally intended to give a voice to those falling outside a product's perceived target audience. A better phrase might have been "conqueror fantasy" or "savior fantasy", but that doesn't have the same emotional impact. I deal in specifics and "power fantasy" is too broad of a term to be left unchallenged.
The problem is that the term "(male) power fantasy" isn't limited to the agency of a single individual's imagination. Both the beefy, Conan-like muscleman fantasy image and the hyper-sexualized woman fantasy image are about imaginary agency. However, taken together (and I can quite clearly imagine the trope of the bare-chested barbarian holding his sword aloft with a scantily clad woman lying at his feet, looking up in awe as lighting strikes in the background of this metal-as-hell album cover), it's pretty clear that the former is about possessing male strength and power as an agent, and the latter is the objectified woman his agency is imposed upon.
The other issue is that what the phrase "(male) power fantasy" was "originally intended" to mean, to use your phrase, isn't really in the past tense. It still refers to a widespread image trope (of the sort I described above, in its component parts or presented simultaneously), and whether your personal interpretation of the meanings of "power" and "fantasy" as individual words takes a back seat to the wider cultural meaning of the phrase (which is how, you know, language works most of the time). Is "power fantasy" itself a redundant phrase? Sure. But in context, the phrase has a pretty clear shorthand meaning for the trope I described, and all its implications about gender.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not what the term "power fantasy" is referring to. It's a fantasy about power, rather the power you have over your fantasy.I define power as agency, potential even, at its most basic concept. "Power fantasy" is usually preceded by "male" and was originally intended to give a voice to those falling outside a product's perceived target audience. A better phrase might have been "conqueror fantasy" or "savior fantasy", but that doesn't have the same emotional impact. I deal in specifics and "power fantasy" is too broad of a term to be left unchallenged.The problem is that the term "(male) power fantasy" isn't limited to the agency of a single individual's imagination. Both the beefy, Conan-like muscleman fantasy image and the hyper-sexualized woman fantasy image are about imaginary agency. However, taken together (and I can quite clearly imagine the trope of the bare-chested barbarian holding his sword aloft with a scantily clad woman lying at his feet, looking up in awe as lighting strikes in the background of this metal-as-hell album cover), it's pretty clear that the former is about possessing male strength and power as an agent, and the latter is the objectified woman his agency is imposed upon.
The other issue is that what the phrase "(male) power fantasy" was "originally intended" to mean, to use your phrase, isn't really in the past tense. It still refers to a widespread image trope (of the sort I described above, in its component parts or presented simultaneously), and whether your personal interpretation of the meanings of "power" and "fantasy" as individual words takes a back seat to the wider cultural meaning of the phrase (which is how, you know, language works most of the time). Is "power fantasy" itself a redundant phrase? Sure. But in context, the phrase has a pretty clear shorthand meaning for the trope I described, and all its implications about gender.
This is all kind of a distraction from the point, which is that both of those examples -- the muscly barbarian brandishing his sword and the scantily clad woman clinging adoringly to his leg, are designed to appeal to men.
The problem isn't power fantasies.
The problem isn't even male power fantasies.
The problem is when male power fantasies are the only type that get catered to, and when women are only present to support those fantasies.
It's even more problematic when a portrayal of men that is designed primarily to appeal to men is cited to "prove" that women and men are treated equally both as characters and as potential audience members.
Debating the appropriateness or evocativeness or accuracy of the term "male power fantasy" is a sidetrack of the discussion about how to ensure that fantasy art appeals to multiple demographics and doesn't make members of various demographics feel objectified, humiliated, or unwelcome.
(ETA: this isn't directed at any individual poster; just a general note on how these discussions always seem to wander off into the weeds instead of getting anywhere on the actual point.)
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
@ Jessica: I wholeheartedly agree with you that the fantasy portrayals that cater to men are problematic, and that fantasy art should not objectify or humiliate anyone. I felt the need to explore what was meant by male power fantasies precisely because it has historically been about male empowerment through female objectification (and then defended falsely as equivalent).
As Necromancer said:
A better phrase might have been "conqueror fantasy" or "savior fantasy", but that doesn't have the same emotional impact.
It's useful to the discussion to point out the appropriateness of the term male power fantasy, because it indicates the gendered male agent/female object dynamic that fantasy art should avoid. One of these suggested terms would be fine when describing an appropriate specific instance, really, but it's important to acknowledge the sexist implications of the male power fantasy trope.
Important caveat: Although I'm calling out a specific post, I'm honestly not trying to attack anyone here. I just don't want to separate a term from its problematic history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that the term "(male) power fantasy" isn't limited to the agency of a single individual's imagination. Both the beefy, Conan-like muscleman fantasy image and the hyper-sexualized woman fantasy image are about imaginary agency. However, taken together (and I can quite clearly imagine the trope of the bare-chested barbarian holding his sword aloft with a scantily clad woman lying at his feet, looking up in awe as lighting strikes in the background of this metal-as-hell album cover), it's pretty clear that the former is about possessing male strength and power as an agent, and the latter is the objectified woman his agency is imposed upon.But that's not what the term "power fantasy" is referring to. It's a fantasy about power, rather the power you have over your fantasy.I define power as agency, potential even, at its most basic concept. "Power fantasy" is usually preceded by "male" and was originally intended to give a voice to those falling outside a product's perceived target audience. A better phrase might have been "conqueror fantasy" or "savior fantasy", but that doesn't have the same emotional impact. I deal in specifics and "power fantasy" is too broad of a term to be left unchallenged.
No, the problem is that the phrase is emotion-driven and imprecise. It (the phrase) is designed to evoke that exact image you've painted.
The other issue is that what the phrase "(male) power fantasy" was "originally intended" to mean, to use your phrase, isn't really in the past tense. It still refers to a widespread image trope (of the sort I described above, in its component parts or presented simultaneously), and whether your personal interpretation of the meanings of "power" and "fantasy" as individual words takes a back seat to the wider cultural meaning of the phrase (which is how, you know, language works most of the time). Is "power fantasy" itself a redundant phrase? Sure. But in context, the phrase has a pretty clear shorthand meaning for the trope I described, and all its implications about gender.
Widespread? None of the tabletop books, PC game box art, or novels I've bought since the late nineties have the artwork you've mentioned--which adds up to about four bookcases (stuffed full) and three stacks (that need to be picked up ). Even the nostalgic reboots of older media have been heavily altered by an increasing interest in realism.
|
Penis and testicles are less represented than breasts in lots of art types, not just fantasy art. It's not some sort of fantasy quirk, it's just a symptom of a much broader societal issue.
a mans junk is out as often as a woman's actual genitals are....about never. Bare chested men with rock hard abs showing are much more equivalent to the boobs that are almost shown. And before you say "that's not the same" listen to women talk about men's bodies. they are.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the problem is that the phrase is emotion-driven and imprecise. It (the phrase) is designed to evoke that exact image you've painted.
I definitely see it that way sometimes too. Also look at romance novel covers with Fabio all muscles with women clinging to him. Male fantasy?
(ETA: this isn't directed at any individual poster; just a general note on how these discussions always seem to wander off into the weeds instead of getting anywhere on the actual point.)
|
|
I'm not directing this to anyone in this thread or on this site, but when I get my hands on the
personcretin responsible for first grouping the words male, power, and fantasy into a pejorative meaning "silly little boys' thought process"..."Power fantasy" has to be one of the most redundant phrases I've seen in recent years. If you can scrape the bile off of the phrase, you're left with the argument of: should we let a perceived majority kink overlap our marketing? That's the real question.
I honestly do not mean anything perjorative when I use the phrase "male power fantasy". A large part of the point of playing heroic adventure games is to fantasize about being powerful and doing nifty keen things with those powers.
Male heroic fantasies and female heroic fantasies quite often, though not always, tend to occur at the expense of the other gender's heroism. Each can make the other feel quite uncomfortable and unwelcome when they are primarily or exclusively catered to in a particular environment.
People of all genders and orientations have the same right to enjoy their heroic characters AS HEROES without always being expected to be eye candy for the other gender, as if that was the price of taking up social space. It is very telling that a comfortably and functionally clothed woman going about her practical adventuring business would be referred to in angry tones as "desexed", as if there was a literal social duty for her to be sexually pleasing to the eye. That same expectation would be highly unlikely to ever be applied to a male who is dressed functionally for his environment.
Women literally do not have the right to be visible without being pretty and smiling, or else complete strangers will feel fully entitled to "correct" them, to tell them to smile, or to complain that they are "desexed". The underlying implications of these entitled...
Cannot really argue any point you are making there but HOW do we strike a balance? What is "too cheesecake"? what is too covered for the female consumers that want to feel ok to have sexy characters? I mean there are blatant examples of over the line but the girls on the covers of women's magazines are rarely more covered than anything in Pathfinder art.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Jessica: I wholeheartedly agree with you that the fantasy portrayals that cater to men are problematic, and that fantasy art should not objectify or humiliate anyone. I felt the need to explore what was meant by male power fantasies precisely because it has historically been about male empowerment through female objectification (and then defended falsely as equivalent).
As Necromancer said:
A better phrase might have been "conqueror fantasy" or "savior fantasy", but that doesn't have the same emotional impact.It's useful to the discussion to point out the appropriateness of the term male power fantasy, because it indicates the gendered male agent/female object dynamic that fantasy art should avoid. One of these suggested terms would be fine when describing an appropriate specific instance, really, but it's important to acknowledge the sexist implications of the male power fantasy trope.
Important caveat: Although I'm calling out a specific post, I'm honestly not trying to attack anyone here. I just don't want to separate a term from its problematic history.
Those really are just the best way I've seen of illustrating the difference there.
This is somewhat off topic from the original post for this thread though, so addressing that real quick...
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?
- The timing of art orders shoots that theory down.
- There has never been a time when iconics have been meant to serve as eye candy. They are there to give a quick visual impression of what a given class is all about, and to stand in for the PCs in the illustrations of various other books.
- There has never been a time when Pathfinder's female iconics just happened to be cheesecake-y as a rule. I mean, this is one of the first four classes to get one right here.
- You are severely underestimating the sort of outfits women wore on TV in the '60s, although I suppose if that's the standard you want to use, then yeah, most Pathfinder art is less cheeky.
- There are better places to look for attractive people showing a lot of skin than rule books for games, and even if that's where you restrict your searches to, fantasy art tends to skew towards what you're looking for well enough that you won't have to search for long.
- If you really want to see the latest batch of iconics showing more skin, honestly just wait a month or two, then do an image search. Some industrious fan artist should have you covered by then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly do not mean anything perjorative when I use the phrase "male power fantasy". A large part of the point of playing heroic adventure games is to fantasize about being powerful and doing nifty keen things with those powers.
Male heroic fantasies and female heroic fantasies quite often, though not always, tend to occur at the expense of the other gender's heroism. Each can make the other feel quite uncomfortable and unwelcome when they are primarily or exclusively catered to in a particular environment.
People of all genders and orientations have the same right to enjoy their heroic characters AS HEROES without always being expected to be eye candy for the other gender, as if that was the price of taking up social space. It is very telling that a comfortably and functionally clothed woman going about her practical adventuring business would be referred to in angry tones as "desexed", as if there was a literal social duty for her to be sexually pleasing to the eye. That same expectation would be highly unlikely to ever be applied to a male who is dressed functionally for his environment.
Women literally do not have the right to be visible without being pretty and smiling, or else complete strangers will feel fully entitled to "correct" them, to tell them to smile, or to complain that they are "desexed". The underlying implications of these entitled...
Agreed. I've never understood why some fantasy heroes brought lipstick to a goblin-crunching party. I makes me want to ask, "Well, did you bring the maps we needed? No? Give me the lipstick then...
I definitely see it that way sometimes too. Also look at romance novel covers with Fabio all muscles with women clinging to him. Male fantasy?No, the problem is that the phrase is emotion-driven and imprecise. It (the phrase) is designed to evoke that exact image you've painted.
It could be if they stopped drawing the guy's chest as wide as a CRT TV. Honestly though, most of the romance novels I run across in stores are vampire novels with blank covers.
...I'm not directing this to anyone in this thread or on this site, but when I get my hands on the
personcretin responsible for first grouping the words male, power, and fantasy into a pejorative meaning "silly little boys' thought process"..."Power fantasy" has to be one of the most redundant phrases I've seen in recent years. If you can scrape the bile off of the phrase, you're left with the argument of: should we let a perceived majority kink overlap our marketing? That's the real question.
I honestly do not mean anything perjorative when I use the phrase "male power fantasy". A large part of the point of playing heroic adventure games is to fantasize about being powerful and doing nifty keen things with those powers.
Male heroic fantasies and female heroic fantasies quite often, though not always, tend to occur at the expense of the other gender's heroism. Each can make the other feel quite uncomfortable and unwelcome when they are primarily or exclusively catered to in a particular environment.
People of all genders and orientations have the same right to enjoy their heroic characters AS HEROES without always being expected to be eye candy for the other gender, as if that was the price of taking up social space. It is very telling that a comfortably and functionally clothed woman going about her practical adventuring business would be referred to in angry tones as "desexed", as if there was a literal social duty for her to be sexually pleasing to the eye. That same expectation would be highly unlikely to ever be applied to a male who is dressed functionally for his environment.
Women literally do not have the right to be visible without being pretty and smiling, or else complete strangers will feel fully entitled to "correct" them, to tell them to smile, or to complain that they are "desexed". The underlying implications
|
|
It could be if they stopped drawing the guy's chest as wide as a CRT TV. Honestly though, most of the romance novels I run across in stores are vampire novels with blank covers.I definitely see it that way sometimes too. Also look at romance novel covers with Fabio all muscles with women clinging to him. Male fantasy?No, the problem is that the phrase is emotion-driven and imprecise. It (the phrase) is designed to evoke that exact image you've painted.
Well now they are, "romance" now is all about an abusive relationship with a creature that can dominate her far more than some muscled human.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
that...what
dude no
no
|
|
Cannot really argue any point you are making there but HOW do we strike a balance? What is "too cheesecake"? what is too covered for the female consumers that want to feel ok to have sexy characters? I mean there are blatant examples of over the line but the girls on the covers of women's magazines are rarely more covered than anything in Pathfinder art.There's multiple questions to address here. The primary one is very basic - no one should be forced to buy or use porn that is not their flavor. You wouldn't think it was fun, and other people don't, either. So if a gaming book is heavily pre-loaded with porn that is not your flavor, that will probably feel weird and unwelcoming to you.
The more complicated issue is that by making "you have to be sexy, even at the expense of your effectiveness as a hero" the default standard for women, you are making them into eye candy for other people at the expense of their heroism. That feels weird and unwelcoming to women also.
The question of how much is too much is a tough one. For me, it's too much if it's gratuitous or stupid, or if only one orientation is getting their flavor of fanservice catered to. If there is a solid plot or character reason to show someone in their underwear, that's cool - but all of those someones should not be exclusively female. And if they are supposed to be adventuring or fighting monsters, peek-a-boo "shoot me right here" armor is suicidally stupid and lingerie has an even worse armor class.
Some people do want to play highly sexed-up characters, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in an adult campaign where everyone is comfortable and consenting. Have fun with that! But don't force it on anyone as the default if they would prefer to focus on other aspects of heroic adventure gaming, and especially don't force it on one gender and not the other.
Also, not all home campaigns will be either adult or consenting; a lot of gamer parents do want to game with their kids, and that's a pretty...
I get what you mean but i do not see this happening at all in pathfinder art. sure the elf has a cleavage window but that soft leather she is wearing would not stop an attack to begin with nor would Crowe's torso less armor help. Seoni and the witch are baring some skin but so is the monk. is his outfit any more practical? The oracle i agree should be armored not half exposed, same holds true for the magus and bard though. I do not see there being any major gender gap in pathfinder art.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that...what
dude no
no
Yes. That, in a nutshell, is exactly my reaction to unrealistic and stupidly gratuitous cheesecake and ridiculous boob-and-butt poses. Welcome to the background radiation of my world.
This is why it is No Fun for me to read comics or use most fantasy gaming material. I get tired of giving myself a black eye from all the facepalming that style of art induces.
Same for the unrealistic flexing poses for male characters though
that...what
dude no
no
Yes. That, in a nutshell, is exactly my reaction to unrealistic and stupidly gratuitous cheesecake and ridiculous boob-and-butt poses. Welcome to the background radiation of my world.
This is why it is No Fun for me to read comics or use most fantasy gaming material. I get tired of giving myself a black eye from all the facepalming that style of art induces.
what
nothat post was the tanuki thing from necromancer
|
|
that...what
dude no
no
Yes. That, in a nutshell, is exactly my reaction to unrealistic and stupidly gratuitous cheesecake and ridiculous boob-and-butt poses. Welcome to the background radiation of my world.
This is why it is No Fun for me to read comics or use most fantasy gaming material. I get tired of giving myself a black eye from all the facepalming that style of art induces.
what
no
that post was the tanuki thing from necromancer
Just remember they get a slam attack, with both hands full of quarterstaff so they are hitting you with what again......
I am actually now very curious to see several different women draw their version of a sexy Batman. It would be enlightening.Emphasis on muscle structure, Adonis belt, jawline, and lips.
Okay, how about Superman?
Or better yet, Iron Man?
|
|
I am actually now very curious to see several different women draw their version of a sexy Batman. It would be enlightening.Emphasis on muscle structure, Adonis belt, jawline, and lips.Okay, how about Superman?
Or better yet, Iron Man?
Iron man (the suit) is not gendered at all really. Tony stark is already what many women have raved about for a long time
Alright I'm going to be completely honest here.
I stopped reading this thread about half a paragraph in.
So why am I here?
For all the awesome links.
At the end of the day for me it comes down to, "It takes all kinds."
Just as Golarion has different areas and parts different people love and hate and just as pathfinder has different means of being played the books should have different art styles and different aesthetics presented.
I enjoy the eyecandy that is provided. I like that some of it is simply art that happens to have some exposure with it. I also love the iconics that are dressed to the nines with equipment hanging out the sides.
At the end of the day I like the new art too. Kess looks a bit too much like Amiri for my tastes but that's just because they have armor that looks so much alike. But hey I am really looking forward to this book.
By the way thanks for all the fish (and links). Fascinating stuff all the way around.
|
|
I doubt that armor was for actually keep them alive.Well, this kind.
What kind of armor, by the way, only has arms and limbs covered and not the torso? I'm just wondering so that I can perhaps combine it with a breastplate armor for my character and get twice the armor bonus.
When the average foe is a half trained (at best) barely armed and not armored slaves and criminals you can get by with one armored sleeve to deflect blows
|
(Almost certainly NSFW) - while I guess words are cool for debating boobs vs junk, Gabe from Penny Arcade provides his take via drawingA tanuki barbarian...huh.
I don't know what the fuss is about. I always wanted a game that let me play as Brock Samson.
|
|
Also, Jessica Price, sorry. Usually the two developers I see post on here are you and James Jacobs, so obviously I misremembered that. But I am very certain there was a similar thread a while back wherein a developer specifically pointed out that she rejected the female trox art for Bestiary 4. Sadly I didn't post in that thread or favorite so I cannot for the life of me now remember who it is.
And also . . .
I am actually now very curious to see several different women draw their version of a sexy Batman. It would be enlightening.Emphasis on muscle structure, Adonis belt, jawline, and lips.Okay, how about Superman?
Or better yet, Iron Man?
WHEE! I'm starting a trend.
Sure, if you know, the slave gets to make all the calls and the master is treated as a witless child that must be protected and kept from getting itself killed. The master has absolutely no agency of their own, but instead is treated as a prize and/or luggage by the slave. Then, yeah I could see how it seems like slavery. I mean, young children enslave their parents all the time.
TL;DR: I do not think it means what you think it means.
I don't know what the fuss is about. I always wanted a game that let me play as Brock Samson.(Almost certainly NSFW) - while I guess words are cool for debating boobs vs junk, Gabe from Penny Arcade provides his take via drawingA tanuki barbarian...huh.
That was more Jock(Strap) Samson.
Developer
|
Also, Jessica Price, sorry. Usually the two developers I see post on here are you and James Jacobs, so obviously I misremembered that. But I am very certain there was a similar thread a while back wherein a developer specifically pointed out that she rejected the female trox art for Bestiary 4. Sadly I didn't post in that thread or favorite so I cannot for the life of me now remember who it is.
Seems you got a few things jumbled. In this thread, Crystal gave some background on the trox that appears in Bestiary 4. ()
Sure, if you know, the slave gets to make all the calls and the master is treated as a witless child that must be protected and kept from getting itself killed. The master has absolutely no agency of their own, but instead is treated as a prize and/or luggage by the slave. Then, yeah I could see how it seems like slavery.
Let's see given protection when incapable of self-defense, treated as a prize, carried around...doesn't sound that bad to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see given protection when incapable of self-defense, treated as a prize, carried around...doesn't sound that bad to me.
o_0
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see given protection when incapable of self-defense, treated as a prize, carried around...doesn't sound that bad to me.o_0
Yeah. I'd probably kick the shit out of someone who treated me like that. Or at least try. Or kill them in their sleep. Y'know, something extreme.
I'm not averse to people doing things for me, but I despise the level of disrespect involved in the specific attitude outlined here. I don't treat anyone like that, not outside of small children anyway, and expect that courtesy to be returned. I have no problem at all understanding why women would be annoyed by female 'protagonists' being treated in this manner.
Though I will speak up slightly for Robert E. Howard (since Conan got mentioned) and note that not all of his female characters are anywhere close to this helpless (or treated as such). Belit leaps immediately to mind, for example, but most of them are actually pretty competent in some area. Damsels in distress certainly crop up, but not as often as in other works in the genre and in that era, and Conan isn't unwilling at all to treat women who demonstrate capability with respect commensurate with it.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see given protection when incapable of self-defense, treated as a prize, carried around...doesn't sound that bad to me.o_0
Yeah, basically, this response.
I you think that being "treated as a prize" doesn't sound that bad, I don't think you're listening to the people (women, mostly) who have said over and over again that they don't want this. Being desired and desirable is one thing, but being "treated as a prize" is literally objectification.
On Conan: I brought it up mostly because it's a recognizable name to attach to that particular imagery. I can't name anything else in the same genre, and I haven't actually interacted with any Conan media, so forgive any undue comparisons. :P
Let's see given protection when incapable of self-defense, treated as a prize, carried around...doesn't sound that bad to me.o_0
Yeah. I'd probably kick the s%@~ out of someone who treated me like that.
Yeah, basically, this response.
Disagree with a certain outlook? Not an issue, but it doesn't invalidate another's perspective.
|
|
Disagree with a certain outlook? Not an issue, but it doesn't invalidate another's perspective.
Oh, totally. But here's a question: Have you ever actually been treated like that? As an adult, I mean. Because I suspect that experiencing such a thing might change your perspective somewhat.
And even if it didn't...it's not so much about invalidating any perspective, as about certain perspectives being forced on all women (or all of an other group). Which is pretty problematic no matter what that perspective is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why all these arguments about realistic armour? Truth is, most realistic armour looked like crap. If you wanted a realistic depiction of people adventuring and surviving at it, you would get something like Warhammer levels of massive armour. You would grasp for EVERY SINGLE LITTLE POINT of advantage, always, and how it looks be damned. Not to mention, even these people would be scarred everywhere to beyond recognition. Let's just say it would not be a good thing to see realistic images of adventurers. Eurh. I am quite pleased that Paizo's art doesn't even try to depict realistic armour in most cases, but unapologetically stick with fantasy armour.
For many, part of the fantasy we're talking about is the fantasy of looking good, of being desirable, of being a sexual agent AND/OR object. Let's not pretend otherwise. And of course, there should be eye candy for both sexes. As for Seoni, there are rather a lot of images of her in action/power poses.