New Iconics Desexed


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

251 to 300 of 500 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer wrote:
Let's see given protection when incapable of self-defense, treated as a prize, carried around...doesn't sound that bad to me.

I take it you're okay with being handed off to anyone who "wins" you, whether or not they are of a gender, age, shape, size or personality that appeals to you, with your having no choice or agency in the matter? That's pretty much what being a prize means.


Soooo... is being a prize then a better or a worse proposition, all in all, than being an outcast, undesired, unwanted and shunned?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Soooo... is being a prize then a better or a worse proposition, all in all, than being an outcast, undesired, unwanted and shunned?

I'd definitely take being unpopular over forced prostitution. Other folks are welcome to make their own choices.


Sure. My point is merely that being outcast for long enough can pretty effectively tune out the disadvantages, in someone's mind, of being a prize. Human touch and all that, you know. Oh, and of course, someone who is a prize still has options simply because of being a prize.

Grand Lodge

Adam Daigle wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

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. (Which was news to some of the developers.)

Yes, thank you. Joana in PM also corrected me. The post was locked before I got a chance to reply and I couldn't remember which one it was to go get my facts straight. But yes it was Crystal Frasier.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

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.

I'm sure you could make half a plate out of it...

:)


Personally I think the reason the new iconics are less scantily clad than the previous average is because thats how they turned out.

I honestly don't believe that anyone paizo consciously decided they need to be less sexualized/revealed as whole.

While I know they are aware of the whole sexualized/nonsexualized etc. discussion, I don't believe they let it influence their designs, because as far as I know the company has been okay with both extremes, letting characters who like to flaunt it wear more revealing outfits while characters who don't cover up as much as they find appropriate. So I would say it just happens that none of the characters we have with the ACG are particularly into showing off bare flesh.

There isn't really a problem here in my mind, no matter from which side you look at it.

It's just doing everyone a disservice to assume every little tendency in a design is because everything needs to be more sexualized/prude/objecitified/neutered/whatever. Instead we should look at the individual characters and ask whether the design fits with the character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
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.

TanithT wrote:
I take it you're okay with being handed off to anyone who "wins" you, whether or not they are of a gender, age, shape, size or personality that appeals to you, with your having no choice or agency in the matter? That's pretty much what being a prize means.

The cliché Conan image is usually depicted within a hostile, blasted wasteland. Survival is an issue. Everyone is ignoring what the barbarian has to go through to just as daily routine. He's likely fighting everything that moves shortly after waking up. The woman's survial needs are taken care of--he won't leave her behind, he's the hero.

As for a failure state? The woman's claimed as property by the victor (assuming humanoid enemies), faces abuse, a bit or a lot of dehumanization, and a really s#*#ty start to next week. The barbarian isn't so lucky: a quick death if his enemies are honorable, mutiliation and torture if they're not, and slipping out of consciousness with the knowledge that he wasn't good enough.

Let's be honest, both roles suck--neither offers improvement. The barbarian is doomed to fighting for two people every day of his life and the woman gets to live in fear that what she has grown accustomed to might change. When the options on the table are death and an abusive, rough state of survival, I'll take survival every time in a situation that bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Except a lot of the time, the women didn't even get that. Have you ever actually read the old Conan comics? Women were often raped, murdered (sometimes both) and fed to monsters on a fairly regular basis, whether Conan was around or not.

You may think it's cool to be the virgin sacrifice rescued and ravished by the Barbarian hero (and usually never seen again after that. Hmmmm...), but statistically you're more likely to be the dozen or so sacrifices that came before.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

And even without that, the idea that there's no reason to prefer being the hero who's self-sufficient and can triumph over any odds, over the woman he rescues who'll stay alive as long as she can keep him happy.

Yeah.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I know when I game, the character I love to play is the useless tag-a-long.

GM: What does Halgar the Violent do this round.
Halgar's Player: Halgar charges the nearest foe.
*rolls dice*
GM: Okay, now what does Wilma the Worthless do?
Wilma's Player: I fall to my knees helplessly and whimper, "Halgar, protect me."

Fun times, fun times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer wrote:


Let's be honest, both roles suck--neither offers improvement. The barbarian is doomed to fighting for two people every day of his life and the woman gets to live in fear that what she has grown accustomed to might change. When the options on the table are death and an abusive, rough state of survival, I'll take survival every time in a situation that bad.

Because it's impossible for the woman to pick up a g+&@@@n sword and save herself? Or learn magic, or rogue skills, or become a cleric?

I have zero interest in playing in your world, if what you're saying is that these things can't happen because she's a mere female and incapable of being a hero. Those things are patently not true, and it's pretty crappy to say they are.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

TanithT wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
Let's be honest, both roles suck--neither offers improvement. The barbarian is doomed to fighting for two people every day of his life and the woman gets to live in fear that what she has grown accustomed to might change. When the options on the table are death and an abusive, rough state of survival, I'll take survival every time in a situation that bad.
Because it's impossible for the woman to pick up a g&#*+$n sword and save herself? Or learn magic, or rogue skills, or become a cleric?

It is interesting that the most remembered (and to may the sexiest) women from the Conan stories did just that.

*- from the Comics - Red Sonja (warrior woman - in a very different outfit then she would later become famous for.)
*- from the original stories - Bêlit (a skilled swordswoman and pirate captain.)

TanithT wrote:
I have zero interest in playing in your world, if what you're saying is that these things can't happen because she's a mere female and incapable of being a hero. Those things are patently not true, and it's pretty crappy to say they are.

Sadly, Earth history was like this for several periods.


Several women that could fight were not initially interested in Conan. But it should be noted that as soon as the two met other people, Conan often told them the woman was his and the women often had to go along with it.

Now sure there a couple of women this didn't happen to Sonja (I don't think she ever hooked up with Conan) and Belit (who died shortly after hooking up with him), but most other women that were capable of fighting often had their agency still taken over by Conan at the first opportunity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TanithT wrote:
Necromancer wrote:


Let's be honest, both roles suck--neither offers improvement. The barbarian is doomed to fighting for two people every day of his life and the woman gets to live in fear that what she has grown accustomed to might change. When the options on the table are death and an abusive, rough state of survival, I'll take survival every time in a situation that bad.

Because it's impossible for the woman to pick up a g$$$~!n sword and save herself? Or learn magic, or rogue skills, or become a cleric?

I have zero interest in playing in your world, if what you're saying is that these things can't happen because she's a mere female and incapable of being a hero.

Not at all. I'm saying the aesthetic archetype mechaPoet brought up several posts ago gives me the impression that "Hollywood neanderthal survival" is the only thing that product has to offer. It doesn't evoke a sense of fantasy at all from my perspective.

SAMAS wrote:
Have you ever actually read the old Conan comics? Women were often raped, murdered (sometimes both) and fed to monsters on a fairly regular basis, whether Conan was around or not.

I have no idea what went on in Conan's world. I vaguely remember the movies. My immediate knowledge is based off of what little nostalgic artwork I bother to research at the time of posting. It's not an aesthetic I care for at all, but I don't think that it's responsible for anything aside from alienating potential customers.

SAMAS wrote:
You may think it's cool to be the virgin sacrifice rescued and ravished by the Barbarian hero (and usually never seen again after that. Hmmmm...), but statistically you're more likely to be the dozen or so sacrifices that came before.

I think my first half-serious criticism of the art style...

pres man wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
The funny thing is that I always perceived the Conan cliché as more of a woman's fantasy preference: big dumb barbarian does all the work (moving boulders, defends against hostile wildlife, etc.) and the wise/literate princess/priestess/whateveress gets to go into vacation mode. Power? Looks more like slavery from where I'm standing.
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.

...was deliberately taken out of context to highlight my "wrong opinion" and to inform me what I should be thinking.

Liberty's Edge

Threeshades wrote:
I honestly don't believe that anyone paizo consciously decided they need to be less sexualized/revealed as whole.

While I honestly believe that they did just that.

Just like they listened to forum criticism and agreed that the class of 2014 needed to have some actual surviving parents. There's a *massive* change between previous iconics and the class of 2014 in regards to surviving parents. It's *not* just coincidence. It's clearly the result of listening to criticism and taking heed of it.

If they do that in one aspect of characters, I have no problem believing they do it in other aspects as well.

There's been a *lot* of talk about sexualized portrayals. It's probably the most popular issue on the forums. I think it's unrealistic to think that it wouldn't affect the class of 2014 at all.


Well then I am sorry if I took you out of context. I assumed you knew something about Conan since you were talking about it. It is now obvious that you were speaking from ignorance and didn't have any idea how women were treated in the Conan materials.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

pres man wrote:
Well then I am sorry if I took you out of context. I assumed you knew something about Conan since you were talking about it. It is now obvious that you were speaking from ignorance and didn't have any idea how women were treated in the Conan materials.

To be fair, as I said earlier:

mechaPoet wrote:
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

I brought up the name Conan, which is what Necromancer and I have been referring to, but it was just a handy name to attach to an image in my head, which was "barbarian on a metal album cover."


pres man wrote:
Well then I am sorry if I took you out of context. I assumed you knew something about Conan since you were talking about it. It is now obvious that you were speaking from ignorance and didn't have any idea how women were treated in the Conan materials.

I should've specified my stance a bit better as well.


So has anyone looked at the iconic [feral] Hunter [archtype].

My Thoughts:
I really dislike this type of armor.

Slimmer build (though still not slim enough I would argue) and hip outline, I think some folks are going to like that.

Why the hell is he so fugly? Of course, I don't know what people find attractive in men, since obviously Mick Jagger and Steven Tyler and others are found attractive by some people.

So I'll call it a good first attempt at a sexualized male, but still needs work (slimmer build and better face).

Liberty's Edge

Um, wtf is that? He has threads running criscross over his body?


That's not the iconic hunter. It's the illustration for the feral hunter archetype.

Samy wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
I honestly don't believe that anyone paizo consciously decided they need to be less sexualized/revealed as whole.

While I honestly believe that they did just that.

Just like they listened to forum criticism and agreed that the class of 2014 needed to have some actual surviving parents. There's a *massive* change between previous iconics and the class of 2014 in regards to surviving parents. It's *not* just coincidence. It's clearly the result of listening to criticism and taking heed of it.

If they do that in one aspect of characters, I have no problem believing they do it in other aspects as well.

There's been a *lot* of talk about sexualized portrayals. It's probably the most popular issue on the forums. I think it's unrealistic to think that it wouldn't affect the class of 2014 at all.

I think "fighters/rogues/monks are underpowered" and "Everything is overpowered!" are more popular still.

But jokes aside, I know it's being discussed a lot, but on the comments from paizo people while they make it clear they listen to criticism, they also have a stance on this and that is that everybody should be allowed to define their own sexuality, both in orientation and amount. So characters who dress sexy because that's who they are are just as okay as characters covering up.

At most I would say they balanced the scales a bit with this, but ultimately i still think the designs are just a result of their personalities and backgrounds.

Also I often find that someone with a full set of clothing looks better than someone half-naked, so I don't have a problem with it no matter why it really happened.

Liberty's Edge

Thank god, I was hoping it would be 5 girls 5 guys and not 4 girls 6 guys. The hunter needs to be female to achieve equality.


She will be. Unfortunately I don't have the link to the picture right now to prove it, but there was this photo of a presentation slide that showed all the iconics and the only one not up on the blog yet looked quite feminine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:


But jokes aside, I know it's being discussed a lot, but on the comments from paizo people while they make it clear they listen to criticism, they also have a stance on this and that is that everybody should be allowed to define their own sexuality, both in orientation and amount. So characters who dress sexy because that's who they are are just as okay as characters covering up.

At most I would say they balanced the scales a bit with this, but ultimately i still think the designs are just a result of their personalities and backgrounds.

OTOH, they're creating the personalities and backgrounds at the same time they're figuring out the outfit.

It's a cop out for a creator to say "that's just who the character's are". The characters are that way because they were made that way.

In fact, if your female characters tend towards the type of people who'd dress sexy while your male characters tend toward more practical clothing, that probably says more than if you're openly dressing characters that way for marketing reasons.

Not that I think that applies to Paizo, just that as a general claim it doesn't wash.

Liberty's Edge

Samy wrote:
Um, wtf is that? He has threads running criscross over his body?

They're stripes. He's sorta part way changed into a tiger. Look at the hands. That's the Archetype that gets Wild Shape, bear in mind.


I havent really checked what the tendency is, I just mean to say paizo is as far as i have seen neither shying away from nor particularly working toward a sexualized portrayal of any characters of either or both genders. Some are, some aren't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:


Sadly, Earth history was like this for several periods.

Yes, and black people were slaves. Historical badness and oppression is not good justification for doing it, or glorifying it, today. Not in real life and not in a game you expect real people to play.

Liberty's Edge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Samy wrote:
Um, wtf is that? He has threads running criscross over his body?
They're stripes. He's sorta part way changed into a tiger. Look at the hands. That's the Archetype that gets Wild Shape, bear in mind.

No, look at how his hands are stripe-less, and look at how the stripes connect with the patch of cloth over the stomach. They're clearly some sort of threads that have him trussed up like a turkey ready for the oven.


Samy wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Samy wrote:
Um, wtf is that? He has threads running criscross over his body?
They're stripes. He's sorta part way changed into a tiger. Look at the hands. That's the Archetype that gets Wild Shape, bear in mind.
No, look at how his hands are stripe-less, and look at how the stripes connect with the patch of cloth over the stomach. They're clearly some sort of threads that have him trussed up like a turkey ready for the oven.

I think they're supposed to be tying his clothes together?

Liberty's Edge

Threeshades wrote:
She will be. Unfortunately I don't have the link to the picture right now to prove it, but there was this photo of a presentation slide that showed all the iconics and the only one not up on the blog yet looked quite feminine.

Oh yeah I had to go look it up. A really sexy looking redhead. Completely covered up yet again though. Would've liked some more skin, but ah well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record, if you do find youself with a nearly nude barbarian warrior holding his sword high while lightning strikes accompanied by a scantily clad female on the ground; the female has it right, go to the ground. Lightning is not to be messed with.


Belazoar wrote:
For the record, if you do find youself with a nearly nude barbarian warrior holding his sword high while lightning strikes accompanied by a scantily clad female on the ground; the female has it right, go to the ground. Lightning is not to be messed with.

I would suggest not clinging to the target though.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Well, now that I have my PDF in hand I think I can say, and I'm sure all will be in full agreement, that the most oversexed and just plain "hawt" image in the book is clearly the iconic Warpriest.

:-P

Seriosuly though, I think the art is great. The few pictures that have a lot of skin showing don't portray their subjects as weak or in distress. They all inspire me to go out and kick some serious tabletop butt.


Threeshades wrote:
I havent really checked what the tendency is, I just mean to say paizo is as far as i have seen neither shying away from nor particularly working toward a sexualized portrayal of any characters of either or both genders. Some are, some aren't.

And this hsould reamin this way. The best thing to have is variety.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So...I got one thing from this thread.

Well, two.

Apparently: Women being fully clothed = censorship, to some.

Second, I'm heading over now to pre-order two copies of this book, and giving one as a present to a friend who's been considering getting back into 3.x, but she hadn't been sure yet.

Thank you for letting me know about the awesomeness.


Nicos wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
I havent really checked what the tendency is, I just mean to say paizo is as far as i have seen neither shying away from nor particularly working toward a sexualized portrayal of any characters of either or both genders. Some are, some aren't.
And this hsould reamin this way. The best thing to have is variety.

Agreed.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
The best thing to have is variety.

Then who's the Seoni of the new iconics?

I'd argue that the class of 2014 has reduced variety compared to the original iconics. With the original crop, you had stripperific Seoni and fully covered up Seelah, with lots of people in-between like midriff-but-totally-badass Amiri.

Now, IMO, the Seoni end of the spectrum has been cut away and all we're left with is middle to conservative, from Amiri to Seelah types.

Liberty's Edge

Samy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The best thing to have is variety.

Then who's the Seoni of the new iconics?

I'd argue that the class of 2014 has reduced variety compared to the original iconics. With the original crop, you had stripperific Seoni and fully covered up Seelah, with lots of people in-between like midriff-but-totally-badass Amiri.

Now, IMO, the Seoni end of the spectrum has been cut away and all we're left with is middle to conservative, from Amiri to Seelah types.

As compared to the APG, where we had primarily Seoni type outfits among the female Iconics (2 out of 3), you mean? The books vary, sometimes in one direction, sometimes another. It's to be expected, not inherently part of some agenda or conspiracy.

Seriously, the number of 'provocatively dressed' female Iconics ranges from 0 to 2 per book even before the ACG (though the 0 was in UC). Adding the ACG to the 0s doesn't effect the numbers in a particularly notable way (it's now 3 out of 16 instead of 3 out of 11, so a bit less than one in 5 rather than a bit more than one in four...or 5 out of 16 rather than 4 out of 11 if we're counting people like Kess and Amiri and both of those numbers are around a third), and we still have a few more provocatively dressed women than men to boot. I'm just not seeing a problem here.

Liberty's Edge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm just not seeing a problem here.

Then you probably don't want to see skimpy women as much as I do, which is fine. :)

Liberty's Edge

Samy wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm just not seeing a problem here.
Then you probably don't want to see skimpy women as much as I do, which is fine. :)

Actually, I like looking at nearly naked women quite a bit...I'm just less than convinced it's a necessary part of RPG books.

And besides, my point isn't so much that less scantily clad women is okay (it is, but that's really not what I was talking about). My point is that having none in this book isn't precisely evidence of a change in Paizo's policy. At 0-2 per book, the difference between this book and previous books don't seem statistically significant in this area.

Heck, this book and the APG + UC balance each other out to return the game to about the standard it had in the corebook in terms of scantily clad Iconics.

Liberty's Edge

Eh. I see what you mean but I'm still disappointed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I find it interesting that Paizo's early production post Dragon/Dungeon is rather sexed up/adult, witness various Seoni pics from the era and Hook Mountain Massacre, but since then has been toned down rather sharply. I can appreciate the need to sell better by any means necessary, but it does cast later views and policies in a slightly different light to my eyes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The best thing to have is variety.
Then who's the Seoni of the new iconics?

Crowe.


Crowe is more amiri level though. Pretty much exactly even. It's basically the same armor made from a different material.

I wouldn't mind a few more male iconics leaning in the skimpy direction. Mythic did well on that part, with Valeros and Seltiyel (who still has me questioning my sexuality)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Seltiyel is really the only overtly sexualized male iconic around. Which you know if people keep shouting balance we need more of. At least two more skimpy fey pretty boys are needed. Preferably in some form of light bondage or distress in 50% of their images.

I swear I have no agenda.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But the Iconic Eidolon is naked!


That's right! So are Droogami and Daji!


Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Seltiyel is really the only overtly sexualized male iconic around. Which you know if people keep shouting balance we need more of. At least two more skimpy fey pretty boys are needed. Preferably in some form of light bondage or distress in 50% of their images.

I swear I have no agenda.

Sajan's abs intimidate you?

251 to 300 of 500 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / New Iconics Desexed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.