A modest request...


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 200 of 244 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

PossibleCabbage wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
I just want to know at what point my magic armor can show off all the hard work I've been doing at the gym.

Since glamered armor can appear like whatever you want it to and still provide all the same protection somehow, you could just put on plate mail and have it look like short shorts.

Going whole hog (ahem) like this is perhaps preferable to trying to make plate mail look like plate mail that also shows off your rad bod.

On that note who's to say all that boobplate isn't glamered?

It's an easy enough enchanment to get.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I don't have too much trouble distinguishing between the Pathfinder Iconics (for example) without this sort of thing.
But would you if they have a helmet and unisex armor? And would you note the iconic and a normal guy next to each other if they wear similar Unisex armor?

Who said anything about similar? Or about adding helmets to everyone? The only two in full plate, for example, are Alain and Seelah. They do not look alike and neither does their armor even ignoring breasts.

They're still really easy to tell apart.

graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, if they introduced a culture where everyone did this (men and women) I'd actually be totally fine with it.
Why would you need a culture? Why couldn't it be a blacksmith/armorer that makes that kind of armor? I mean we have people that buy gold armor and ornamental ones. Why is it SO hard to imagine a style of that kind of armor without a culture behind it.

Because it looks pretty much utterly ridiculous to anyone not from such a culture. Gold armor is also a bit ridiculous, but less overtly absurd looking.

graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
What's weird (and clearly for purposes of titillation) is women everywhere having this sort of thing while no men do anywhere. And that's what I'm objecting to.
Maybe we should petition that the new pathfinder have more nipples on male armor then?

Like I said, I'd prefer to mostly go the other way from an aesthetic perspective, but I wouldn't object to a guy from Iblydos (ie: the Greek-like area) with some nipples on his armor.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
I just want to know at what point my magic armor can show off all the hard work I've been doing at the gym.

Since glamered armor can appear like whatever you want it to and still provide all the same protection somehow, you could just put on plate mail and have it look like short shorts.

Going whole hog (ahem) like this is perhaps preferable to trying to make plate mail look like plate mail that also shows off your rad bod.

On that note who's to say all that boobplate isn't glamered?

It's an easy enough enchanment to get.

Most people aren't gonna make their armor look like weirdly sexualized armor with glamered. They'll just make it look like non-armor clothing.

I'm thus cool with glmaered as an explanation for what Alahazra (the Iconic Oracle) is wearing...less so about what various people actually shown in armor are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:

On that note who's to say all that boobplate isn't glamered?

It's an easy enough enchanment to get.

But like, if you have glamered armor it is every bit as protective no matter how it looks, so anybody who owns it would just experiment with making it look like whatever the coolest thing they can imagine is. I don't know if "it looks like armor and shows off my figure!" is necessarily cooler in the estimation of a character than "It works like armor, but it shows off my figure!".

I guess this can be really confusing to depict visually, though I would say "Lady in a cool dress swordfighting" is a better look than "Lady in absurd armor swordfighting."

But I mean I bought glamered on the plate mail for my current Paladin just so I can always affect the "Librarian" look to go with the glasses, hair bun, and collection of snoods she crochets at night.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because like any talk about versimillitude I kind of just laugh when people pick out the little things like boob plate when you have people wielding hundred pound swords, or hurling themselves into the maws of flat out abominations against the basic laws of physics. And that's the core rulebook.

If you can not take any issues with that but feel like your immersion is broken by some oddly shaped chestplate then the writers and artists are towing a very strange line in which you will occasionally be disappointed. Likely the same line that people get upset about when talking about "longswords".

The point being is that this entire argument is silly and just beating around the actual point.

Which is to say that boob plate makes certain people feel uncomfortable.

If that's the case then, yeah sure, just keep in mind that it's not any argument for vermissiltude or "realism" but something to make a certain part of the playerbase happy.

And even in that case I doubt that would do very much judging by some reactions.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Who said anything about similar?

I did: it's part of telling people apart.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Or about adding helmets to everyone?

Me again!

Deadmanwalking wrote:
The only two in full plate, for example, are Alain and Seelah. They do not look alike and neither does their armor even ignoring breasts.

Quite honestly, the one part of this I have no idea where it came from was iconics. I'm thinking npc #126 from an AP and it's images: You want to show a fully armored character and want to clear who it is, it creates a clear difference.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Because it looks pretty much utterly ridiculous to anyone not from such a culture. Gold armor is also a bit ridiculous, but less overtly absurd looking.

I think the correct question would be 'does it look ridiculous IN GAME?'. Clearly it doesn't as they show up often, so there must be #1 acceptance of it and #2 a source of it. The hoplite armor just illustrates a 'proof of concept' and pathfinder has a HUGE amount of different cultures, races, ect in comparison to earth. In such a enormous melting pot, not seeing how such armor can come into being just seems odd.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Like I said, I'd prefer to mostly go the other way from an aesthetic perspective, but I wouldn't object to a guy from Iblydos (ie: the Greek-like area) with some nipples on his armor.

Cool. I just don't see the need for a specific culture: It could have just been a trend in Andoran noble society that caught on or a copy of some tech armor from Numeria [without the energy shield], or even a vain adventuress' armor equivalent of a padded bra.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Most people aren't gonna make their armor look like weirdly sexualized armor with glamered.

The thing here is how representative are the images in the books to "most people"? If the images are the special, odd, important, ect people, they tend to be more extreme. Also, "weirdly sexualized"? Having an appealing profile doesn't seem odd. I've had people modify robots/power armor to give there armor a feminine look in a sci fi game, so I don't get the issue.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Wild Spirit wrote:
There are no 'plus armors' and 'plus weapons' in PF 2.0.

This is not actually currently true. There most certainly are 'plus weapons' in the playtest. There may also be 'plus armours'. I have no evidence either way on that.

Grand Lodge

Just in case anyone here hasn't seen them...there are a couple videos which are perfect for this topic.

Number 1

Number 2

Number 3

Enjoy :)

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Quite honestly, the one part of this I have no idea where it came from was iconics. I'm thinking npc #126 from an AP and it's images: You want to show a fully armored character and want to clear who it is, it creates a clear difference.

If we're talking Random NPC #126...who cares what gender they are? Distinguishing that is, frankly, not that high a priority.

graystone wrote:
I think the correct question would be 'does it look ridiculous IN GAME?'. Clearly it doesn't as they show up often, so there must be #1 acceptance of it and #2 a source of it. The hoplite armor just illustrates a 'proof of concept' and pathfinder has a HUGE amount of different cultures, races, ect in comparison to earth. In such a enormous melting pot, not seeing how such armor can come into being just seems odd.

Sure. But like I said, it'd be restricted to specific groups. Cultures, warrior societies, whatever, but that's a distinct enough style that it's gonna be mostly restricted to specific groups who reinforce it.

graystone wrote:
Cool. I just don't see the need for a specific culture: It could have just been a trend in Andoran noble society that caught on or a copy of some tech armor from Numeria [without the energy shield], or even a vain adventuress' armor equivalent of a padded bra.

Possible as a one off, sure. But we're talking about the majority of illustrations here, not one specific NPC with a good justification.

graystone wrote:
The thing here is how representative are the images in the books to "most people"? If the images are the special, odd, important, ect people, they tend to be more extreme.

In terms of Iconics and unnamed characters, what we show them wearing becomes, in the minds of all those examining said pictures, the norm for the world. That's just how game art works. And I would prefer that to be relatively non-sexualized (like most real armor) and definitely not sexualized in a gender biased way.

An individual weird NPC is something else entirely, but frankly I'd expect them to appear in a non-armor sexualized outfit in art simply because, as mentioned, Glamered is a thing. And, frankly, even if doing this some gender parity seems a good call.

graystone wrote:
Also, "weirdly sexualized"? Having an appealing profile doesn't seem odd. I've had people modify robots/power armor to give there armor a feminine look in a sci fi game, so I don't get the issue.

It's weirdly sexualized not because all sexualization is weird, but because of the gendered nature of it combined with the degree to which it's unrealistic in most contexts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
it'd be restricted to specific groups.

I just don't see why this would be. I can wander into any market in pathfinder and find a katana, Gnome hooked hammer, Klar or Madu but molded armor is SUPER restricted to a single group? That's not how pathfinder works. If you look at it logically, every town, village and outhouse shouldn't have a cure light wounds potion but every one seems to have a chance for you to buy one.

As to the rest, I'm not saying ALL the images should be of ANY one kind. I'm against removing any style wholesale. I'd rather not every man, woman and child look like they are wearing the exact same style armor, anymore than I'd want to see every image be of all one race, sex or class.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Focusing on the fact that this thread is in the playtest forum, and therefore presuming that this is a specific request for the appearance of artwork in 2e... I am not going to address in detail the general issue of "boobplate" (that discussion should belong in Gamer Talk, where I believe indeed there have been long prior threads on that and similar subjects).

But in respect to both what to expect and what fans may (or may not) ask for, I will note that--with the marked caveat I do not buy every single thing that Paizo publishes, nor memorizes its artwork (I know, I'm a terrible person)--I feel like the artwork in 1e *over time* has gotten better in terms of balancing "pretty/sexy" with "reasonably practical." I feel like, again, over time, the artwork in particular has managed that fine line between "sexy" and "sexualized," which are very, very different things. I love "sexy" (DeathQuaker has declared her love of boobies many times in this forum and does not need to wax poetic upon it again), and do not think people hate women or other genders for liking "sexy." I do have many concerns with "sexualized" and sexualized artwork (of women or other genders) tends to ring alarm bells when I see it. My (singular, anecdotal) experience is that those bells have rung a lot less frequently than they used to when I look at Paizo's artwork. And I definitely don't recall lately seeing anything along the lines of chain bikinis or boobplate of the type that usually causes several different kinds of viewers to look askance if not irritated at for a variety of reasons. I won't say never, but less frequently, and definitely, say, over the last three-five years or so.

(I am not including the comics in this analysis, because I presume that's in the wheelhouse of the comic book publisher, not of Paizo.)

SO: it seems to me (within the considerable limits of my personal experience) like Paizo has, over time, begun instructing artists carefully about reasonable sexiness vs practicality issues in their artwork and have been more selective in what they publish.

FURTHERMORE: looking at the sample pencil-sketch artwork in the Paizo blog, it seems at least, bearing in mind the limited amount, they are continuing in that vein. Most notably, where Merisiel in 1e has a bit of a boob window in her usual artwork, the draft-Merisiel in the rogue preview has a leather strap where that used to be. The other characters depicted likewise in other previews seem to be mostly modest and definitely reasonable (to me) in fantasy art. The dwarf in the elf/dwarf preview is showing off some decolletage (which I have no concern with) but her overall outfit looks reasonable (looks like a cloth or leather outfit, covers most of the body; it's definitely not "boobplate"). So at least with what we've seen so far, it looks to me like they are trending toward pretty-but-reasonably-practical. I indeed really like the aesthetic we've seen in the new artwork so far.

So, if my observations are more or less correct (I'm willing to ignore a rare exception), then my feedback to Paizo is firstly, thanks for establishing this trend over the last few years, and please continue to do what you have already been doing more recently with regards to artwork. (Certainly doesn't seem to be hurting you any, and I'm not sure even that many people noticed, or there wouldn't even be this thread.)

Secondly, since the earliest 1e artwork is indeed the iconic artwork and sadly that IS where we have some of the most glaringly memorable examples of some impractical armor, AND given we see iconics the most often, I hope you particularly do some redesigns for your iconics. Given what we've seen with Merisiel and Valeros, I hope that's a sign that's already in the works. Looking forward to seeing more!


DeathQuaker wrote:


(I am not including the comics in this analysis, because I presume that's in the wheelhouse of the comic book publisher, not of Paizo.)

from what I've seen and read Merisiel's girlfriend would be happier if she show'd her taut midriff more than her chest.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I just don't see why this would be. I can wander into any market in pathfinder and find a katana, Gnome hooked hammer, Klar or Madu but molded armor is SUPER restricted to a single group? That's not how pathfinder works.

This is technically true mechanically, but they certainly aren't all equally common even if all are available. How many people use any of the items you list in art? The answer is not very many. They are uncommon. And yet for some reason almost every female character has this odd armor style...

Having a particular Iconic (like, say, an ex Grey Maiden) with such armor would be acceptable (especially in combination with the male version from Iblydos I mentioned previously). But practically everyone? No. That's not realistic or reasonable, is included purely for titillation, and makes a significant number of gamers uncomfortable.

graystone wrote:
If you look at it logically, every town, village and outhouse shouldn't have a cure light wounds potion but every one seems to have a chance for you to buy one.

A 3rd level Cleric can make them relatively cheaply and they're life savingly useful. Why wouldn't Potions of CLW be common? By the rules just about every community of more than 20 people probably has a 3rd level Cleric among them, so it'd be a lot weirder if they weren't common.

graystone wrote:
As to the rest, I'm not saying ALL the images should be of ANY one kind. I'm against removing any style wholesale. I'd rather not every man, woman and child look like they are wearing the exact same style armor, anymore than I'd want to see every image be of all one race, sex or class.

Sure, but a few styles of armor that make many people who play the game uncomfortable being minimized or even removed seems like a perfectly reasonable idea that doesn't result in this at all.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
A Modest Request...

...whew, for a minute I thought this was going to be a Johnathan Swift-style thread about how to end all the rules debates by selling the Playetsters to the PF2 Designers for food...


ENHenry wrote:
Quote:
A Modest Request...
...whew, for a minute I thought this was going to be a Johnathan Swift-style thread about how to end all the rules debates by selling the Playetsters to the PF2 Designers for food...

Well one or two of them won't exactly hurt sales...


Deadmanwalking wrote:


graystone wrote:
If you look at it logically, every town, village and outhouse shouldn't have a cure light wounds potion but every one seems to have a chance for you to buy one.
A 3rd level Cleric can make them relatively cheaply and they're life savingly useful. Why wouldn't Potions of CLW be common? By the rules just about every community of more than 20 people probably has a 3rd level Cleric among them, so it'd be a lot weirder if they weren't common.

Source for this please, because I HIGHLY doubt 1/20 people in Golarion is an adventurer, let alone a level 3 Cleric WITH Brew Potion.

In a small village of 20 or so people, I'd expect to find one or two characters with PC class levels AT MOST, unless the plot demands that the heroes are in town.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is technically true mechanically, but they certainly aren't all equally common even if all are available. How many people use any of the items you list in art? The answer is not very many. They are uncommon. And yet for some reason almost every female character has this odd armor style...

But that wasn't the issue: we were talking about NEEDING a specific culture for the armor to be around: if it's ANYWHERE then pathfinder allows it to be everywhere: common? that was never an issue.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
But practically everyone?

Who asked for everyone?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
is included purely for titillation

Don't agree.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
makes a significant number of gamers uncomfortable.

I don't know that a significant number are. Do we have numbers on that?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
A 3rd level Cleric can make them relatively cheaply and they're life savingly useful.

And a 1st level expert could create molded armor and it's useful/life saving... it's a matter of style/preference on what aesthetic you pick. If someone wants it, is that bad?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Sure, but a few styles of armor that make many people who play the game uncomfortable being minimized or even removed seems like a perfectly reasonable idea that doesn't result in this at all.

Goblins as PC's can bother people. Having a game with devils and demons can bother some people. Having a Book of the Damned can bother people. It's down to a numbers game: how many people does it attract vs how many does it repel vs how many don't care.

I don't know that there is any evidence that it's more of a con than a pro or that a "significant" number of people are uncomfortable about it. I hear some 'rabble, rabble, rabble' but it seems that more people cared about goblins being in the game and we seem to be getting them.


thflame wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


graystone wrote:
If you look at it logically, every town, village and outhouse shouldn't have a cure light wounds potion but every one seems to have a chance for you to buy one.
A 3rd level Cleric can make them relatively cheaply and they're life savingly useful. Why wouldn't Potions of CLW be common? By the rules just about every community of more than 20 people probably has a 3rd level Cleric among them, so it'd be a lot weirder if they weren't common.

Source for this please, because I HIGHLY doubt 1/20 people in Golarion is an adventurer, let alone a level 3 Cleric WITH Brew Potion.

In a small village of 20 or so people, I'd expect to find one or two characters with PC class levels AT MOST, unless the plot demands that the heroes are in town.

The settlement rules.

Hamlets have between 21-60 people. They have about 1d6 magical items available "for purchase" which is to say more may exist but that's what's considered expendable enough to be on sale.

There is a very detailed blog post Explaining how, within the rules, peasants can easily afford to have a potion in case of emergencies.

A hamlet also has magic for hire up to 2nd level spells. Meaning, said spellcaster will easily be 3rd level plus. And a for profit spellcaster could easily take up manufacturing potions as a way to profit from a group of non-casters who can't use say scrolls or wands or have the money to afford wondrous items.

That's a hamlet, btw. A village is much larger and has greater magical ability.


TarkXT wrote:
The settlement rules.

Yep. It's those rules that say in ANY grouping of 1-20, a Thorpe, has a 75% chance of finding a "katana, Gnome hooked hammer, Klar or Madu" "with little effort"... Same with 0-1 level potions.


graystone wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
The settlement rules.
Yep. It's those rules that say in ANY grouping of 1-20, a Thorpe, has a 75% chance of finding a "katana, Gnome hooked hammer, Klar or Madu" "with little effort"... Same with 0-1 level potions.

I think some leeway has to be allowed based on location. A village at the edge of the mana wastes probably has very good reasons not to have any magic items. But greater chances at having guns.


TarkXT wrote:
graystone wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
The settlement rules.
Yep. It's those rules that say in ANY grouping of 1-20, a Thorpe, has a 75% chance of finding a "katana, Gnome hooked hammer, Klar or Madu" "with little effort"... Same with 0-1 level potions.
I think some leeway has to be allowed based on location. A village at the edge of the mana wastes probably has very good reasons not to have any magic items. But greater chances at having guns.

There isn't any built in. In fact, if an item roll is failed, you just have to wait a week to retry: eventually that lone hermit in the mana waste gets his hands on a katana to sell to you...

Now I agree it would make sense to add in modifiers for location but that left up to the individual DM's as the default doesn't have it.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Its a fantasy setting. Boob plate armor is not a big deal to me. Its just a way to tell there are women in the game. Most women passed as young boys in medieval warfare by cutting their hair short and wearing bulky men's clothing. There was an account in the third crusade where Saladin was shocked to learn that a female archer was captured and that she had killed several of his men with her longbow. He had her executed along with the Templar knights who were never ransomed back.
Just do me a favor, if you do allow boob plate please make it so that it actually covers the midsection and other areas. If you want a sexy or less cumbersome outfit, create a set called gladiator armor, make it medium armor with a +3 to AC and give it a max dex bonus of 5 so that any person, male or female can fight well enough in the near buff without drawing too much fire for being in skimpy armor. This armor would also cover the "chainmail bikini motif" that sporadically appears in fantasy as well.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
But that wasn't the issue: we were talking about NEEDING a specific culture for the armor to be around: if it's ANYWHERE then pathfinder allows it to be everywhere: common? that was never an issue.

No, that's precisely the issue. Because we're talking about art and what it conveys about the world, and art that comes up a lot, like Iconics or the styles used by random NPCs, define what is common in the world.

I couldn't care less if a particular PC wants to buy such armor. I care if the art normalizes such armor.

graystone wrote:
I don't know that a significant number are. Do we have numbers on that?

Specific numbers? No. A lot of people who've commented on this issue over the years? God yes.

graystone wrote:
And a 1st level expert could create molded armor and it's useful/life saving... it's a matter of style/preference on what aesthetic you pick. If someone wants it, is that bad?

You seem to be conflating me asking that they not make this a trend in art with it not existing in-world. These things are not equivalent.

graystone wrote:
Goblins as PC's can bother people. Having a game with devils and demons can bother some people. Having a Book of the Damned can bother people. It's down to a numbers game: how many people does it attract vs how many does it repel vs how many don't care.

It's not strictly a numbers game. It's also about why it bothers people. People find goblins annoying, but almost nobody feels traumatized or excluded from the game because they remind them of real world issues that cause them real problems. All things that bring up real world issues certainly shouldn't be removed, but something like a particular art choice that doesn't add anything to the story and brings up unpleasantness? Yeah, that should probably be removed.

graystone wrote:
I don't know that there is any evidence that it's more of a con than a pro or that a "significant" number of people are uncomfortable about it. I hear some 'rabble, rabble, rabble' but it seems that more people cared about goblins being in the game and we seem to be getting them.

Actually, no. People were very loud on the goblin thing, but only a few seemed to actually post on it much. They (we, if you include both sides) just posted a lot. Meanwhile, this is an issue I've seen many times over the years posted on by lots of people.

And even if more people are talking about the goblin thing, it runs smack into the 'why' aspect I mention above.

thflame wrote:

Source for this please, because I HIGHLY doubt 1/20 people in Golarion is an adventurer, let alone a level 3 Cleric WITH Brew Potion.

In a small village of 20 or so people, I'd expect to find one or two characters with PC class levels AT MOST, unless the plot demands that the heroes are in town.

I actually said 'over 20' and as noted, the Settlement Rules say as much. Indeed, I once did a Level Demographics analysis that matches up with published settlements and the like pretty well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Can we also do away with form-fitting butt armor?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Anguish wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
When you’re drawing women, don’t aim for the way you think men want to see them. Draw them the way they want to be seen.

Well, see, that's the interesting thing. Most women, like most men, want to be seen to be attractive. Most of the time for women that means accentuating secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, hips) because that's what most men find attractive. Most of the time for men that means accentuating masculinity-associated traits, which most of the time means musculature. Before the Exceptional Brigade arrives, I'd like to append a few bonus mosts. Most most most most.

I'm just a little too Cro-Magnon to be entirely sure if the recent upward trend in suggestions that art depicting demographically statistically typical attractive people in alluring but not overtly sexual ways should be avoided is enlightened or if there's more individual-based psychology at work. Good luck unpacking that sentence; I'd be more clear if I didn't feel the need to preemptively anticipate attacks.

You replied to me, but I don't see the relevance. (There was some context cut from what you quoted - that comment was in response to the rejoinder: "Boobplate makes women feel uncomfortable. But it's realistic/common/standard/appeals-to-a-large-section-of-the-market!")

There isn't any "should" when it comes to aesthetic tastes - we all like different things and there's no moral judgement on people liking different things. Should/shouldn't is an ethical question and my contention was that whether a particular depiction is "historically accurate" is irrelevant to the ethical question of whether it should be included (as is whether it will sell well).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I care if the art normalizes such armor.

I for one don't. I'm perfectly fine with it being one of the styles in the game. That, however, wasn't what I was talking about.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Specific numbers? No. A lot of people who've commented on this issue over the years? God yes.

And? I've seen WAY more paladin and alignment issues over the years and they are still in the game... I've NEVER had a table flipped over a image in the game but I have with a paladin.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
You seem to be conflating me asking that they not make this a trend in art with it not existing in-world. These things are not equivalent.

IMO, it's YOU that's conflating them being in world with their being a trend...

Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's not strictly a numbers game.

As a business? I think it's a large factor.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
All things that bring up real world issues certainly shouldn't be removed, but something like a particular art choice that doesn't add anything to the story and brings up unpleasantness?

The thing is, the people that are playing the game and the people most likely to play the game have managed to work with it up to this point. If you look at video games, comics, movies, ect it's not uncommon. What about it HERE makes it more offensive/upsetting than the countless other places there it exists and the products do well? You have to look no further than wonder woman and how big a hit it was. If they want to bring in new people, why would they shy away from successful images like wonder woman?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Actually, no. People were very loud on the goblin thing, but only a few seemed to actually post on it much.

Lets say I agree. Isn't THAT the same thing here? how many discrete people with issues can you identify? How do you know they to aren't 'very loud' and "actually post on it much"?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Meanwhile, this is an issue I've seen many times over the years posted on by lots of people.

I think the sheer amount of paladin threads dwarfs the posters on this. Or alignment...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ENHenry wrote:
Quote:
A Modest Request...
...whew, for a minute I thought this was going to be a Johnathan Swift-style thread about how to end all the rules debates by selling the Playetsters to the PF2 Designers for food...

Nah, that would have been 'A Modest Proposal', and it'd start with those arguing both sides of the paladin issue. That's a *joke*, folks!

There's some interesting things here, but the thing I really found disturbing in the discussion thus far was being labled a(n) SJW because the aesthetics and practicality are what were bothering me, and as a couple of people of stated the 'appeal to sexy' is very much an immersion-killing sort of thing.

It is possible have attractive art without emphasizing structural weak points in an armor set.

It's my *hope* that this will be considered in future designs.

As far as 'sexing it up'?

Someone else in this thread said 'equal opportunity sexiness' and yes, if things are going to be emphasized for one subset of characters, then EVERYONE should benefit from the same treatment.

This may have some unintended consequences, and we may end up looking at PF3 going "So, uh, no codplates, please!"

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I for one don't. I'm perfectly fine with it being one of the styles in the game. That, however, wasn't what I was talking about.

It's what I'm talking about and always has been.

graystone wrote:
And? I've seen WAY more paladin and alignment issues over the years and they are still in the game... I've NEVER had a table flipped over a image in the game but I have with a paladin.

Okay. Unfortunately the plural of anecdote isn't data. I've heard a bunch of anecdotes of women being made deeply uncomfortable by game art (far fewer in regards to Paizo than some others, mind you).

graystone wrote:
IMO, it's YOU that's conflating them being in world with their being a trend...

Uh...no?

graystone wrote:
As a business? I think it's a large factor.

Numbers are a factor, certainly. I'm just saying they aren't the only factor.

graystone wrote:
The thing is, the people that are playing the game and the people most likely to play the game have managed to work with it up to this point. If you look at video games, comics, movies, ect it's not uncommon. What about it HERE makes it more offensive/upsetting than the countless other places there it exists and the products do well? You have to look no further than wonder woman and how big a hit it was. If they want to bring in new people, why would they shy away from successful images like wonder woman?

You'll find that a lot of people do, in fact, have huge issues with all the tings you just listed and comment on this issue in regards to them as well. In fact, it's a major ongoing social trend.

graystone wrote:
Lets say I agree. Isn't THAT the same thing here? how many discrete people with issues can you identify? How do you know they to aren't 'very loud' and "actually post on it much"?

I can do a search and find dozens of threads on this and similar issues over the years. Most with a variety of people talking about the issue. The same is not true of goblins as a PC option in core (though that's inevitably partially because it hasn't been brought up before).

graystone wrote:
I think the sheer amount of paladin threads dwarfs the posters on this. Or alignment...

Paladin and Alignment threads do indeed dwarf this issue. If there were any consensus something could perhaps be done about that but there really, really, isn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I got two female friend who joins our table like 2 years ago. We are between 3 and 5 players and me as DM depending on the sessions and calendars. Two girls four men counting me in.

One of them is coming from an art school and is a professional drawer. The other one is in graphic designs and web developpement. One of the main reason that made them interested by Pathfinder was the artworks of WR and the fact that the female warriors and the like were “hot and badass”. And since then they almost always got bikini chain mail or leather SM armor suit. And of course we, the men, never complained.

So I really don’t know what to think about that. Because I got that grumpy grandpa inside of me that is tough on all news ideas in Pathfinder, like GOBLINS!!! And I like my chain mail bikinis on my players and my NPCs. Because it is indeed hot, and as the common (ok I don’t want to upset someone here when I say common I mean for me and my entourage) representation of hotness is light clothing or tight clothing for the females with a great body, and overly muscular guys with a three days beard, I don’t particularly want that to change.

On the other hand I do like the fact that women are better heard and represented these last years. And that RPG is a media like all the other ones. And that this picture of the “hot” woman as an ideal as to go away if we all want to live better lives together. And that theses drawings can hurt some people. So it is a tough call.

But at is has been said, I think that Paizo is doing a great job satisfying all peoples. Because we got some serious art of women in full plates who don’t jokes around at all. And we got some other ones who are more from the fiction part that the medieval one.

As always middle ground is probably the best solution.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

When I play a PC or NPC dressed for combat, the character isn't dressed to emphasize or exaggerate their physical sexual characteristics. They are dressed to be competent and well-protected. They don't eschew their sexuality, but they damn well know that it's difficult to be sexy when you're maimed, dying, or a friggin' corpse. Dress appropriately for the job at hand seems a reasonable sound strategy.

Likewise, opponents of at least moderate intelligence aren't going to be distracted by frivolous flair like boob plate or stiletto boots or bare midriffs. If combat is inevitable, they are going to try take the PCs down as quickly and effectively as possible. Stopping to admire the view just gets them captured or dead.

As a woman, an RPG player, and a GM, I want a game company and their respective products to make an effort to treat me as an equal to any male player or GM. Art that unnecessarily sexualizes women characters tells me that the company does not see me as an equal. Art that focuses on treating women characters as objects for the hetero male gaze tells me that the company does not see me as an equal. And if the company sees me that way, it normalizes unequal treatment from male players and male GMs in the gaming community. Even women in the community can internalize this way of thinking.

I'm totally fine with women PCs, iconics, and NPCs dressing sexy or being nude when it's appropriate for the scene or mini-mission, during downtime, etc. I like women characters owning their sexuality. I imagine I'm far from the only woman who feels this way. If a game company wants to draw in new women players and keep the ones they have, then making the women characters appealing to women players/GMs by default is just common sense. I'm not saying some women characters can't dress impractically or pose provocatively if there are good in-character reasons for it, but please let them be the exceptions to the norm. I too think Paizo has worked very hard to break from the limited, noninclusive depictions of women (and those of many minorities) in other companies' products, and I think these efforts are a major part of Paizo's continued success.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
When I play a PC or NPC dressed for combat, the character isn't dressed to emphasize or exaggerate their physical sexual characteristics. They are dressed to be competent and well-protected. They don't eschew their sexuality, but they damn well know that it's difficult to be sexy when you're maimed, dying, or a friggin' corpse. Dress appropriately for the job at hand seems a reasonable sound strategy.

That may be your approach, but my character, who's a front-line fighter (Swashbuckler, technically) and my definition of "the sexy male" fought through literal Hell wearing nothing but an albino Crocodile skin pimp coat, breeches, and some exceptionally fashionable boots, just so the devils could admire his awesome abs while he stabbed them, and it was glorious.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am locking this thread. I have removed the most egregious posts and will be cleaning the thread up when I get into the office tomorrow.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

8 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of posts have been removed and we are still combing through the thread. I am tentatively unlocking it.

There are a few things to mention here. First is please discuss without attacking. I know I sound like a broken record saying this in every thread I remove posts from but it really feels like it is not being heard. A topic can be discussed without making personal attacks against other posters. Baiting remarks, snide remarks, sarcastic remarks, insulting remarks, and bickering are not clever and don't advance the discussion. They only serve to devalue the topic and those participating in it.

It's important to remember that an experience you or I have does not reflect the experiences of everyone. We all go through our lives with our own sets of social, cultural, religious, regional, identity, orientation, and representational norms. If something isn't an issue to you that doesn't mean it can't be an issue to someone else. Please respect that other people have different life experiences.

If someone hasn't expressed discomfort with something it doesn't mean they are comfortable with it. There are a variety of reasons a woman at a gaming table may not say anything about the sexualization of characters. It could be that it is not an issue to them. It could be that they're not comfortable saying something. It could be any number of other reasons. Don't assume a person's motives.

Do not use SJW or it's variations as a pejorative. It is most commonly used as a means of dismissing or degrading someone you don't agree with. Using it could get your post removed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


...please ban 'boob plates' for all armor and clothing (unless it's some sort of fancy gown/dress).

Thank you.

Also any armor that leaves your vital organs exposed is not armor. So no more plunging necklines, exposed cleavage or bare midriff armor. It's just silly. "Oh yeah, I'm going to put armor on my limbs but leave nice big openings where my heart, lungs, liver, kidneys etc are. This is a good plan and will totally not get me killed."

I don't mind as much when it's just clothing. But armor has a purpose.

Except in the Mythus RPG from Gary Gygax where the odds of targeted hits were such that the optimal choice was to put heavy armor on your limbs and nothing on the rest of your body ;-D


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In an attempt to respond to the concepts of the thread in a fashion that will not give Diego more work:

When I look at art in RPGs, in part I am doing so to find inspiration for how my characters might look in the milieu of the game.
Artwork where the character's ability to do their thing is being hampered by overly sexualised costume is something that I dislike as it fails to achieve the desired result of 'good example for my characters".
One trend that really annoys me is armour with high heels in it. Another, Paizo specific is an image in the Armor Master's Handbook of Seltiyel in "heavy armor", but still bare chested.
So, insofar as it is possible within the PF house art style, I (and I would assume the OP) are asking that 'practicality', or 'realism' in costume is not sacrificed on the altar of making characters look sexually attractive/available purely for reasons of titillation.


Remy P Gilbeau wrote:
...but my character, who's a front-line fighter (Swashbuckler, technically) and my definition of "the sexy male" fought through literal Hell wearing nothing but an albino Crocodile skin pimp coat, breeches, and some exceptionally fashionable boots, just so the devils could admire his awesome abs while he stabbed them, and it was glorious.

(^_')=b


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Practical, impractical, showy, covering, elaborate, simple, fantastic, or mundane. Be it a ruler's regalia, or a beggar's tatters, I want it all. A desire that makes one easy to please, but hard to fulfill.
Which means that any way the wind blows, it doesn't really matter. Easy come, easy go. It's really up to Paizo and their artists as to whether or not the fat bottomed girls bite the dust. I won't deny that seeing them pass by like Lady Godiva entertains me, but the dev's shouldn't feel like they're under pressure to please anyone. Follow your hearts, Paizo, because the show must go on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neriathale wrote:
... Another, Paizo specific is an image in the Armor Master's Handbook of Seltiyel in "heavy armor", but still bare chested.

I do agree with you that "bare-chested heavy armour" is...impractical.

However, it does fit Seltyiel's aesthetic, & I'm OK with that!
No bias here! ;-p

But on another character... Er, I guess it'd depend, even though it is silly?
(Although I'm sure one of Remy P Gilbeau's characters could totally rock it!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in the anti-boob plate camp, but don't think reasons really need to be elaborated on more than others already have. I will say that I like to be able to read a Pathfinder book in public without other people thinking I'm looking at softcore porn. While the cover art largely manages to walk that line, some of the early stuff in particular is pretty on the border.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


I'm thus cool with glmaered as an explanation for what Alahazra (the Iconic Oracle) is wearing...less so about what various people actually shown in armor are.

I didn't know Alahazra was supposed to be wearing armor... Man, that is silly. This seems like an especially unfortunate example because if they had just given her another mystery she could have just had magical spirit forcefields acting as armor but keeping her outfit unchanged. I nearly changed Nualia to an Oracle for similar reasons; that breast plate has waaaay too much tum tum showing for me to consider it a breastplate. Though it would be funny to see it on a male PC who loots her I guess. (Nualia actually had a reason to expose her midriff too, which is fine, I just wish she had some sort of magical armor instead.)


SteelGuts wrote:
One of them is coming from an art school and is a professional drawer. The other one is in graphic designs and web developpement. One of the main reason that made them interested by Pathfinder was the artworks of WR and the fact that the female warriors and the like were “hot and badass”. And since then they almost always got bikini chain mail or leather SM armor suit. And of course we, the men, never complained.

This has been my experience too. We've had several women in our physical game and the only ones that have said anything about this kind of art have done so in a positive way. One specifically joined the game because of the kind of artwork that she saw in the books. [she liked to sexy casters/rogues]

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
I didn't know Alahazra was supposed to be wearing armor... Man, that is silly.

She's not, it was just an example.

Captain Morgan wrote:
This seems like an especially unfortunate example because if they had just given her another mystery she could have just had magical spirit forcefields acting as armor but keeping her outfit unchanged.

In her PFS stats she actually manages via UMD and a Wand of Mage Armor, but yeah it's unfortunate things didn't quite work out in terms of her having a Revelation available to count as armor.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I nearly changed Nualia to an Oracle for similar reasons; that breast plate has waaaay too much tum tum showing for me to consider it a breastplate. Though it would be funny to see it on a male PC who loots her I guess. (Nualia actually had a reason to expose her midriff too, which is fine, I just wish she had some sort of magical armor instead.)

This sort of change would be nice, yeah.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I can comfortably be placed in the "don't ban" camp, but I've had this convo so many times across so many different forums I'm just going to let past!me do the explaining for me.

past!Neurophage wrote:
I love the armor designs across Dark Souls, especially the Elite Knight set from Dark Souls I and the Alva Set from Dark Souls II but I also love the character designs from Granblue Fantasy. I also don't turn my nose up at bikini armor. Granted, I tend to imagine most of my games looking like JRPGs anyway, but I also want my characters (and my players' characters) to look how I (and they) want them to look, whether that's knight's armor accurate to Earth's history or a few articles of leg and shoulder armor with a thong bikini. I welcome it all with open arms.
past! Neurophage from another board wrote:
If you're a legendary hero who's a breaker of armies, slayer of ancient dragons and world-wrecker known by all, it doesn't matter if your combat attire of choice is the same armor you've worn your entire career, gigantic WoW armor with xboxhueg pauldrons, an overcoat with armor on one arm, a g-string or a loincloth. You and your gear may as well be made of magic. The only requirement that I ever have is that, no matter how it's shaped or how much of the body it covers, a person's attire should make a statement about them. Some element of its design, be it its decoration, color scheme or something else, should be indicative or thematically consistent with the person wearing it.

I want equal representation for all levels of coverage of all armor types across all peoples. Ripped beefcakes with chiseled jaws, fine-featured and slender ne'er-do-wells, stout and stoic defenders, powerfully-built warrior queens, curvy sorceresses and svelte spell-fencers. All manners of dress from more plating than a bank vault to as little as can be gotten away with. My palette might not be all-encompassing, but the people deserve the full buffet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I didn't know Alahazra was supposed to be wearing armor... Man, that is silly.

She's not, it was just an example.

Her stat blocks actually lists her wearing studded leather.

http://www.pathfindercommunity.net/iconic-characters/alhazara---iconic-orac le/alahazra-iconic-oracle-12

http://www.pathfindercommunity.net/iconic-characters/alhazara---iconic-orac le/alahazra-iconic-oracle-1

And it isn't even like she's got armor that exposes improbable amount of skin. Her clothing just looks like normal cloth.

Contributing Artist

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote wrote:
I didn't know Alahazra was supposed to be wearing armor... Man, that is silly.

Alhazra isn't wearing armour because the art description at the time didn't mention that she was wearing armour.

It wasn't until years later when I discovered her characters stats included armour.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wayne Reynolds wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote wrote:
I didn't know Alahazra was supposed to be wearing armor... Man, that is silly.
Alhazra isn't wearing armour because the art description at the time didn't mention that she was wearing armour.

Ah.

Also, hi Wayne! *waves*


That makes sense.

151 to 200 of 244 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / A modest request... All Messageboards