D&D 5E D&D Next weekly art column!

[Libramarian]

I'm not sure why you think that feminists on the internet are typically male, but otherwise yeah. This is why it's great that there are entire online communities of women gamers, feminist or otherwise, who write heaps of blogs on these topics, many of whom I bet would be happy to offer their perspective if their input was more directly solicited.

I mean feminists on the internet who are participating in discussions about D&D.

I have my own "is this sexist?" question.

A thing I noticed about the three 4e PHB covers, is they all have the same visual composition: two characters posing side by side, facing the viewer. The one on the left is a woman (where the bride traditionally stands during a wedding). The one on the right (where the groom traditionally stands) is a monster race. On every cover.

The fact that the women are all showing cleavage and/or a bare midriff I'm sure has already been discussed as being possibly sexist.

But how about the fact that the "men" are all freaky-looking monsters. Is THAT sexist?

 

[Kaodi]

Again, not exclusively. Heroic characters should look heroic, and characters who ARE about sexual allure (Succubi, possibly a Sorcerer who uses Enchantment magic, a Bard who trains as a courtesan, creatures that are all about beauty like lillendi, the goddess of love, etc.) can be sexual. They should also be of a host of genders and gender identities, of course.

Just a small nitpick here: Is being about beauty really the same thing as being about sex? In theory, I think it should be possible to have a painting of a completely nude nymph where the nymph is not attempting to give off the sexual vibe.

Hell, I think it could almost be issued as a challenge: give us a portrayal of an intensely beautiful and yet non-sexual nymph in 5e.

 

[Incenjucar]

But how about the fact that the "men" are all freaky-looking monsters. Is THAT sexist?

I'd say it's probably partly the result of sexism, though I'm not going to guess at the motives of the artists or their directors.

This is actually a very visible thing in our culture, especially in fantasy. Men can be brutish and ugly, especially if they are powerful, but women are usually depicted as classically attractive. You see this in sitcoms with the overweight, homely jerk with the hot wife, and WoW has some pretty famous examples with trolls (female trolls used to be stooped!) and in general WoW males are much more monstrous-looking than the females. Interestingly, much of the pressure to do this comes from women! The same occurs with the dragonboobs thing. There's a whole bunch of complex topics wrapped up in this, but a lot of it, I think, revolves around what men are defined by (power) and what women are defined by (appearance). This is a major issue in the workplace, too, where a man's attractiveness doesn't really matter, but a woman's attractiveness can make or break her career opportunities.

This Wired article goes into the topic with lots of detail (Warning! NSFW): Sexual Dimorphism in World of Warcraft | Underwire | Wired.com (be careful about the links... my Chrome browser claims they contain malware)

 

[tuxgeo]

I mean feminists on the internet who are participating in discussions about D&D.

I have my own "is this sexist?" question.

A thing I noticed about the three 4e PHB covers, is they all have the same visual composition: two characters posing side by side, facing the viewer. The one on the left is a woman (where the bride traditionally stands during a wedding). The one on the right (where the groom traditionally stands) is a monster race. On every cover.

The fact that the women are all showing cleavage and/or a bare midriff I'm sure has already been discussed as being possibly sexist.

But how about the fact that the "men" are all freaky-looking monsters. Is THAT sexist?

Could it be a case of "Beauty And The Beast" three-dux?
(That's supposed to be "redux" with one more item added. Really a stretch, I admit.)

 

[B.T.]

Discussions about sexism are pointless. They typically go 'round and 'round with people bickering about what the definition of sexism is, which is perhaps only slightly more useless than quarreling about the definition of "is." Given that everyone has a different conception of what constitutes sexism (or unacceptable levels of sexism), debating such is a waste of time and energy.

Here are what is important to me in RPG artwork.

1. Minimal sexuality. If I want to show the books to people in my family, I should be able to without my mom thinking I'm a sex addict. If I want to show the books to people in my church, I should be able to without eliciting gasps. If I want to show the books to strangers, I should be able to without wondering if they're going to think I'm some kind of fetishist.

I don't want bulging breasts and low-cut tops and oiled bodies and lusty gazes. Not interested. I'm not a horny adolescent, and I'd like the art in my game to reflect this. This is what I'm looking for. This is just shameful.

2. Adventurers who dress like adventurers. This goes hand-in-hand with the first point, but it extends further: just as I don't want female characters to be wearing bikinis in the dungeon, I don't want the men to be wearing hundreds of pounds of armor with massive goddamn pauldrons. Equipment should be a matter of practicality, not a matter of looking awesome. (Though armor can still look awesome.) This is good (even if I don't like Elmore). This is awful.

Likewise, adventurers should look like adventurers. Statueesque beauties are stupid, especially if you go full Jim Lee.

3. Action. Less posing shots, more shots with movement. I want to see heroes fighting, not standing around. This, not this.

Outside of that, have at it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, I'm talking about the folks that accuse me, because I'm a fit 50 yo white male, not to have any sensitivity to gender, racial or ability concerns. Some folks assume that my sex and race determine who I am. Doesn't that just foster the stereotype of the 50 yo white male? See, we can all be sexist, racist, ageist so easily - when we are busy looking at the impact of the world on ourselves, rather than our impact on the world.

On this, you want to be very careful. There is an immense difference between someone who thinks you might be insensitive, and you publishing a D&D book with stripperrific ladies. It's a power dynamic -- you being accused of being insensitive doesn't hurt you that much, socially (among other things, you have a chance to prove your innocence, and a platform willing to hear it). A fourteen year old hispanic girl picking up her first PHB and seeing, well, that PHB cover, has already been told in a hundred different ways that she should be a pale-skinned sex object to boys. And then D&D tells her that, too. There's not much of a chance to be something else. Society has a place for 50 year old white men who struggle to overcome bias. Society has a much smaller, less secure place for fourteen year old hispanic girls who struggle with body image issues. Your position probably won't lead you to depression, eating disorders, and self-loathing, for one. Hers might.

All that is just to say what Uncle Ben said much better: with great power, comes great responsibility. You're a 50 year old white man who directs the art on one of the biggest brands in fantasy. You're at least middle class, you live in the developed world, you probably heave health insurance, a savings account, a modest retirement fund, possibly a family. You have great power. If you don't use it responsibly, people will get hurt. Maybe in ways you can't readily see, and that are only to the smallest degree something you can affect, but you won't be doing anyone any favors with it.

At the very least, you'll have a situation where my stridently race-and-gender-aware and slightly dorky girlfriend isn't interested in D&D because it continues to be a thinly veiled white middle-class adolescent male power fantasy, and leave me try to overcome things like the 4e PHB cover.

I've gotta say, though, much of 4e art is OK. Certainly, we've come a long way since the OD&D illos of the Amazon. But the cover isn't OK, and I have my suspicions that the cause of that is more about the marketing team then anything else -- but all you have to do is look at nearly any advertisement and see that the marketing world is a haven of sexism, still. Don't take their advice!

 

[beta-ray]

With partially digested adventurer and all? Brilliant.

Hey you're also in Honolulu!

*hides*

 

[beta-ray]

I love images of sexy and busty women. I admit it.

That being said, I also like variety. Do I mind a sexy busty woman in a D&D book, you could guess correctly that I would say NO. However, should all of them be depicted that way? Probably not (although if there was an art book that specialized in that, I don't mind). I'd like to see thin, bulky, attractive, unattractive, monsterous, gorgeous women depicted in D&D. Same for the men. Yes, I think most of the characters should look heroic. However, I also like to see non-heroic figures too. Not only villains, but perhaps someone who isn't built like a body builder trying to be heroic.

Also, I just want the art to look "good". Defining that is very hard though.

 

[GX.Sigma]

But how about the fact that the "men" are all freaky-looking monsters. Is THAT sexist?

All but one of the women are freaky looking monsters too. Is it sexist that you didn't notice that?

 

[Yora]

I would be turned off by art if it felt contrivedly sexualized. But then I'm also turned off if the art feels like it's trying to push some kind of sociopolitical agenda.

Me too. Which is why I was quite vocal in my opposition to have fixed quotas that show people in RPG-Books that conform to the demographics of the United States.