D&D 5E 5th edition artists need to watch Legend of Korra

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mercule

Adventurer
But WHY does D&D have to be Eurocentric?
Because D&D is Eurocentric(ish). Asking why is a bit like asking why Legend of the Five Rings has an Asian feel. D&D has become big enough that there's room for expansion, but they don't make up the core.

As far as the original picture goes, I dislike the style (too much white space, too cartoony). But, I don't mind the body shape of the woman shown. I don't mind a bit of beefcake/cheesecake -- like it or not, the "swords and sorcery" sub-genre that informed a lot of D&D is very much about obviously testosterone-favored men and equally obviously estrogen-favored women. I do, however, prefer it not be a major theme.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Balsamic Dragon

First Post
Because D&D is Eurocentric(ish). Asking why is a bit like asking why Legend of the Five Rings has an Asian feel. D&D has become big enough that there's room for expansion, but they don't make up the core.

As far as the original picture goes, I dislike the style (too much white space, too cartoony). But, I don't mind the body shape of the woman shown. I don't mind a bit of beefcake/cheesecake -- like it or not, the "swords and sorcery" sub-genre that informed a lot of D&D is very much about obviously testosterone-favored men and equally obviously estrogen-favored women. I do, however, prefer it not be a major theme.

So what you seem to be saying is that although D&D started with a Eurocentric core, it has expanded since then (monk as a core class, etc). And you are happy to leave out the swords and sorcery subgenre that was also a main inspiration of D&D, because you don't "prefer" it. But making D&D not all about the white guys, that would be going too far?
 

Nellisir

Hero
So what you seem to be saying is that although D&D started with a Eurocentric core, it has expanded since then (monk as a core class, etc). And you are happy to leave out the swords and sorcery subgenre that was also a main inspiration of D&D, because you don't "prefer" it. But making D&D not all about the white guys, that would be going too far?
I'm on all sorts of weirdly interacting cold medications right now, and loopier than a ball of yarn, so when -I- know you're flagrantly misinterpreting someone, you should know you've got a problem.

Mercule is not "happy to leave out the swords & sorcery subgenre". He'd "prefer" that the beefcake/cheesecake art that goes with some swords & sorcery "not be a major theme".

Seriously, dude, that was just blatant.
 

Mercule

Adventurer
So what you seem to be saying is that although D&D started with a Eurocentric core, it has expanded since then (monk as a core class, etc). And you are happy to leave out the swords and sorcery subgenre that was also a main inspiration of D&D, because you don't "prefer" it. But making D&D not all about the white guys, that would be going too far?
If you read some of my other posts on artwork, you'll see that you've completely misread my position. Heck, if you read the post you quoted, you'll see you've either misread it or are misrepresenting me to an extent rarely witnessed outside politics.

Swords and sorcery is an integral part of D&D. I actually said we shouldn't try to completely purge it. Not all S&S art needs to be cheesecake (Lankhmar). There are also plenty of other sub-genres that make up the core of D&D. We should be able to see plenty of pictures that aren't cheesecake but still fit the core.

As far as Eurocentrism goes, I expounded on this at some length, elsewhere. Basically, I think the core technological and cultural biases in the core game should reflect idealized Mediterranean lore, mixed with some Western fictional biases (pulp, S&S, Tolkienesque high fantasy, etc.). That's the core. I really don't care what color the people's skin is, nor do I think it should be monochrome. I do think there are unshakable real-world connotations, so that I prefer Greyhawk's way of handling human ethnicity better than Eberron's.

Greyhawk was far from monochrome and didn't paint any human ethnicity as inferior. If you want my model for what I'd like to see in art, read the Greyhawk red and gold box. Draw that. The Flannaess was as multicolored as Khorvaire, but it was rich in varied culture while providing ample opportunity for characters of the "wrong color" to step into a role. Black paladins, pasty white monks, and brown barbarians were knit along side pseudo-French knights, reverent pseudo-Arabic merchants, pseudo-Chinese mystics, and pseudo-Vikings.

What Greyhawk didn't do was allow for the "camera lens" to be centered on China, Ethiopia, or Syria. That's where the opportunity for expansion lies. But, I think it would be a bad idea to try to put that into the core PHB. Stick to one viewing angle, and maybe publish some Oriental Adventures type books that refocus. Core D&D has so much "pseudo" in it's European, that even Viking, Carolingian, or HRE source books would substantively refocus the game.

The problem isn't with the original D&D tropes. The problem is with some art decisions that were made at various times. I'm not going to go back over all my books, but I don't recall any cheesecake in 1E. I think that came in the mid-1980s and into 2e, but don't hold me to that. Three decades later, where it crept in isn't so important. What is important is that the actual source material doesn't require art of nothing but white dudes and it never has.
 

jonesy

A Wicked Kendragon
big time art critic huh? we're not talking about composition or art quality here, we're talking about style and tasteful portrayals of women in D&D. You just critiqued a piece of fan art. Do you go to bars and heckle local bands too? If you want to get down to it, most all fantasy art is junk in the eyes of art critics.
I think you might need a tongue-in-cheek detector. :p
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Perhaps, but any woman can be objectified, she doesn't have to show skin for it. We can objectify that woman in full-plate as much as the skeleton bikini.

Well, you should be challenged to tell the person in full plate is a woman. When a real-world smith makes real-world full (combat) plate for a real-world woman, he doesn't sculpt decolletage into the breastplate.

Yes, we can objectify any person ourselves. The question is whether the artist has already done the job for us, making it so that *not* seeing a sex object takes more mental effort.

So would I. But I don't consider every bit of skin to be cheesecake, as the post below yours points out, when we get away from the obvious "sexy armor" and start talking about people in leather, robes, or in classes whose roles typically rely on "face time", we get into much cloudier waters on what can be shown without becoming cheesecake.

Honestly, I think the issue is far more clear than you make it out to be.

If a goodly chunk of the audience gets the idea that the artist intended it to be cheesecake, then it is cheesecake. If "she's hawt" is the first idea that comes to mind (as opposed to "she's competent" or "she's in a tough spot" or even "she's pretty"), then it is cheesecake. I would not count on a single person to decide for all, but it doesn't take many to identify it when you see it.

Really, folks, it takes effort to make a sexy image. It doesn't just happen accidentally. It generally has to be part of the artists vision before they lay pen to paper.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Honestly, I think the issue is far more clear than you make it out to be.

If a goodly chunk of the audience gets the idea that the artist intended it to be cheesecake, then it is cheesecake. If "she's hawt" is the first idea that comes to mind (as opposed to "she's competent" or "she's in a tough spot" or even "she's pretty"), then it is cheesecake. I would not count on a single person to decide for all, but it doesn't take many to identify it when you see it.

Really, folks, it takes effort to make a sexy image. It doesn't just happen accidentally. It generally has to be part of the artists vision before they lay pen to paper.

Well then since you can in fact say almost anything is sexy, this argument treads towards suggesting all art should look something like this:
medieval_armor_ancient_armor_greek_armor_Knight.jpg


MAN! She/he is hot!

Frankly, I'm fine with keeping the fantasy in my fantasy games. The armor with the breast-cups, the slightly revealing trims, I don't have a problem with this because it's fantasy. And IMO, "fantasy" covers those cheesecake realms just as much as it covers medieval reenactment.
 

Alouicious

First Post
Well then since you can in fact say almost anything is sexy, this argument treads towards suggesting all art should look something like this:
medieval_armor_ancient_armor_greek_armor_Knight.jpg


MAN! She/he is hot!

Frankly, I'm fine with keeping the fantasy in my fantasy games. The armor with the breast-cups, the slightly revealing trims, I don't have a problem with this because it's fantasy. And IMO, "fantasy" covers those cheesecake realms just as much as it covers medieval reenactment.

But WHY is cheesecake so central to fantasy for you? Why can't fantasy not have cheesecake? "Fantasy" in this context means magic and ogres and dragons an' :):):):), not your awful sexual fantasies. I think you've confused the two for this thread.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
But WHY is cheesecake so central to fantasy for you? Why can't fantasy not have cheesecake? "Fantasy" in this context means magic and ogres and dragons an' :):):):), not your awful sexual fantasies. I think you've confused the two for this thread.

I'd very much appreciate you not responding to me if your intent is to antagonize and not discuss.
 

Mercutio01

First Post
But WHY is cheesecake so central to fantasy for you? Why can't fantasy not have cheesecake? "Fantasy" in this context means magic and ogres and dragons an' :):):):), not your awful sexual fantasies. I think you've confused the two for this thread.
Caveat - I'm not shidaku.

That said, cheesecake is not central to fantasy, but neither is absurdly strict adherence to realism in all art. Personally, I think a mix is not completely out of order, and I think the insistence from the feminist viewpoint that attempts to eradicate any and all sexiness from the art is just as misguided as the guys who made FATAL's absurdly simulationist rules for rape.

There's no reason that both audiences (those who don't want the female characters to just look like men in armor and those who don't want every character to be standing around in their undergarments) can't both be catered to at various levels, and either side's insistence that no one should ever cater to the other isn't particularly convincing.

I don't necessarily want to see Caldwell's pirate be the only female representation in the art. Neither do I want to see this -
[sblock]
joanofarc.jpg
[/sblock] - as the only representation of women in D&D either.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top