Hmm, not sure if I agree. That armor seems to totally cover any cleavage to me. I mean, it is a small picture, so I could be wrong. But nothing about it really seems sexual to me, not even in a subtle way. She does look graceful, and her waist is pretty thin. I dunno.
I'm just saying I don't think the picture will make women feel uncomfortably objectified; my wife for instance thinks it looks heroic and badass.
There's definitely degrees of sexualization and some of that is probably unavoidable due to "most fantasy artists are straight men and straight men tend to draw sexualized women because that's what they want to see!" effect. Plus, sexy fantasy heroes, maybe kind of what you want. I'm not saying people should be offended by it! I do think it's important, though, to point out that this still seems to be (based on the low resolution) sexualized. Which isn't to say it's bad or offensive, just that it clearly contains a female body that is pretty obviously presented as a thing for straight guys (and possibly lesbians? but mostly straight guys, since there's more of us.) to consider beautiful/sexy/etc. That's one of the things it's doing there. Could also be doing other things. She is not some visibly scarred badass or some big, tough, rude-looking orcess or even a dwarf with so much armor on she's nearly gender-neutral (all still heroic, all also not capitalizing on sex appeal). Part of what you are meant to see when you look at that image is "Oh, it's a pretty lady."
Like i said, I'd love to see this pic
Hawkeye'd.
Whether or not this is a Big Deal to you probably depends largely on how annoying you personally find sexualized women in the media in general and this image in particular. Definitely not the worst example. Possibly even smart business given the target demographics of the product in a business sense (age 13+, primarily boys). It's not a simple issue of "this art is morally bad for making this lady pretty!"
For me, it's enough to note that it IS sexualized. That character's sex appeal is something the image is capitalizing on as part of its bid to get you to look at it, something WotC is capitalizing on as part of its bid to get people to buy the book. That might be "Oh, I can be a daring and pretty lady who fights giants in this game!" or "Oh, I can defend daring pretty ladies from giants in this game!" I want to be able to recognize it when I see it, because as a straight guy, I usually don't see it. You never question the air you breathe, yeah? Either way, the prettiness of the lady is important.
Book covers are almost never accidental, so I'm sure they were on some level aware of both reactions, and maybe that's even fine since being pretty can be a big part of how D&D lets us live our fantasies (I play occasionally with a group primarily of gay men, newbies, who basically refuse to be anything other than beautiful elves; I had a straight friend in high school who would always have a high CHA and seduce the various women in town; etc.). But it's not non-sexual. It isn't baldly sexual or crassly sexual or awkwardly sexual, but it still says that part of this product's value lies in pretty ladies on some level. Which fits into an overall cultural narrative about how pretty ladies are the valuable ladies and ladies who are less pretty are less valuable, less heroic, less worthy of saving, because no one puts them on book covers killing giants, because no one puts non-pretty ladies on book covers, period. But WotC also can't bear the responsibility of an entire society's gender issues on its shoulders, so it's not like they committed some sin by making a pretty lady the centerpiece of 5e.
Personally, I'm just well relieved it's not as bad as the 4e cover, and that it has a lady on it, unlike the pre-4e-PHB covers. I'll take progress, for me! And I'll look forward to the days when I see more art by women in the PHBs and on the cover, pretty ladies or not, because there's really no substitute for actual diversity when you're looking to be more diverse in the images you show.
Hopefully this does not de-rail the thread into another ENWorld classic "dudes talking about sexism in D&D" thread is all.
sunshadow21 said:
You are quite correct, but that requires the starter box to have 5 months of gaming in it, and that is no given at this point in time.
I think there's reason to believe it'll have that. 5 levels, plus enough monsters to mix and remix to get that XP, and it would be hard to imagine it not lasting at least that long.
Part of the awesome thing about D&D is that it's dense. Those bits of character and world info provide a LOT of replayability.
