Kaodi
Legend
That is fine for all the people who will never play D&D. But what I said applies perfectly well to those that are just starting to play and "get it" .
D&D 5E D&D Next weekly art column!
- Thread starter Klaus
- Start date
- Status
That is fine for all the people who will never play D&D. But what I said applies perfectly well to those that are just starting to play and "get it" .
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
They will understand soon enough.
Quickleaf
Legend
With partially digested adventurer and all? Brilliant.How about a Gelatinous Cube?
Hey you're also in Honolulu!
Kaodi
Legend
How about a Gelatinous Cube?
That would be interesting. The Gelantinous Cube is, after all, the quintessential inhabitant of dungeons with 10' by 10' corridors. And it could also be symbolized easily as a cube with a skull in the middle.
Mercutio01
First Post
The Gelatinous Cube actually isn't a half-bad idea. It also has the benefit of look like a d6. I like it.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Regarding the new article about sexism in D&D art:
Realistic poses: Frick yes. This should be a thing for all characters in all art. On the topic of sexism though, any piece of art that goes out of its way to accentuate T&A is just insulting. e.g., A picture of a female fighter fighting shouldn't have her twisting her body to show off her ass-less plate armor with thong underneath. It should just show her fighting.
I do mean out of its way, though. A character like Liliana Vess from M:tG has a perfectly good reason to be scantily clad and sexy: she's an immortal wizard who has made a pact with a devil for eternal youth and beauty. It makes sense for her character to be so vain that she traipses around the multiverse wearing a bra for a top, and it also makes sense that the art on Liliana's card shows her in a sexy pose, because that perfectly describes her character. (When WotC decided to put the picture of Liliana-being-sexy on all the posters and t-shirts, that was objectionable, but I'm just talking about the art in the game here.)
These pictures, though, are a little more difficult to place. By my mantra earlier, a picture of Liliana casting a spell should be "hey, here's Liliana casting a spell," and not "hey, here's Liliana casting a spell, LOOK AT HER BOOBS." But where do you draw that line? I dunno. These two get a tentative pass from me.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there should be some standard for modesty in the D&D world (meaning, civilized people shouldn't show off much of their bodies). A character can exist outside these standards, but only for a good reason.
Also, while I've got you: Please stop putting boobs on creatures that aren't mammals. It's weird.
Equal representation: I dunno. I wouldn't mind the default world of D&D being a place where women aren't expected to be warriors (as long as it's clear that they totally can be). Having a medieval world where everything is equal-opportunity just feels weird (discounting egalitarian Elves and such).
Realistic poses: Frick yes. This should be a thing for all characters in all art. On the topic of sexism though, any piece of art that goes out of its way to accentuate T&A is just insulting. e.g., A picture of a female fighter fighting shouldn't have her twisting her body to show off her ass-less plate armor with thong underneath. It should just show her fighting.
I do mean out of its way, though. A character like Liliana Vess from M:tG has a perfectly good reason to be scantily clad and sexy: she's an immortal wizard who has made a pact with a devil for eternal youth and beauty. It makes sense for her character to be so vain that she traipses around the multiverse wearing a bra for a top, and it also makes sense that the art on Liliana's card shows her in a sexy pose, because that perfectly describes her character. (When WotC decided to put the picture of Liliana-being-sexy on all the posters and t-shirts, that was objectionable, but I'm just talking about the art in the game here.)
These pictures, though, are a little more difficult to place. By my mantra earlier, a picture of Liliana casting a spell should be "hey, here's Liliana casting a spell," and not "hey, here's Liliana casting a spell, LOOK AT HER BOOBS." But where do you draw that line? I dunno. These two get a tentative pass from me.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there should be some standard for modesty in the D&D world (meaning, civilized people shouldn't show off much of their bodies). A character can exist outside these standards, but only for a good reason.
- "I am unarmored and female" is not a good reason.
- "I am rebelling against mainstream society" is an okay (but insultingly convenient) reason.
- "I am from a barbarian tribe that doesn't care about modesty and doesn't wear armor" is a good reason.
- "I am a vampire who is basically invulnerable anyway, and is also vain, charismatic, and uses sex appeal to lure mortals to their deaths" is a very good reason.
Also, while I've got you: Please stop putting boobs on creatures that aren't mammals. It's weird.
Last edited:
Incenjucar
Legend
I'm going to repost what I wrote in response to the Sexism column, since it was so quickly buried by other responses when I was only half-finished with it:
Jon, I applaud that you are attempting to consider this issue, I'm afraid the actual issue of sexism in art (and the related issue, sexual objectification) flew past you and your straw pollsters. I would highly suggest getting some advice from some feminists rather than a quick scan of the internet. It should not be difficult for you to get some information from people who are both avid fans of fantasy and well-educated in the topic. There are websites devoted to these discussions.
Some basic things:
1) Holding a door for PEOPLE isn't sexist. Holding a door for someone specifically BECAUSE of their sex is sexist. It doesn't matter whether you do it out of respect or derision. Holding people up on a pedestal isn't much better than holding them down.
2) Neither image is inherently sexist. The context is what makes them sexist or not. Complex topics do not have simple answers. The first image looks to be sexual objectification, since the clothing is very impractical and the overall image is clearly intended to depict sexuality, whether or not it depicts anything else. The second image is just one human being giving another human being a delicious meal UNTIL you consider the context of the time period and what the image references - a sexist culture where women are servile and men are dominant. Imagine judging a picture of someone shooting a laser at someone else and without knowing that it's actually a tickle beam!
3) Women in fantasy are very often depicted in extremely useless clothing that highlights their sexuality, and that sexuality is usually drawn from a narrow range of (often unnatural) body types. Men in fantasy, when they are depicted in extremely useless clothing, are usually depicted in a way that highlights their POWER, rather than their sexuality. Conan is not anywhere near as sexual as Red Sonja, even if he's showing more skin.
If you want to see a good example of non-sexist work that still shows off the sensuality of not only women but ALSO men, in roughly equal measure, I highly recommend looking up Fred Perry - his Gold Digger comic even has a metric ton of D&D homages! (Much of it is also NSFW so be warned). His art is chock full of sexual objectification, but his work depicts men in equal measure - it shouldn't take long for you to notice the differences between how he draws half-naked men and how Frazetta draws them. I would argue that his work is very feminist in how it shows men and women with a wide range of strengths and weaknesses, while showing plenty of skin and exaggeration.
4) Ultimately, the issue of sexual objectification is separate from sexism. The reason the two are so often conflated is that, while women in typical Western fantasy are very often subject to sexual objectification, men are rarely so. If men and women are equally sexually objectified, whether that means a lot or not at all, we're generally not dealing with sexism, but instead we're probably going to end up talking about anorexia or steroid abuse.
5) If you want to deal with this topic, please, PLEASE consult experts. This is a huge and complex set of topics and not something you can figure out on Wikipedia.
As for your closing questions:
* I would like to see roughly equal numbers. Fill the grid, as it were. In D&D in 2012+ men and women should be completely interchangeable except in a tiny handful of religions and monsters.
* Realistic poses would be nice. Normal human beings DO do dramatic poses - I make a habit of it myself - but that whole comic book spine-breaking pose used to show cleavage and buttocks at the same time needs to go. That's just tacky. If you can't do a pose comfortably yourself you should probably not put it in.
* Standardizing proportions is silly. Give us a range. Look at images of REAL athletes and soldiers and scholars and base your work off of their bodies.
Jon, I applaud that you are attempting to consider this issue, I'm afraid the actual issue of sexism in art (and the related issue, sexual objectification) flew past you and your straw pollsters. I would highly suggest getting some advice from some feminists rather than a quick scan of the internet. It should not be difficult for you to get some information from people who are both avid fans of fantasy and well-educated in the topic. There are websites devoted to these discussions.
Some basic things:
1) Holding a door for PEOPLE isn't sexist. Holding a door for someone specifically BECAUSE of their sex is sexist. It doesn't matter whether you do it out of respect or derision. Holding people up on a pedestal isn't much better than holding them down.
2) Neither image is inherently sexist. The context is what makes them sexist or not. Complex topics do not have simple answers. The first image looks to be sexual objectification, since the clothing is very impractical and the overall image is clearly intended to depict sexuality, whether or not it depicts anything else. The second image is just one human being giving another human being a delicious meal UNTIL you consider the context of the time period and what the image references - a sexist culture where women are servile and men are dominant. Imagine judging a picture of someone shooting a laser at someone else and without knowing that it's actually a tickle beam!
3) Women in fantasy are very often depicted in extremely useless clothing that highlights their sexuality, and that sexuality is usually drawn from a narrow range of (often unnatural) body types. Men in fantasy, when they are depicted in extremely useless clothing, are usually depicted in a way that highlights their POWER, rather than their sexuality. Conan is not anywhere near as sexual as Red Sonja, even if he's showing more skin.
If you want to see a good example of non-sexist work that still shows off the sensuality of not only women but ALSO men, in roughly equal measure, I highly recommend looking up Fred Perry - his Gold Digger comic even has a metric ton of D&D homages! (Much of it is also NSFW so be warned). His art is chock full of sexual objectification, but his work depicts men in equal measure - it shouldn't take long for you to notice the differences between how he draws half-naked men and how Frazetta draws them. I would argue that his work is very feminist in how it shows men and women with a wide range of strengths and weaknesses, while showing plenty of skin and exaggeration.
4) Ultimately, the issue of sexual objectification is separate from sexism. The reason the two are so often conflated is that, while women in typical Western fantasy are very often subject to sexual objectification, men are rarely so. If men and women are equally sexually objectified, whether that means a lot or not at all, we're generally not dealing with sexism, but instead we're probably going to end up talking about anorexia or steroid abuse.
5) If you want to deal with this topic, please, PLEASE consult experts. This is a huge and complex set of topics and not something you can figure out on Wikipedia.
As for your closing questions:
* I would like to see roughly equal numbers. Fill the grid, as it were. In D&D in 2012+ men and women should be completely interchangeable except in a tiny handful of religions and monsters.
* Realistic poses would be nice. Normal human beings DO do dramatic poses - I make a habit of it myself - but that whole comic book spine-breaking pose used to show cleavage and buttocks at the same time needs to go. That's just tacky. If you can't do a pose comfortably yourself you should probably not put it in.
* Standardizing proportions is silly. Give us a range. Look at images of REAL athletes and soldiers and scholars and base your work off of their bodies.
Yora
Legend
Do not be Rob Liefeld.
I think you can avoid the vast majority of mistakes by simply asking you you one question: "Is this picture eye-candy?". Do you expose female bodies only for the sake of showing boobs and butts? If yes, don't use it.
Off the top of my head, I can't recall any really offensive image from official D&D books in many years and most of the artists often employed by WotC seem to have a good awareness of this issue.
And there's many situations in which I would regard scantly clad women as completely appropriate and permisable. If you show a decadent evil aristocrat, then put as many slave girls and dancers next to him as you like. That's part of the archetype. Or some jungle tribes people with only loincloths and some decent scenery coverings. It makes sense, it's appropriate.
I think what gets most people really quite angry is when everyone can clearly see that it's completely obvious that the content of the picture does not make sense because someone just needed to have more
in it. If you make an image of soldier dressed for battle, then the things they are wearing need to protect them and not be something out of an erotic costume catalog.But I havn't seen any of those in D&D books in years, so I am not too worried about it.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Jon S said:
I think I'll parrot what's been said here.
There's nothing wrong with sexy when it makes sense in context. If the character is a Wanton Trollop, then fair enough, be a Wanton Trollop. But, if the character is an armored warrior, then gender shouldn't matter a huge amount. Pathfinder's Paladin iconic (whose name escapes me at the moment) is a great example of a character in reasonable armor that is totally believable as a holy warrior who happens to be female.
And, yes, equalish representation also should apply. No, I don't want it to be a quota where you have to fill each pigeonhole before you print the picture, but, let's see some variety. The cliche of the mansel in distress being saved from the dragon is not a bad idea. The holy priest succoring the fallen warrior works regardless of how you shift around the genders.
I like pin-up art, but, I'd prefer it not to be in my gaming stuff.
- Status
Similar Threads
- Locked
