D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think this is a better argument that differences in strength bonuses should be larger between races than that strength bonuses between genders should be smaller.

I agree about the greater Str mods for races, but if we follow through all the way- including the gender-based bonuses:

1) you'll have reintroduced the problem that some perceive (it doesn't bother me) of balancing PC races with unusually high stat mods. Because after the Minotaurs and Dragonborn get more realistic Str mods, proponents of other races would be 100% justified in getting back larger mods for things like Githzerai's Dex.

2) you'd have to calculate the "realistic" gender based mods for other stats

3) you'd have to calculate those for races that don't exist, and which may not actually conform to human sexual dimorphism.

Seems like a lot of work for not a lot of benefit.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't agree with this at all. Not only do I have some idea what the situation is - namely, it is two adventurers approaching a ruined/haunted fortresss via a cliff-side stairway - but the whole point of the picture, the book etc is to signal and reinforce that situation.

I want to reiterate that I was referring to the 4E PHB1 cover, rather than the DMG2 one, for reasons stated above.

That said (again, for the PHB picture) you're making presumptions about who the characters are and where they're going. Whether or not these are "reasonable" presumptions are a matter of personal interpretation. Are they approaching a place or leaving it? Are they adventurers, or are they enemy characters that the PCs will have to fight later?

Insofar as the "point" of the picture goes, I've mentioned earlier that the intent of the creator is exceptionally difficult to transmit through most artistic media; it's very easy for the reader to take away a message of their own choosing, as opposed to being able to flawlessly pick up on the message (if any) that the artist is trying to communicate. Saying that there's a meta-contextual element is, I think, a dicey proposition at best (e.g. the book is about "dungeons" so is an outdoor scene therefore going against the "point" of the book?).

Even suppose that, in the imagined story, she were to stumble and correct her footing, why has the artist shown us that moment? It's the fantasy illustration equivalent of post-Oscars "nipple slip" or "underwear seam" photographs.

I honestly don't think that the question is relevant. As I pointed out before, that's not a determining factor in trying to figure out the context (which is, in and of itself, not a factor in questioning the moral dimension of the artwork).

In the context of commercial production in a market economy, their decision should be influenced by the views of potential customers (incuding me, but more importanty including potential purchasers who were put off by the artwork).

This strikes me as a gross oversimplification, since it involves figuring out who their potential customers are, what their views are, if their views on the artwork would influence their purchasing intent (and if so, how much), etc.

It also doesn't mention that if some of these are give-and-take scenarios (e.g. something that makes group X more likely to purchase makes group Y less likely to purchase) then there needs to be some sort of determination made. While it would be virtuous if that determination was made on ethics, it would not be immoral if it was not.

To the extent that this is true, I don't believe that it's true of the illustration I mentioned. As bogmad indicated, this is not a depiction of a woman's sexuality.

Again, there are some caveats there. First, it is (as you indicated) your belief. I think that there's reasonable grounds for suggesting that others might have differing opinions in that regard. That's without even getting into issues of contextual characterization (e.g. if we assume that the person depicted is a fully-formed character, then there's a reason she's chosen to dress that way, and that's her business).

Who is saying that pictures of breasts, or thighs, are inherently immoral? The posts I've read are saying that sexualised depictions of women in the context of fantasy adventure RPG illustrations are politically/morally troubling.

I think you've answered your own question here. Politics aside, the idea that something is "morally troubling" is the idea that the "troubling" aspect of its moral dimension is that it might be immoral. I'm holding that it's not.

The nature of actions includes their results, at least where these are inherent or necessary (eg a killing necessarily thwarts another's interest in life; lying necessarily undermines rational communication).

Again, I disagree. The morality of an action is never determined by its results, as that makes the action a moral "question mark" until its ramifications are known.

I suspect, in this instance, that this is a difference in how you and I would define those actions and where we'd rank them on a deontological scale (e.g. the difference between "do not kill" and "do not murder").

In one standard contemporary account of duty-based ethics (Oxford Aristoteleanism a la Raz etc) duties are grounded in human interests. In Kantian versions, duties are grounded in the interests of rational beings (eg in participating in rational communication).

That's only relevant insofar as it requires that intent be present for something to rise to the level of an "action" in the first place.

To the best of my knowledge Kant does not assert that attempted murder is as serious as actual murder.

I'm not aware of any specific claims made in that regard, but I think that his general principle of ethics would support that.

And Kant derives the moral law via his universalisation principle, which asks whether a maxim of action is permissible in part by reference to the consequences of universalising that maxim.

A fair point, and this is one area where I disagree with Kant, as he's not the last word in deontological ethics.

You are confusing the claim that deontologists reject (namely, that contingent consequences of an action - particularly its effects on aggregate welfare - are all that matters to its morality) with a claim that they deny (namely, that the consequences of an action are never relevant to its value).

Incorrect; while it's true that deontological ethics does rule out that consequences are all that matter, it's wrong to say that there's no deontological philosophy that holds that consequences are a factor at all. In that regard you're dealing more with "Kantian ethics" than deontological ethics.

A month or so ago I was at a paper by John Tasioulas (Professor of Philosophy at UCL and a leading moral philosopher in the contemporary Aristotelean school) where he made this very point in response to a question.

Pics or it didn't happen.

But seriously, leaving aside the issue of appealing to authority with no backing (as well as the idea that you were "at" a paper), that's not a strictly deontological principle so much as it is an off-shoot school of thought.

I think that every contemporary theorist of the criminal law would take the view that the legal difference captures a moral one.

Wow, I think we're really going to have to agree to disagree here. Legal ethics are not at all held to be moral ethics; that's one of the first things that legal ethics teach!

Though there is no doubt that the phenomenon of "moral luck" is a curious one (eg the target of my shooting bends over at the last minute, so I miss and fail to kill him/her, and hence do something not as wrong as I might have).

Not as "wrong" there in a legal ethics sense, not insofar as moral philosophy goes. That's particularly true since your "intent" there follows the bullet, so if you accidentally kill the wrong person, it's still a premeditated crime.

I didn't assert that at all, nor imply it. I did imply that "portraying women in a sexualised way in contexts - such as fantasy adventure RPG illustrations - in which sexuality has little relevance is a breach of a duty owed to women not to wrong or demean them." This does not entail anything about other contexts, nor about what the parameters of permissible illustrations might be.

Again, everyone is free to develop their own code of morality, but I personally find that particular positive duty to be much too ambiguous in terms of what constitutes sexual objectification, what constitutes (an appropriate) context, and what constitutes or "demeaning" someone, to be of much use.

That also ignores the question of if there's a higher duty (e.g. a negative one) that says "do not suppress creative expression," since if there is, then it "wins out" over a positive duty.

 

[delericho]

What would you do if the freelancer got hit by a bus and didn't send you anything at all?

I would wager that it's rather more common for a freelancer to send in artwork of an inappropriately-dressed woman than it is for one to be hit by a bus. Also, WotC already get criticised for using too much recycled artwork.

I also find it hard to believe that many freelancers would do this kind of stuff if Wizards made it clear that it wouldn't be tolerated. If all you've got is some art guidelines, sure, people ignore those, because you're calling them "guidelines" instead of "rules" and you aren't doing anything to indicate that this is particularly important to you. If you make a point to tell your freelancers that you simply will not accept artwork that violates certain rules--either you won't pay for it, or you'll pay for it but won't use it and will never give them any repeat business--and the list of rules is small enough to remember and follow, they'll pay attention.

Refusing to pay for work that has been done is a drastic step, and not to be taken lightly. You have to be very sure the offending work not only isn't what you want but, more importantly, isn't what was contracted. Otherwise, breach of contract is likely to have nasty consequences. And any specific description of what is not allowed is unlikely to make a dent - the artwork will just work around the restriction. What's needed is a more general "unless we deem it acceptable" clause... but those are more expensive.

(Paying for it but not using it doesn't have this same issue, of course, but it's a potentially significant 'waste' of money. Plus, I doubt WotC have too rich a pool of artists to call on for D&D - most artists can probably make more money elsewhere.)

Ultimately, WotC can get rid of the inappropropriate artwork if they are really determined. But principles cost money. So, the question becomes this: how much are they willing to pay for the privilege?

 

[Dausuul]

Ultimately, WotC can get rid of the inappropropriate artwork if they are really determined. But principles cost money. So, the question becomes this: how much are they willing to pay for the privilege?

That's half of the question. The other half is, how much does it cost?

I don't dispute that there is a cost here. However, I'm not convinced that the cost is very high, and I also suspect it's a one-time thing. There's no particular reason why RPG artists need to portray all women with cleavage and navels showing. It's just part of the culture and the expectations; this is how we do things around here. As the behemoth of the industry (well, semi-behemoth, after Paizo's rapid rise), Wizards has a lot of leverage to shift the expectations around RPG art. Once the shift is made, it becomes a lot easier to maintain.

 

[MoonSong]

I would wager that it's rather more common for a freelancer to send in artwork of an inappropriately-dressed woman than it is for one to be hit by a bus. Also, WotC already get criticised for using too much recycled artwork.



Refusing to pay for work that has been done is a drastic step, and not to be taken lightly. You have to be very sure the offending work not only isn't what you want but, more importantly, isn't what was contracted. Otherwise, breach of contract is likely to have nasty consequences. And any specific description of what is not allowed is unlikely to make a dent - the artwork will just work around the restriction. What's needed is a more general "unless we deem it acceptable" clause... but those are more expensive.

(Paying for it but not using it doesn't have this same issue, of course, but it's a potentially significant 'waste' of money. Plus, I doubt WotC have too rich a pool of artists to call on for D&D - most artists can probably make more money elsewhere.)

Ultimately, WotC can get rid of the inappropropriate artwork if they are really determined. But principles cost money. So, the question becomes this: how much are they willing to pay for the privilege?

Sorry I don't actually intend to offend in any way, but this reflects an extreme ignorance of the process needed to create a profesional illustration. Companies don't just say "I want a pic of a warrior woman for monday" and then await for the freelancer to produce it and send it on the deadline, such process actually involves a series of steps, one produce some sketches of the concept, all of them are then evaluated and eventually approved, if none of them is what the client wants, then they are revised or scrapped until one is approved, the next steps involve color, and texture tests all of them before rendering of the final art, and every single step has to be approved before proceeding to the next. And it involves no extra cost, that is what the profesional is being payed for, to repeat over and over until the client is satisfied, if it takes too long for the artist to render something Wotc fancies, then that artist is incompetent and has to be fired or released from contract or just never called again, that simple. If you really want to avoid cheesecake it isn't costly, you just shut it down at concept stage. Belly buttons and cleavage don't suddenly appear overnight, they are there all along. Any responsible Art director knows that.

 

[Gorgoroth]

The opinions of prudes, IMO, should be ignored when judging art.

 

[Dausuul]

The opinions of prudes, IMO, should be ignored when judging art.

This is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Obryn]

The opinions of prudes, IMO, should be ignored when judging art.

I think you're having a hard time differentiating "prudishness" and "appropriateness." And "inclusiveness" for that matter. You're strawmanning.

-O

 

[delericho]

Sorry I don't actually intend to offend in any way, but this reflects an extreme ignorance of the process needed to create a profesional illustration.

No offense taken. And I of course bow to your expertise, except for one point:

Companies don't just say "I want a pic of a warrior woman for monday" and then await for the freelancer to produce it and send it on the deadline, such process actually involves a series of steps, one produce some sketches of the concept, all of them are then evaluated and eventually approved, if none of them is what the client wants, then they are revised or scrapped until one is approved, the next steps involve color, and texture tests all of them before rendering of the final art, and every single step has to be approved before proceeding to the next. And it involves no extra cost, that is what the profesional is being payed for, to repeat over and over until the client is satisfied,

The professional artist is not the only person involved in this process. Assuming the Art Director gets paid, then every single image he has to look at, and every iteration through the process, costs money. Removing the belly buttons and cleavage may only add a single extra step to the process, but it's still an added cost - and if it needs redone for each artist involved in the project (or worse, for each image), then those costs add up.

 

[Dausuul]

The professional artist is not the only person involved in this process. Assuming the Art Director gets paid, then every single image he has to look at, and every iteration through the process, costs money. Removing the belly buttons and cleavage may only add a single extra step to the process, but it's still an added cost - and if it needs redone for each artist involved in the project (or worse, for each image), then those costs add up.

Surely this doesn't require an extra step in most cases. You get the concept sketch. You say, "Okay, we can work with this, but I'd like the fighter to be more in the foreground here, make the water knee-deep instead of ankle-deep, and the black dragon needs to conform to our established appearance for black dragons--the horns are supposed to be curled like a ram's, not sweep backwards." How much work is it to add "Oh, and put some clothes on the wizard" to that list of adjustments? I can't believe you'd need new concept art for each individual change, and it can't be that unusual for the art director to want changes.