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

[MoonSong]

By placing certain viewpoints as "out of bounds", you are most certainly asserting your own as being superior.

Art has often been at odds with social norms, and is often offensive. If you do not agree, I invite you to visit more galleries and art fairs. It's nice, having an open mind. "To each their own" seems to be a dirty phrase around here.

You do not get to tell me that my opinions are out of line, THAT is offensive to me. But I wouldn't try and censor you. Because I'm an adult. I don't need your approval, I'm confident enough in my own worldview, living in one of the most liberal cities in the world, that art wants to be free. The more people try to put limits on what art (or ideas) are deemed acceptable, the more they will find themselves vexed that others do not agree with them.

Limits on acceptable language are arbitrary and silly, I said nothing that would be considered offensive to someone living in this modern era, it actually surprises me that what I wrote is even controversial. At all. Maybe it's because I hang out in more liberal circles, with lots of artist friends.

First of all, pictures in D&D books aren't Art, they are Illustrations (this is a very important distinction, artists speak for themselves, Illustrators speak for their clients), despite they being commonly called art, illustrations aren't speech, they are instead communication tools, calling for more tame representations detracts nothing from the person drawing and painting them, they are free to depict whatever they want on their spare time. Also we aren't debating the artistic merit of them, rather their content since the oversexualization of women is detrimental to the brand, because it alienates a good portion of the potential player base (women) and keeps it from reaching a younger demographic (children) so:

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

Comes really as rude and uncalled for, and entirely out of the blue and entirely perpendicualr to the issue, it is like posting "Kobolds should be ratlike and you are crazy if you don't like them that way" in the midst of a conversation about fighter Attack Bonusses.

 

[Morrus]

Morrus, I completely agree with your point, which was actually my own viewpoint as well. When others say art should be censored because the PC police will come a-knockin', I take offense to that. Keep on rockin' in the free world!! Nobody's ideas are involate and unassailable. On a messageboard, however, mods can delete posts. I only wrote that I believe those that would censor others' art or opinions or whatever, to be unworthy of the same protections. We only deserve those rights we afford to others, that's what fairness / equality means.

People I guess took what I wrote to mean that I was saying they were prudes, actually I was being quite diplomatic. To say I dislike bullies would be an understatement. Art / literary censors are the epitome of bullies. We're all adults here, and can decide how to spend our money. If you find the art on a piece of work to be offensive, don't buy it. Same thing for me, if I find the PC language in a D&D book more offensive or patronizing than I am willing to stand, in exchange for the rules I get out of it, I'll simply get an SRD-ified version of it or make one myself, or just buy another product.

In this age of internet smut everywhere, kids would probably find most of the "nip" faut-pas mentioned on this board to be irrelevant, so yeah, I do think it's being taken drastically out of proportion here. Sexiness is not a crime, I don't believe women should have to cover up because of prudishness, we aren't living under taliban rule here in North America, so we shouldn't tippie toe around those who express such views, and trust me, in America, there are MANY who believe women should be covered up. Whereever I see prudishness, I see bigotry beneath it, and will speak up against it. Especially when judging art is concerned, the more credence you allow to those who would tell others what's acceptable or not, the more society devolves into an intolerant and conformist place, a place I don't want to live in. These ideas must be resisted, IMO.

It's amazing that a one-line sentence of mine, that we should ignore prudes' opinion of art, would generate such a tempest in a tea pot. I should show it to some artist friends of mine, they'll get a good laugh probably. People who would tell others that the human body is a shameful thing need to step back and look at what happens when societies start going down that road. All sorts of bad things happen, especially to women and minorities - that means you and me...lest I remind people here that D&D itself was often considered subversive by dim-witted cretins persecuting this hobby. Corrupting the minds of the youth used to be a capital offense, you know. Sacrilege and heresy still are, in certain parts of the world. That's not hyperbole, that's reality. People get killed for art and literature, even today.

My point is only that prudery is contrary to the essence of this hobby, it's counter-cultural. The idea that I should listen to people on this message board tell me what ideas are acceptable to express is ludicrous.

That's an interesting essay. I'll try to be more brief, though.

1) I don't see how you don't see that you're doing exactly what you claim to dislike. You don't get to tell people how they can express their views of yours. You keep forbidding people from criticising or disagreeing with your views.

2) Keep the politics out of it. Whether you approve of the rules here or not, you agreed to them. Please be a man of your word.

3) It's easy to defend your right to view art which alienates a large swathe of the population when you're not part o that group. I dare say if the art surrounding RPGs had been predominately focused on photos of you in humiliating poses for 40 years, you might not be a gamer today. It strikes me as selfish to rank your right to view something above the harm that thing can cause.

4) That you should find "the idea that I should listen to people" to be "ludicrous" is quite frightening.

5) Calling people names, such as "prudes", is rude. Please stop.

 

[Gorgoroth]

This is a political thread, though. I'm totally agreeing with you, again! Politics doesn't belong in D&D, if people want to have D&D be used as a platform to further their political agenda, they should realize there could be blowback because of that.

I'll still buy the books, even if there is uber-PC language in it and all the art is cartooney and the women portrayed are covered head-to-toe and veiled up so as to not offend anyone living in the dark ages.

So, in answer to the OP, should D&D be used to held to some standard that other books aren't (and can't be, since we live in the free/modern world and supposedly have no censorship)? My answer is no. In that sense, perhaps the question is only meta-political. Other posters injected their political viewpoints, (e.g. that art shouldn't contain nipples, for one example...as if nipples are a shameful perversion), it seems highly selective that only my post be singled out, out of 50 pages of posts on the topic.

Everything here is political, if you actually look close enough.

 

[Dausuul]

In this age of internet smut everywhere, kids would probably find most of the "nip" faut-pas mentioned on this board to be irrelevant, so yeah, I do think it's being taken drastically out of proportion here. Sexiness is not a crime, I don't believe women should have to cover up because of prudishness, we aren't living under taliban rule here in North America, so we shouldn't tippie toe around those who express such views, and trust me, in America, there are MANY who believe women should be covered up. Whereever I see prudishness, I see bigotry beneath it, and will speak up against it. Especially when judging art is concerned, the more credence you allow to those who would tell others what's acceptable or not, the more society devolves into an intolerant and conformist place, a place I don't want to live in. These ideas must be resisted, IMO.

I repeat: This is irrelevant to the discussion. No one here is proposing censorship. You can tell on account of there's no mention of laws, police, courts, or jail sentences. Nor are we arguing that sexuality is bad or that women should be forced to "cover up." We are arguing that women do not exist simply to be objects of men's sexual pleasure, and D&D artwork should not relentlessly portray them in a sexual light in situations where sexuality wouldn't apply.

You want the Monster Manual to have a full-frontal illo of a naked succubus? Fine by me. The succubus is a sex demon, it ought to be portrayed as such... though I wonder how well the champions of cheesecake would react to an incubus getting the same treatment. You want artwork of the player characters at a masquerade ball, and some of the female PCs are in low-cut gowns with acres of cleavage on display? Also fine, that makes sense in the setting. But a female PC fighting for her life against a horde of goblins, or exploring a monster-haunted dungeon, ought to be dressed for combat just like the male PCs in the same picture.

Other posters injected their political viewpoints, (e.g. that art shouldn't contain nipples, for one example...as if nipples are a shameful perversion), it seems highly selective that only my post be singled out, out of 50 pages of posts on the topic.

Stop acting persecuted. You're not. Your original one-line post got a total of three lines in reply. If you feel like everyone's coming after you, it's because you a) keep posting long, hyperbolic screeds that b) are wrong.

 

[Morrus]

it seems highly selective that only my post be singled out, out of 50 pages of posts on the topic.

Are you reading the same thread? While your post has been replied to, I count over 250 other posts in this thread that have also been replied to. Over 50 of them more times than yours. I don't know why you have the idea that only your post has been "singled out".

You seem to be under the impression you're being persecuted/censored/singled-out. That's not what's happening. You're being disagreed with. That's an entirely different thing. It's a fundamental function of discussion.

 

[Sunseeker]

My understanding, at least with Paizo, is that they typically pay people who hand over bad art and just don't work with them again. Less messy that way, apparently.

That's a fair way to do it. Reasonably much like these concept sketches they've been soliciting from various artists too, I think they have enough sway to be able to pay for concept sketches from artists, good or bad to save on costs and then go with whomever shows the least skin.

That sounds great in theory. But when you have a book that must go to the printer today and that must have a piece of artwork for a given page, and your freelancer has sent you something you'd really rather not use, then what do you do?

I think this is just a bigger issue of forward thinking. You know you're going to need art for a new edition of D&D, there's a public playtest and everything that's in it so far is not anything particular unusual or highly variant from the classic material. They could be(and ought to be) soliciting for art right now(which they sort of are with the aforementioned concept art requests), and their requests shouldn't be for anything spectacularly abnormal as far as D&D art goes.

Regardless of whether you're bringing in a new artist or having the first artist fix things up, that still moves you closer to the publication date. It's not a question of getting the best art you theoretically could, but the best in the time allotted.

Of course, but really it's an issue of clearly presenting what you want done, and what your expectations are. IE: if I specify that I want my house painted red and the painter decides to paint it blue, that's totally unacceptable. If I specify that I want my house red and the artist paints it red-orange, that's within the realm of "red" enough to be generally acceptable. In my experience with artists I've commissioned problems generally arise from when you assume the artist knows what you want.

I totally agree with you, though, that Wizards could have a lot less sexualized art if they put the effort into it. All I wanted to point out is that it involves actual effort. After all, there's more to managing contractors than issuing dictums and assuming everything will fall into place.

Sure, if WOTC puts the effort into it. To be fair, I think some sexualized(both sexualized males and females) should remain, because honestly I know a great number of players who like to play those concepts and they should get some traction, just not as much. Honestly I think 4e did a good job by and large of reducing the amount of sexualized females, so I think overall D&D is trending in the right direction.

 

[Obryn]

Morrus, I completely agree with your point, which was actually my own viewpoint as well. When others say art should be censored because the PC police will come a-knockin', I take offense to that.

There's no PC police. There's no censorship. That's not what this thread is about. You're interpreting it through a lens where you are being persecuted, when all that's happening is your privilege is being questioned.

My point is only that prudery is contrary to the essence of this hobby, it's counter-cultural.

This is why you'd support a very counter-cultural publication full of naked men making out with each other, right? Or like a chippendales catalog? No women, just men. It's art! And a statement!

This is a political thread, though. I'm totally agreeing with you, again! Politics doesn't belong in D&D, if people want to have D&D be used as a platform to further their political agenda, they should realize there could be blowback because of that.

There's no political agenda, either. This is the lens of your perspective again, and your perspective in this case isn't accurate.

"Boy, wouldn't it be nice if more people than the current audience of predominantly white guys played D&D?" is not a political statement.

and the women portrayed are covered head-to-toe and veiled up so as to not offend anyone living in the dark ages.

Again, you're saying that people are offended. This is incorrect.

So, in answer to the OP, should D&D be used to held to some standard that other books aren't (and can't be, since we live in the free/modern world and supposedly have no censorship)? My answer is no. In that sense, perhaps the question is only meta-political. Other posters injected their political viewpoints, (e.g. that art shouldn't contain nipples, for one example...as if nipples are a shameful perversion), it seems highly selective that only my post be singled out, out of 50 pages of posts on the topic.

Everything here is political, if you actually look close enough.

Again, nobody's talking censorship but you.

And nobody's said art shouldn't have nipples. Nude art can be awesome. It's just not appropriate for a D&D core rule book.

-O

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...nor should they poke through armor.

(Though I have seen some old breastplates that were designed to look like a nude male torso...)

 

[Sunseeker]

...nor should they poke through armor.

(Though I have seen some old breastplates that were designed to look like a nude male torso...)

This was common in dress armor back in classical Rome. I'm sure that regular armor could be fancied up with such a design, but the more detail you put into it the more the weight increases and the less defensive it becomes.

I'm all for letting players decide how they want to look. Want your monk to run around in underwear? Your rogue have mid-drifts and cleavage armor? Your fighter to wear a very detailed codpiece? Hey that's all up to the player. And there should be room for fantasy in a fantasy game, as much as there is room for medieval-reenactment pieces as well.

 

[TanithT]

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

Are you serious? I don't think a single person in this thread has said anything about how sex and nudity is bad, except for a few people who pointed out that it made the game less kid-friendly. Which it does, but that's beside the point - they can still publish material aimed for an adult audience. No one in this thread has expressed any problem with that. Nudity and sex in a non ridiculous in-game context is not a problem in an adult game and no one cares.

I think by 'prudes' you mean 'people who object to the unnecessary sexualization of women as a general theme in RPGs', because I suspect you would probably start hollering pretty loud if the genders were switched and suddenly only males were depicted in inappropriately sexualized or homoerotic poses and looking ridiculous in every fight with arched backs and hipshot poses and come-hither sexy looks. And making out with other hot, scantily dressed men. Hey, this is really starting to sound like a game made for my entertainment, at the expense of putting every single bit of sexy man-flesh on display for me whether it makes sense in context or not. No male is allowed to be depicted in my game unless he's showing skin for my amusement. That's what men are for, my personal amusement. They aren't allowed to be anything but pretty sex toys, even if they're supposed to be strong adventurers. Never mind that, put him in a cute stripper thong and nipple tassles and have him fighting monsters that way. I want his hot abs showing. Armor? Pffft. Hot men don't need armor. So what if it's stupid to go into combat with your belly button showing? It's much more important that I get my eye candy than any man in the game be dressed sensibly.

If you would have a problem with the entire industry switching to this model overnight and your being unable to buy any material that doesn't look like this, would that make you a prude?