D&D 5E Art in 5e...?

[Holy Bovine]

Y'know, if you don't dispute that the PHB woman is presented as a pretty lady, the exact angle of the curve of her back doesn't even really matter. "Well, if her back angle is less than 40 degrees, clearly she's not being sexualized" is not a real counterargument. The broader point remains, and that's the important bit. If she's presented as a pretty lady, she's being sexualized. That may or may not be a problem for any of us in particular, but denying it would be pretty ludicrous. Just because she's not in a chainmail bikini doesn't mean she's not treated as a thing of aesthetic beauty in that moment, and as long as that's true, it is potentially problematic.

Ummmm wow, KM that is some seriously bizarre reasoning you got there. By your definition *any* 'pretty' lady is automatically sexualized? Really? So if she was only a 5 on the Kamaikaze Midget Beauty Scale she is no longer a source of sexual desire? how about a 6? Maybe we need ratings for this stuff like those ESRB ones you find on video games.

 

[Dausuul]

Being all this as it may, are we to take it that art should delve into the contrary?

That is, that female characters depicted in D&D art should never be attractive, or should never be presented in a sexualized way, or should never have characteristics exaggerated? Because in fact, women are attractive, they do sometimes like to remind the world of it, and this one's flexbility isn't being exaggerated any more than the bicep size of the average male barbarian.

You're not going to see an adventurer, in an adventuring situation (combat, dungeon exploration, traveling in the wilderness), going out of her way to "remind the world" of her attractiveness. Or his attractiveness, for that matter. Let's not pretend it's realistic.

Now, D&D is a role-playing game, and the player may enjoy having a character who shows off his/her attractiveness even if it doesn't make a lot of sense. And I think it's fair to make some allowances for that in the art. Female knights get breastplates with an identifiable bulge over the breasts, even though no one would wear such a breastplate in real life (breastplates are designed to deflect blows, which means a smooth convex curve, not a body-hugging one). Male barbarians swagger around bare-chested under scorching desert suns, somehow avoiding the murderous sunburn that ought to result.

What's going too far is when the art puts emphasis on the sexy appearance of the character over other concerns, like being a heroic adventurer. In the past we've most often seen this in the form of ridiculous pinup outfits on female characters, but you also see it with female characters in strange poses that no one would ever assume unless trying to look sexy.

However, now that I've had a look at a good high-res image of the cover art, I don't agree that the 5E PHB woman is so portrayed. Her pose is the standard "Superman at rest" pose; it's how Superman hovers when he's not going someplace. See below. There's no arch to the back that I can see, or any of the other usual "look at my T&A!" positioning. Her clothing is sensible, practical, and covers her from head to toe. What does that leave? The lighting? That's really reaching, IMO.

 

[Blackbrrd]

If she's presented as a pretty lady, she's being sexualized. That may or may not be a problem for any of us in particular, but denying it would be pretty ludicrous. Just because she's not in a chainmail bikini doesn't mean she's not treated as a thing of aesthetic beauty in that moment, and as long as that's true, it is potentially problematic.

I have no idea if she is a sexy lady, because it's all hidden under 2-3 layers of padded clothing. The skin in her face looks plastery white from the magic. Neither is very pretty. To make this less sexy, you would basically have to put her into a Burka.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You're not going to see an adventurer, in an adventuring situation (combat, dungeon exploration, traveling in the wilderness), going out of her way to "remind the world" of her attractiveness. Or his attractiveness, for that matter. Let's not pretend it's realistic.

Have you ever heard of Ronda Rousey?

Realistically, there are plenty of occasions of displays of hypermasculinity in combat circumstances. Usually, women are not involved because they aren't there, but it's reasonable to assume that they would at least do the same given the opportunity. Obviously, there is an imperative to win the battle or survive the adventure rather than look good, but people's sexuality and natural instincts don't disappear simply because they are doing these sorts of things. Moreover, this type of persuasion tends to attract a fairly uninhibited type of person.

What's going too far is when the art puts emphasis on the sexy appearance of the character over other concerns, like being a heroic adventurer. In the past we've most often seen this in the form of ridiculous pinup outfits on female characters, but you also see it with female characters in strange poses that no one would ever assume unless trying to look sexy.

Yes, there's a line somewhere, and it's not a clear objective one. I certainly there is a possibility (one that has not infrequently been realized) of inappropriately oversexualized characters, of both genders but moreso with female ones than male.

However, the case I'm making is that the appropriate level of sexuality is not zero. There is some degree to which it is tonally appropriate and not offensive.

 

[steeldragons]

What confuses me with the PHB cover is the giant...It looks, to me, like it is clearly a frost giant: bluish tint to the skin, white bead, obviously wearing a white dragon hide cloak, the "norsey-celtish" knot-work tattoo on the thigh...yup. Frost giant fer sure.

But then, there's this fiery-golden glow behind and what appears a stream of lava coming down behind the wolf-hound silhouette so is that a winter wolf or a hellhound? The greyness in the giant's skin might be deemed a pale "black" or dark grey that, combined with the fiery glow in his eyes might be considered a fire giant...the white beard throws me off of that though.

I very much like that we got an elf on the cover too.

All this "she's too sexy/unrealistic" business, she's obviously a caster...going by the location of the giant's "swing" either she's diving/jumping out of the way or (i think more likely) she's flying or levitating, in which case, she can have any posture/positioning she wants. There is, most assuredly, nothing overtly or insultingly "sexy" about this woman's outfit or "angles" that hasn't been done a thousand times worse in every comic book and cartoon ever produced...not to mention more than a few D&D editions. So...*shrug* I do not see any reason for any of these raised hackles.

What type of giant it is is clearly more important for the PHB than anything about this female. 7

As for layout/overall "look" of the cover, I have many of the same issues several others [who I am assuming have some experience with layout and publishing] have brought up.

Why is "D&D" at the top of the book and the product's actual name a little side concern at the bottom is my biggest "Huh?" moment.

Only answer I can come up with (assuming these are actual mock-ups of what the covers will look like and not might look like) is that they clearly want the game to be branded/marketed as "D&D" and NOT "Dungeons & Dragons." Maybe they're trying to shake the "it's a nerd's game" thing of past editions? Maybe they're banking on the marketing/branding info that says "everyone loves an anagram/makes them feel they're in on some secret" nowadays? The current "logged in everywhere they go culture" that deems actual writing/spelling of words takes! too! long! If it takes more than 3 letters or 1 word, you've lost the audience. I dunno, just guessing.

The red "slashes"...*shrug* they're not egregious to my sensibilities, I guess. Unnecessary, certainly. But not really detracting anything.

LOVE the ampersand...Why it needed to be redesigned just ever-so-slightly, I don't know. Someone earning a paycheck, I guess, but fine. It's close enough.

The rest? Does the cover catch your attention? I'd say by the various threads and discussions happening, just on ENworld let alone anywhere else, the answer is yes. Job done. It's what's in the book, once they have your attention, that counts.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The girl on the Players Handbook is awesome, and looks like she's probably a pretty lady, as we stated above. Would she pass the Hawkeye test? I think so, but it's clearly debatable as people are debating it.

Even so, I wouldn't think twice about giving a young girl a copy of the PHB. I seems to me to be an entirely healthy fantasy for a young girl, which is the only litmus test that matters.

 

[Dausuul]

Have you ever heard of Ronda Rousey?

A televised MMA tournament is a far cry from actually fighting for your life. It's television, which is to say show biz, which is to say it rewards things that attract viewers. And even so, I highly doubt Rousey is striking sexy poses mid-fight.

Female warriors in any given culture usually dress much like the male warriors of that culture--in whatever outfit is most conducive to winning the battle. That isn't to say such outfits never look sexy! But when they do, it's incidental. A person in Roman legionary garb may have quite a bit of leg on display, but it isn't for display; it's just practical infantry gear in a warm climate.

Realistically, there are plenty of occasions of displays of hypermasculinity in combat circumstances.

Displaying "hypermasculinity," in a combat situation, isn't about displaying your sex appeal. It's about intimidating your opponents by showing off your abilities--how strong you are, how ruthless you are, how fast and agile you are--with the implication that they better back down or you will use those abilities to slaughter them.

 

[Gilwen]

<snip>
The only question that remains is: what is she doing? She's holding a staff and casting a spell, so why is she even jumping up in the giant's face? Maybe she's casting a touch spell and wants to target the face (like continual light on the giant's eye)? The way she's holding the staff seems to suggest that she's winding up to smack him, but then what's with the glowy hand?

My take on what she's doing is levitating and using her staff as a counter-balance and about to unleash a can of whoopass on the giant.


Gil

 

[Ahnehnois]

A televised MMA tournament is a far cry from actually fighting for your life. It's television, which is to say show biz, which is to say it rewards things that attract viewers.

Adventuring is a roleplaying game is also fundamentally about entertainment, even if the characters themselves might not see it that way. The books and their art are likewise to facilitate enjoyment.

And even so, I highly doubt Rousey is striking sexy poses mid-fight.

Quite the contrary! There isn't some set of physical postures that's restricted for sexy time and can't be used for any other purpose, and challenging situations force people to do all kinds of things to their bodies. Google Image search any female athlete and you'll find pages upon pages of unintentionally sexy poses. Training for high-level athletic performance overlaps considerably with being physically attractive. This accounts for a large portion of the qualified successes of women's sports.

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing and what it means is certainly debatable. The point I'm making is that trying hard to do difficult physical tasks is often photogenic.

Female warriors in any given culture usually dress much like the male warriors of that culture--in whatever outfit is most conducive to winning the battle. That isn't to say such outfits never look sexy! But when they do, it's incidental.

D&D adventurers though, are much more individualistic and showy than typical warriors, regardless of gender. And in this PHB picture, as has been noted, we're not talking about a chainmail bikini. The character appears to be wearing functional armor. If it was some fetishized thing that defied everyone's sense of disbelief that an adventurer could actually look like this, I'd say there was a problem, but that is not the case.

Displaying "hypermasculinity," in a combat situation, isn't about displaying your sex appeal. It's about intimidating your opponents by showing off your abilities--how strong you are, how ruthless you are, how fast and agile you are--with the implication that they better back down or you will use those abilities to slaughter them.

Which is kind of sexual. Again, there is no hard line between what is and is not sexual. Combat is kind of sexual, and sexuality is kind of violent. There's inherently a partial but significant overlap there. Freud believed that the two base instincts of the id pertained to violence and sexuality. Actual male combatants, or fictional male D&D characters, are often displaying their sex appeal, even if it isn't really the main purpose.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

I can understand a bit of discussion over whether or not a particular depiction is overly sexual for their own tastes.

However, arguments of the form, "Well, I'm okay with it, so it should be okay for everyone else," or, "Sexuality happens in the real world, and therefore should be fair game in game art," are non-starters.

We expect folks to treat each other with respect. That includes accepting that there are folks who have a problem with sexualized art, and that problem is significant enough for you to not attempt to dismiss it, or try to prove that they are factually incorrect for feeling so, or the like.

If you need to agree to disagree, please do so now. Thanks.