D&D 5E 5th edition artists need to watch Legend of Korra

[Umbran]

But WHY does D&D have to be Eurocentric? Aren't we past this?

I think that's a far more complicated marketing question than most might realize...

As a practical matter - the initial rule set is going to have a finite number of pages, and a finite (and not terribly large) number of pieces of art on those pages. It does not seem to me to be realistic to expect the rules to properly cover European, Asian, Middle Eastern, and African tropes all in that initial offering. They will have to make some choices.

That means some choices in art. The art in a given book should, I think, be representative of the material in the book. That's just good marketing - if you have art of things the book doesn't do, you tend to confuse or disappoint the audience.

That can give you issues with diversity. Good, clever artists and art direction can help, but from a pure marketing standpoint there's only so much flexibility a given book will have. Over the long haul, I hope the game represents many cultures (and the races associated with them), but I think we need to keep our expectations for the art direction of each book to be in line with the limitations inherent in making a game book.

It can't have an opinion one way or the other, they're only being objectified in YOUR opinion.

The proof is in the pudding. They're being objectified if a goodly chunk of the viewers look at the art and think, "That woman's a sex object in this piece."

A few wise women have told me that, really, at the right time and place, it is okay to think of a woman as a target of sexual desire. I'm not so sure that a dungeon combat scene is the right time or place.

You run into trouble when all you think of is that sexual target, and not a person. It is pretty easy to depict a target of sexual desire in a static piece, but implying the person at the same time requires a good deal more artistic talent (and more talented art direction). The result being that static pieces that do try to play for the sex angle often fail to do anything more, and that's a problem.

End result - I, personally, would prefer they put a limit on the cheesecake. A little is okay, especially if they are even-handed and depict some cheesecake males as well. But let us not go overboard.

 

[Pheonix0114]

I have a tangentially related question, if the female character isn't a fighter/paladin/cleric and therefore isn't wearing plate. Say, for instance, she is a rogue, is it still bad/dumb/wrong for her to wear lighter clothing with a tighter fit that may or may not show some cleavage?

Cause outside of a handful of chainmail bikinis (and then half of the armor from vanilla wow which are chainmail bikinis), most modern fantasy art that shows sexuality are Rogues and the like, and in my games a lot of the female players play these characters and use their CHA score to flirt and seduce their way to victory.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly Pheonix0114, I'd say it's a matter of degree. After all, something like this:

shows an obviously attractive woman in tight clothes. But, I'd hardly say she's being objectified. The clothes are fitting, but certainly not cheesecake.

And, if we're drawing a seductress, then sure, make it seductive. Obviously context matters. It's the bodice ripping, half falling out of her clothes/armor for no real reason than to pander to male readers that is being objected to.

 

[Balsamic Dragon]

I have a tangentially related question, if the female character isn't a fighter/paladin/cleric and therefore isn't wearing plate. Say, for instance, she is a rogue, is it still bad/dumb/wrong for her to wear lighter clothing with a tighter fit that may or may not show some cleavage?

Cause outside of a handful of chainmail bikinis (and then half of the armor from vanilla wow which are chainmail bikinis), most modern fantasy art that shows sexuality are Rogues and the like, and in my games a lot of the female players play these characters and use their CHA score to flirt and seduce their way to victory.

The reason I posted in the first place was to get away from the whole is this "bad/dumb/wrong" debate. Sadly, that didn't happen. What I would like is to see a diversity among female characters in art and to see more female PCs in art. Too often it becomes about what is wrong, but with no concrete examples about what is right.

I want to see women with real muscles who look like the could have an 17, 18 Strength, but don't look like professional body-builders. While we're at it, some women who look like they've actually seen some combat, scars, etc., would not be bad either. I don't have a problem if there are also sexy Rogues and Sorcerers with 17, 18 Charisma scores, as long as that's not _all_ there is.

 

[Nellisir]

Little side by side comparison of what we probably should see and what we shouldn't:

I'm tempted to be snarky here and ask where's the "what we should see", but that wouldn't actually be helpful. I assume you're going for a statement on cheesecake, not artistic quality or ability. The woman portrayed in the first image has more clothing, but the second image is much more interesting and better done. Can we just change costumers?

 

[Hussar]

Nellisir, I would agree with you actually. The Caldwell piece is obviously higher quality than the Deviantart one. As would be expected given the difference in money involved.

But, yes, you are absolutely right, I was referring more to the cheesecake than the quality of the pic.

 

[Nellisir]

To potentially (but probably not) shift the discussion a little, what bothers me about a lot of contemporary art is not the subject or style, but the coloring. I'm not sure if it's laziness or a stylistic choice, but a lot of computer-rendered artwork has an "crispness" to it that works in small doses, but not large panels. It ends up feeling like a diaorama, with static figures against a painted backdrop.

OK, I had an example, but I wasn't sure it was accurate, and I'm totally sick and dopey, so I ain't looking no more right now.

 

[tuxgeo]

For those bitching about "womyn" did you even bother to follow the link? It's a massive collection of art from DeviantArt, some good, some bad, but all following the same concept - no chainmail bikinis, not exploitation. Good grief, while I realize that bashing political correctness is all the rage, let's not get too carried away here.

"Oh noes, they spelled it with a "y", save us from those nazi feminists!" Jeez.

I mean, what's wrong with this:

(Yeah, I followed the link.)

What's wrong with that, IMHO, are the following:
1. Low resolution. (Isn't there a high-res version somewhere?)
2. Too many objects are out of focus; but that ties in with (1.), above.
3. Nobody else even has a face. Are they even facing the same direction as the central figure? (One cannot tell, from the picture.)
4. I realize it's "Shadow Era," but it's all too dark. If there's enough light for her blade to shine like that, other things should shine, too.
5. The color choices disappoint me. There's not enough contrast for my tastes. (I know -- "Picky, picky.")

 

[Sunseeker]

The proof is in the pudding. They're being objectified if a goodly chunk of the viewers look at the art and think, "That woman's a sex object in this piece."

Perhaps, but any woman can be objectified, she doesn't have to show skin for it. We can objectify that woman in full-plate as much as the skeleton bikini.

End result - I, personally, would prefer they put a limit on the cheesecake. A little is okay, especially if they are even-handed and depict some cheesecake males as well. But let us not go overboard.

So would I. But I don't consider every bit of skin to be cheesecake, as the post below yours points out, when we get away from the obvious "sexy armor" and start talking about people in leather, robes, or in classes whose roles typically rely on "face time", we get into much cloudier waters on what can be shown without becoming cheesecake.

 

[jshaft37]

(Yeah, I followed the link.)

What's wrong with that, IMHO, are the following:
1. Low resolution. (Isn't there a high-res version somewhere?)
2. Too many objects are out of focus; but that ties in with (1.), above.
3. Nobody else even has a face. Are they even facing the same direction as the central figure? (One cannot tell, from the picture.)
4. I realize it's "Shadow Era," but it's all too dark. If there's enough light for her blade to shine like that, other things should shine, too.
5. The color choices disappoint me. There's not enough contrast for my tastes. (I know -- "Picky, picky.")

big time art critic huh? we're not talking about composition or art quality here, we're talking about style and tasteful portrayals of women in D&D. You just critiqued a piece of fan art. Do you go to bars and heckle local bands too? If you want to get down to it, most all fantasy art is junk in the eyes of art critics.