Chainmail Bikinis & other Cheesecake art in the 4th Edition Core Books.

[A'koss]

I'm also a big proponent of practical dungeon-delving attire in D&D.

It can be "sexy", it can be as fancy as you want it to be, but I have to believe someone would actually wear it into combat. Being heavily armored in every place except your vital areas (plate armor with bare midrifs and chests for example) just wouldn't happen. I actually have a bigger beef with wizards and their great big trailing robes, huge big billowing things that would be downright suicidal to wear into a dungeon.

 

[Incenjucar]

That said, I'm hoping that the practical armor depictions do not always have such massive breasts as that image.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

That said, I'm hoping that the practical armor depictions do not always have such massive breasts as that image.

Well as long as some of them do. Ok, maybe we've moved beyond armor that only covers nipples, buttockses and vajayjays (that word amuses me) but lets not be too hypersensitive. Some women warriors are going to be curvy. After a hard day of kicken arse and taking names a lady's gotta eat.

Not all, or more than a small proportion of, women should look like Kiera Knightly. Good looking woman to be sure, but give that lady a sammich.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Some cheesecake doesn't hurt. Some people like playing sexy characters, and there should be some art for it.

I think all of Klaus's art is fine for a RPing game. I really like pic #1.

I like picture #1 because I can imagine a forest dwelling woman who (when its warm enough) wears some gear like this. These are real life warriors who wore less than this. Amazonian Indians, some African tribesmen, some Plains Indians, Celts, Australian Aboriginals, etc. And weirdly enough, I am of a mind to think that a woman who is unconcerned about the armor value of her attire could actually dress is a manner she finds sexy and feminine.

I find it interesting how in America at least, it is ok to see an African woman, an Amazonian Woman or any non-Western (ie. caucasian) woman in a loincloth and nothing else and no one bats an eyelash. Its like the National Geographic magazines where there is an anthropologists objectivity. As long as a women in presumed to be part of some stone-age tribe her breasts and buttocks can shown on a nature show on prime time cable without parental warnings.

However, you show the breasts of a sexy blonde...well then shield the children because that will melt their little brains. Even if you put that blond in a villiage along the Amazon, there is no way she would be seen in the same light as the native girls.

I would bet money that if there were an actual lost village of europeans were the ladies wore nothing but loincloths and the village was filled with 16-21yr old women wandering around wearing next to nothing...that show would be slapped with an R-rating and there would be people fighting to keep it off the air (like they did the Victoria's Secret fashion show).

I know context matters, but my point is that it seems we have come to a point where any artwork showing a women in sexy attire is somehow offensive to someone somewhere. IMO there are times when someone doesn't have a lot of clothing that aren't trying to be sexy. Maybe in their culture folks don't wear alot of clothes. Maybe its the viewer's hypersnesitivity that is the problem and not the attire.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Klaus]

I'm fine with sexy women in the PHB, but I feel like there's a line between "sexy" and "thinly disguised porn." It's hard to define exactly where that line is; but I think a lot of it derives from clothing that is obviously impractical for any purpose except looking sexy.

For example, I've got no problem with a portrayal of a female warrior in loincloth and leather halter (see Klaus's picture #2). Most people would prefer a little more protection, but if you don't want to be encumbered by armor and are in a fairly warm climate, it's not unreasonable.

On the other hand, put the same woman in pauldrons, greaves, gorget, vambraces, helm, and half a breastplate, with exposed midriff, cleavage, and a metal G-string (see Klaus's picture #1), and I have problems. Put her in a suggestive pose, and I have more problems. That outfit is providing all the drawbacks of armor--weight, loss of mobility, expense--with none of the benefits.

Similarly, high heels on adventuring women are ridiculous, at least while they're actually adventuring.

Just to clarify:

It's leather underneath an ironwood armor. She's an Amazon Druid (as the title says), so she can turn her own skin as hard as tree bark if she needs to.

 

[megamania]

I don't have a huge issue with it. It is after all fantasy.

 

[PaSquall]

Some cheesecake doesn't hurt. Some people like playing sexy characters, and there should be some art for it.

Ditto.

Klaus, your drawings rock !

 

[Jack7]

I thought that it would be interesting to get an actual measure of the feeling of people on this subject.

Well, if you're talking about feeling on the matter, then I can't rightfully say about the chainmail bikinis, but I can tell ya that chainmail underwear looks a whole lot nicer than it wears.

So, I'm against it just on general principle, unless you pad up extra good and don't blister real easy. Then it's okay by me, if it's okay with everybody else.

But then again if it's okay with everybody else, I'll just stick with cotton, or thermal-wear when it's appropriate. Chainmail ain't much for harsh weather conditions either.
No real insulating properties to speak of.

 

[Dausuul]

Just to clarify:

It's leather underneath an ironwood armor. She's an Amazon Druid (as the title says), so she can turn her own skin as hard as tree bark if she needs to.

...so, why is she wearing armor at all? I'd be much more okay with her being stark naked. It's the "armor that slows you down and limits your motion while leaving your vitals wide open" that I have problems with.

I like the woman in A'koss's post. Yeah, she's got huge tracts of land, but she's making a serious effort to protect them, like any sane warrior would. And her appearance and posture convey "I'm a bad-ass adventurer," not "I'm trying to sell this book to horny gamers."

 

[Klaus]

...so, why is she wearing armor at all? I'd be much more okay with her being stark naked. It's the "armor that slows you down and limits your motion while leaving your vitals wide open" that I have problems with.

I like the woman in A'koss's post. Yeah, she's got huge tracts of land, but she's making a serious effort to protect them, like any sane warrior would. And her appearance and posture convey "I'm a bad-ass adventurer," not "I'm trying to sell this book to horny gamers."

Because the publisher asked for a cover in that vein. I actually put more armor on her than the reference material supplied (video game ad with the photo of a kneeling blonde in a plate mail bikini holding a sword).

But I took the care of coming up with an armor that wasn't restrictive (hence the joints in the knees, the free arms and the segmented abdomen).

If I wanted her to be sexy and still have her wear full armor, I would have done something like this:

[sblock]

[/sblock]