• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

What do you feel about "cheesecake" art in the D&D IV core books?

  • Strongly Favor!

    Votes: 108 24.4%
  • Moderately Favor

    Votes: 49 11.1%
  • Slightly Favor

    Votes: 38 8.6%
  • Indifferent

    Votes: 62 14.0%
  • Slightly Oppose

    Votes: 38 8.6%
  • Moderately Oppose

    Votes: 60 13.6%
  • Strongly Oppose!

    Votes: 52 11.8%
  • 3.14159265358979323846…

    Votes: 35 7.9%

This picture is appropriate

For a dryad, maybe.

For an adventurer, this picture is ridiculous. No weapon. No armor. Pale as moonshine even though she lives outdoors, spic-n-span skin, no shoes, clothes that appear to be made out of grass that will dissolve in the next strong rain.

She doesn't look like she can kick ass at all. There's no action or adventure at all in that pic. She just looks like some tavern girl trying to be seductive or something. She's sitting there, eating berries, trying desperately to look sexy, making me yawn.

Klaus's #1 is about to spear some guy for walking into her forest. She's bold, assertive, confident. She's a heroine.

This gal doesn't look like a heroine at all. What would she be depicting in a fantasy game? What would she represent? What would be the accompanying text? She's just sitting in the forest trying to look sexy. That's what dryads do, so maybe she'd be an acceptable fey, but otherwise....bleh.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Klaus said:
No, I'm saying my tanned (almost bronze-skinned)
Okay, we just can't have a useful conversation, if you genuinely think that Amazon looks "tanned" or "almost bronze-skinned". She's only a shade or two less pale than my Finnish friend.

This is tanned, or bronze-skinned:

1139577271_60dcd75070.jpg


So, you know. Your model might have lighter skin, and you might have copied that, but it doesn't change the fact that the Amazon you painted sure doesn't even come close to that skin tone there. :)

I know I'm going on a bit about this, but seriously: it bothers me that the overwhelming standard in fantasy art is to use European skin tones, so claiming that an obviously white woman is "tanned" or somehow non-white - even just "mixed" - bugs me as well.
 

Klaus said:
Re: model: I used another picture as a basis for the pencil work. For this oicture I did it on grayscale and then applied color to it, so I can tell you that there's no makeup, just shading of the skin tone (only the lips are of a darker color).
heh, I vaguely know what that means ;)

My point was, if the colouring was based off that picture, then even if you meant to tone it down and remove the makeup, it's entirely possible that things like how it reflects the light snuck though, creating my impression of makeup.
Klaus said:
And I have to say, this picture was ultimately considered TOO sexy, and we went with this one instead:
[sblock]
untamed_woodlands.jpg

[/sblock]

... beacuse when you hire a Brazilian and ask him to draw teh sexy, you'll get your money's worth of sexy, and then some! :D
lol. If they were as Scandinavian as that looks, it's possible they just thought the original looked too cold ;)

And yeah, I like that one too, esp the markings, (btw, what's she gesturing about? is she pointing at something?)
Klaus said:
And please don't think I'm getting annoyed or anything, this is actually a good talk!
Good to know :). I've heard enough artists complain about how they can't get a good discussion of their pictures on places like deviantart because of the way it's set up that I usually feel comfortable doing this, but not every wants to hear open discussion about their work (I personally often find such things quite nerve wracking).
 

Jhulae said:
Might want to qualify that some, because that's really an overgeneralization there.

I've never been alienated by 'cheesecake art', and as others have said, women they know haven't been either.

So, while it may alienate 'some' women gamers, unlike your statement, it doesn't alienate 'all' women gamers.

His statement is semantically correct; 'alienates women gamers' does not imply it alienates all women gamers.
 

It would appear it's my turn to get dressed down. Excellent. (although it's not like I drew it or anything.)
Kamikaze Midget said:
For a dryad, maybe.

For an adventurer, this picture is ridiculous. No weapon. No armor.
Spellcaster? monk? or possibly just her day off? She's obviously not adventuring right now, she's sitting around in comfortable clothes, a time when many people do wear less than they would in public, especially less than they do "on the job" as it were, this would be the "verisimilitude" and "appropriate" part, and it doesn't prevent her from kicking butt at a later date.
Kamikaze Midget said:
Pale as moonshine even though she lives outdoors,
Redhead, Redhead's do not tan.
Kamikaze Midget said:
spic-n-span skin,
she looks a bit dusty to me actually, if you mean no blemishes, then yeah, she's hot, I never said this was a bad thing, but she does look slightly unkept (the hair, and a bit of dust), she does look like she's been outdoors. (although she may well be wearing makeup on her face)
Kamikaze Midget said:
Day off in the forest, appropriate.
Kamikaze Midget said:
clothes that appear to be made out of grass that will dissolve in the next strong rain.
That, or they're just fur.

Kamikaze Midget said:
She doesn't look like she can kick ass at all. There's no action or adventure at all in that pic. She just looks like some tavern girl trying to be seductive or something. She's sitting there, eating berries, trying desperately to look sexy, making me yawn.
She's sitting in the forest eating some berries, there's nothing seductive about the pose (although the face is a different thing), she looks like a normal attractive woman in a situation where's it's not inappropriate to show skin, she's not submissive or desperate, it's just a day in the life thing, y'know, as opposed to "on the job", when an actual adventurer is going to be wearing work clothes for outside, which generally aren't that flattering, attractive, sure, but not really sexy, or cheesecake, makes it "inappropriate".
Kamikaze Midget said:
Klaus's #1 is about to spear some guy for walking into her forest. She's bold, assertive, confident. She's a heroine.
Klous's #2 pic is a heroine, she's kicking butt and taking names (not that can remember why you take names when you kick butt right now), with #1, I see a model wearing fetish gear based of timeline appropriate armour, which makes her more of a parody of a heroine to me.
Kamikaze Midget said:
This gal doesn't look like a heroine at all. What would she be depicting in a fantasy game? What would she represent? What would be the accompanying text? She's just sitting in the forest trying to look sexy. That's what dryads do, so maybe she'd be an acceptable fey, but otherwise....bleh.
She's actually a "fist of the forest" I believe, some sort of monk/druid, that is, the kind of person who hangs around in the forest in unrestrictive clothes, you're right in that she's not looking overly assertive/buttkicking right now, my point is that if your feel the need to show some sexy, you can do it in the down time, or with appropriate characters, in appropriate clothing, (obligatory comment about how D&D isn't just about combat) as opposed to front line fighters, for whom it could be life threatening to show skin "on the job" as it were, especially when the male fighter beside her is wearing the same thing without the holes. (no, not evidenced here, but it will happen if you stick with that kind of armour)
 
Last edited:

art and gender

Personally, I think that there are two traps that one can get into:

1) Portraying one gender in a vastly different manner than the other.
For example, if all your males are bound, scantily clad, and sexy, and all the females are muscular, heavily armored, and fighting the monsters guarding the males, unless your entire market is Femdomme (unlikely in the general marketplace), you probably should re-consider.

2) Only portraying one gender, or portraying one gender extremely disproportionately to the other.
Unless your entire market is that gender (unlikely in the general marketplace), you probably should re-consider.

In either case, I think that art selection matters more on the publisher than the individual artist. With that caveat in mind, my comment on Klaus's first three images (note that my intent is not to offend; apologies if I do):

1) Questionable, largely due to the bikini bottom. It really depends on what other art is in the same source; if there are males running around in similar attire, I'd have no objection.
2) My comments would more be of the difficulty in understanding how they got into this position than anything about either creature's attire. The implication seems to be that they came off of the landing, but then I'd expect the creature in the forefront to either have its feet closer to the landing (note that due to its position, its head had to have started falling prior to its feet), or to have fallen further. In either case, the human's hair, arms, and leg position appear to contradict each other. The hair indicates moving straight into the creature; the body position indicates a straight drop onto the (presumably already falling) creature, and the leg position more suggests that she's riding with her knees on a flying creature. Perhaps the human is supposed to be able to more perpendicular to the direction of gravity temporarily, then starts falling with the creature? That might explain most of the position, but then the sword would likely have started inside the floor.
3) Looks fine to me, although the humanoid's face seems a bit flat in aspect (not an issue in the other two samples). A couple other things I note are that although the humanoid's hair is clearly being blown by the wind, that doesn't seem to affect the wolf's fur. It's unclear how her quiver is secured at the top, and the wolf's left eye is a bit off of where I'd normally expect.
 
Last edited:

Xanaqui said:
Personally, I think that there are two traps that one can get into:

1) Portraying one gender in a vastly different manner than the other.
For example, if all your males are bound, scantily clad, and sexy, and all the females are muscular, heavily armored, and fighting the monsters guarding the males, unless your entire market is Femdomme (unlikely in the general marketplace), you probably should re-consider.

2) Only portraying one gender, or portraying one gender extremely disproportionately to the other.
Unless your entire market is that gender (unlikely in the general marketplace), you probably should re-consider.

In either case, I think that art selection matters more on the publisher than the individual artist. With that caveat in mind, my comment on Klaus's first three images (note that my intent is not to offend; apologies if I do):

1) Questionable, largely due to the bikini bottom. It really depends on what other art is in the same source; if there are males running around in similar attire, I'd have no objection.
2) My comments would more be of the difficulty in understanding how they got into this position than anything about either creature's attire. The implication seems to be that they came off of the landing, but then I'd expect the creature in the forefront to either have its feet closer to the landing (note that due to its position, its head had to have started falling prior to its feet), or to have fallen further. In either case, the human's hair, arms, and leg position appear to contradict each other. The hair indicates moving straight into the creature; the body position indicates a straight drop onto the (presumably already falling) creature, and the leg position more suggests that she's riding with her knees on a flying creature. Perhaps the human is supposed to be able to more perpendicular to the direction of gravity temporarily, then starts falling with the creature? That might explain most of the position, but then the sword would likely have started inside the floor.
3) Looks fine to me, although the humanoid's face seems a bit flat in aspect (not an issue in the other two samples). A couple other things I note are that although the humanoid's hair is clearly being blown by the wind, that doesn't seem to affect the wolf's fur. It's unclear how her quiver is secured at the top, and the wolf's left eye is a bit off of where I'd normally expect.
No offense taken!

1) This picture was a standalone, but if I'm asked to come up with a culture of forest warriors who hold physical fitness in high esteem, you bet I'd put males and females in skimpy attire.

2) This is the end of a rooftop chase. The litorian (lion-creature from Arcana Evolved) was leaping for the next rooftop when the human mageblade landed more-or-less perpendicularly onto him, with a knee and foot first. From there they're falling.

3) The halfling's hair is wispier than a wolf's rather thick fur. As for the eye, I suppose you're expecting it to be in the wrong place, because that wolf is straight out of a photographic reference. Incidentally, so is the halfling's bottom. The original belongs to Jessica Biel. ;)
 

Spellcaster? monk? or possibly just her day off? She's obviously not adventuring right now, she's sitting around in comfortable clothes, a time when many people do wear less than they would in public, especially less than they do "on the job" as it were, this would be the "verisimilitude" and "appropriate" part, and it doesn't prevent her from kicking butt at a later date.

Ah, yes, exactly what I want from my gaming art, pictures of people taking days off. :p Even spellcasters and monks have tools of their trade (wands or scrolls or kama or simply even backpacks or clothes that don't look like underpants), and even then they'd usually be doing things other than eating berries suggestively.

I don't think verisimilitude is the point with this picture, at all. If it is, the picture is incredibly lacking. The point, if I apprehend it, is "sexy forest woman." It achieves that goal pretty well, but if the goal is "a realistic adventuring woman," then it is full of fail. She doesn't look like she's on any sort of adventure. Even you agree that she's on her "day off." That's not the kind of thing I want my adventurers really depicted doing. It doesn't make me want to play the character. Unlike Klaus's sexy stabbitty-druid, whom I could easily see taking on some goblins and shouting battle cries amongst the gore.

Redhead, Redhead's do not tan.

Untrue, but even if she matched that stereotype, she'd be covered in freckles, no? Or perhaps just scars and blisters from constant sunburn? Because she certainly doesn't wear clothes that protect her from the sun!

she looks a bit dusty to me actually, if you mean no blemishes, then yeah, she's hot, I never said this was a bad thing, but she does look slightly unkept (the hair, and a bit of dust), she does look like she's been outdoors. (although she may well be wearing makeup on her face)

Have you ever walked barefoot in the woods before? Her feet should be disgustingly brown-black, her skin darkened from mud, barks and twigs stuck in her hair and her fur bikini, her shins covered in cuts and scrapes.....realistic, this isn't. This is "I just got out of the shower and now I'm going to seduce you by eating berries."

That, or they're just fur.

Sure, but for someone prone to sunburn, they're not covering much, and they still look very flimsy. They're not good forest wear -- anyone would tell you to wear long pants and long sleeves to protect your skin; gloves if you could, and you're climbing trees. It's just not practical for her environment.

Which is why I don't think the point of the picture is to be realistic. It's to be sexy. It achieves that goal. I think Klaus's #1 sets out for and achieves that goal as well, while still looking like a heroic character in a fantasy world. Berry McFurkini achieves that goal, but doesn't really look like a heroic character.

She's sitting in the forest eating some berries, there's nothing seductive about the pose (although the face is a different thing), she looks like a normal attractive woman in a situation where's it's not inappropriate to show skin, she's not submissive or desperate, it's just a day in the life thing, y'know, as opposed to "on the job", when an actual adventurer is going to be wearing work clothes for outside, which generally aren't that flattering, attractive, sure, but not really sexy, or cheesecake, makes it "inappropriate".

A day in the life? She usually tries to tempt people by seductively eating berries? She goes on the job in a furkini? She walks through the forest without getting muddy, bloody, insect-ridden, and trashed? She's obviously being alluring and seductive, but she doesn't look at all like she's on any sort of job an adventurer would do.

She looks like she's on a job a Dryad might do. She's Fey, so she doesn't have to worry about the practical concerns of the forest. She's supposed to be attractive and alluring, so the "come hither and eat of my 'berries'" look is warranted as opposed to nonsense, as is the furkini.

But as a depiction of an adventurer, she sucks. I've never known any PCs of mine or anyone I know to ever sit half-naked in a forest trying to eat berries as suggestively as possible. If you have, it sounds to me kind of like a boring time, so I'm sorry. I have known PC's of mine to look threateningly down at their enemies with their weapons and their allies behind them, like Klaus's #1, so that works for me. That's a half-step away from action and adventure. Berry McFukini isn't.

Klous's #2 pic is a heroine, she's kicking butt and taking names (not that can remember why you take names when you kick butt right now), with #1, I see a model wearing fetish gear based of timeline appropriate armour, which makes her more of a parody of a heroine to me.

If you want to see a wang in the Washington Monument nothing's going to persuade you otherwise, but I'm telling you the Washington Monument isn't about wang. The resemblance, while perhaps not entirely coincidental, is irrelevant, because it's not meant to impregnate anything. Likewise, this gal isn't meaning to put anyone in sexual bondage. She's meaning to stab some gobbos.

She's actually a "fist of the forest" I believe, some sort of monk/druid, that is, the kind of person who hangs around in the forest in unrestrictive clothes, you're right in that she's not looking overly assertive/buttkicking right now, my point is that if your feel the need to show some sexy, you can do it in the down time, or with appropriate characters, in appropriate clothing, (obligatory comment about how D&D isn't just about combat) as opposed to front line fighters, for whom it could be life threatening to show skin "on the job" as it were, especially when the male fighter beside her is wearing the same thing without the holes. (no, not evidenced here, but it will happen if you stick with that kind of armour)

Again, characters in their "downtime" are pretty boring, and aren't really good depictions of realistic characters in the fantasy world. The need to show "some sexy" is always going to be there -- art should be attractive. And in D&D, like in Klaus's #1, it's not necessarily as threatening as you assume (magical armor, magic spells, magic items).

Meanwhile, wearing a furkini in a forest is going to be very threatening, because in short order it will be a ragged mess, you will be covered in cuts, bruises, mud, and bugs, and it won't really protect you from the elements, such as sun, wind, or rain.

And just so you don't misunderstand me, I think both Klaus's picture AND Berry McFurkini are acceptable RPG art. I like the amazon better, because she's a more assertive character, less of a cliche "beautiful woman of the untouched virgin wilderness who sits there and waits for people to come to her seductive gaze," but they're both fine pictures.

I'm just pointing out that if your litmus test is realism, that she fails that test as colossally as Klaus's amazon does, so she's not a good example of your case. In fact, they just seem to be an example of the litmus test actually being "I prefer calm redheads in bikinis to aggressive blonds in armor." Which is fine, but it's a little weird to want RPG books to reflect that desire.
 

I love looking at well-endowed, scantily clad chicks in artwork. . . for course, I love looking at anybody in armor that just screams "I am a bad MF!" Even if its more armor than is really practical. . so I'm really on both sides of the "this picture makes no sense" spectrum. Take your pick! :)
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top