D&D (2024) Comeliness and Representation in Recent DnD Art

[Umbran]

Just as some who identify as male may fantasize about being a jacked and ruggedly sexy barbarian in a loincloth, some who identify as female may (and have the right to) visualize themselves as a bodacious battleaxe-brandishing bikini babe.

Sure, they have the right to. But they also have the right to feel that they won't be all that sexualized.

And that's when we have to consider what the larger concern is. Is it that women don't feel they have the right to be bodacious battleaxe brandishing bikini babes in game, or that they do feel too sexualized at the table?

If the latter, then the chainmail-bikini art hits the circular file.

 

[KYRON45]

I suspect your PC has some things in common with you. Gender? Sex? Ethnicity? General age range? Approximate height? Probably some amount of core values? If not, it’s probably a very intentional choice to avoid making them alike you in any way at all.

A large portion of my gaming career was spent playing in an all gnome campaign. Even then i suppose we all imagined our gnomes as whatever the "coolest" version of a gnome would be in a gnomes eyes.

When playing make believe there is a fine line between playing some disparate demographic and playing a caricature.

I would assume we all play what we know. Which is different from liking what you like in art.
In general when i see a piece of art i think...that's a nice piece of art or, that art isn't for me.

 

[Fifth Element]

All art representing PCs should be within the ranges of attractive or appealing (and of various ethnicities and PC species) in some way, it's all about selling the idealized vision of what a character should look like.

Should look like? Yuck. Gross. Seriously.

 

[Argyle King]

Sure, they have the right to. But they also have the right to feel that they won't be all that sexualized.

And that's when we have to consider what the larger concern is. Is it that women don't feel they have the right to be bodacious battleaxe brandishing bikini babes in game, or that they do feel too sexualized at the table?

If the latter, then the chainmail-bikini art hits the circular file.

All? Certainly not.
It's also worth noting that while being scantily clad does (in fantasy artwork) often take the form of sexualization, the two are not necessarily synonymous.

Artwork based upon someone like Jade Cargill (in the gear she chooses to wrestle) wouldn't look out of place in fantasy artwork meant to showcase a physically powerful female body.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whilst I do dislike prudery and do not personally mind lack of clothing in fantasy art, it is also good to bear in mind who the target audience of the product is. D&D probably needs to aim to be somewhat more "family friendly" than say, World of Darkness.

 

[Scribe]

Whilst I do dislike prudery and do not personally mind lack of clothing in fantasy art, it is also good to bear in mind who the target audience of the product is. D&D probably needs to aim to be somewhat more "family friendly" than say, World of Darkness.

BG3 says 'nah'.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

BG3 says 'nah'.

Good point!

 

[Scott Christian]

When we ask for diversity and inclusion, I think we are asking for diverse people and inclusion of people of various types, not diverse esthetics.

Aesthetics, especially in art, are part of that diversity. The aesthetics of clothes in general is often an integral part of the inclusion of diverse people. In the end, it's not just about skin tone and weight.

 

[Umbran]

All? Certainly not.

Well, I was mostly speaking from a sort of publisher's viewpoint. If what they learn is that their female players are having issues with sexualization at the table, that the art direction makes women uncomfortable, then I think ditching all the chainmail bikinis from their own works is a reasonable action.

It's also worth noting that while being scantily clad does (in fantasy artwork) often take the form of sexualization, the two are not necessarily synonymous.

In this situation, I think the general trend is far more important than the edge cases. Especially when you are also marketing to minors, such that scantily clad figures are a questionable choice for other reasons.

In this situation, I also think the reasoning of men trying to justify scantily clad forms in the artwork shouldn't be given a whole lot of weight. Guys seeking chainmail bikini art can find it very easily without it being in the game products.

 

[LesserThan]

Sometimes something resonates with people because they can easily relate to it for some reason. I wouldn't have thought a lot of gay men would be into a show about four senior citizen women living together in Florida, but nontheless The Golden Girls resonated with gay viewers. There was just something about those characters that gay audiences could connect with.

I think Sofia, Rose, Blanche, and Maude resonated with many people because they were good well written and performed chatacters. Race, religion, skin color or disability had nothing to do with it as the demographic was prime time family viewing.

Not to get too deep into TV shows, but the new Netflix animated remake of Good Times with the next generation of the Evans family has been lauded as "The Coondocks" by more than a few POC reviewers on Youtube, as a pun on Boondocks animated series, and several said they were turning into Uncle Ruckus from watching it.

There has to be an audience and the original Good Times resonated with everyone, as did Sanford and Son, and Whats Happening. We can not really know why any show hits with a certain audience, but in the case of the new Good Times, we have much evidence why it is NOT a hit for POC.

So the why a teifling and LGBT connect is why I was curious. If it is because of persecution they both share, then is it not self harm to play one, mentally speaking?

Thanks for your insight. Betty White can never be replaced.