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

[Charlaquin]

I don't necessarily disagree with that.

I have had some anecdotal experience which runs counter to that, but I am also aware that experience is skewed due to a previous occupation putting me in contact with people who (I surmise) likely think differently than the average 'norm.'

I still think that, in a world increasingly influenced by Instagram models, Influencers, women in WWE, and E-girls; the desire to "look hot" in something like a chainmail bikini might be more common than it may have been at other points in time.

Again though, the desire to look hot is not 1:1 with the desire to wear a chainmail bikini. And even looking hot in a chainmail bikini is often going to look different when the goal is to appeal to a presumed-male audience vs. when it’s done to enjoy expressing one’s own sexuality.

Though, so as to not risk running afoul of forum rules or culturally-modern sensibilities that may get the thread shut down, I feel it's best for me to not comment further on whether or not a particular gender has a tendency toward manifesting fantasy in a particular way.

I mean, there’s definitely a tendency. It’s most likely a social tendency rather than an innate one though.

All things considered, I think my personal view on the chainmail bikini is that I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other.

Fair enough

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

And of course, the focus of a game has some impact here; if you're building a general fantasy game without a strong setting identity, there's probably no harm in having a variety of clothing that one might find in a cosmopolitan urban area. If its representing something more insular (say, fantasy Japan) a more narrow range of ethnicity and dress is probably warranted.

(The latter can be used as an excuse for more narrow options than is genuinely warranted of course; for example, a game set throughout a lot of the range of things like the Roman Empire should have at least a few ethnically and culturally different looking characters even if there's a common look to the majority. This is likely true of any culture that isn't tightly bound down in urban areas. It can even apply to less obviously cosmopolitan areas; early post-Roman Britain probably had a surprising number of people who really didn't look like we'd imagine the Britains of the time to look...)

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yes, this. And spoiler alert: the latter is the bigger concern for most women.

 

[LesserThan]

@LesserThan Welcome to the boards, er to your first post. You now have the record for longest lurker without posting award. The last one was only like 15 years.

Thanks, I know 2 that introduced me to this site who have still had no reason to join.

As a long time Basic player, this placed offered little for discussion, but I was always curious the point of this "beauty" stat, so figures it would finally give cause to ask a question.

 

[Charlaquin]

BG3 says 'nah'.

Sure, but BG3 isn’t synonymous with D&D. It’s a 3rd party product, so it has the luxury of being able to go outside the bounds of a game recommend for ages 12 and up.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think Sofia, Rose, Blanche, and Maude resonated with many people because they were good well written and performed chatacters.

Dorothy. Her name was Dorothy.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Not really, no. We can recognize something in common with our own experience with that of Tieflings, and being persecuted for an aspect of ourselves we were born with is part of that. The cultural practice of choosing our own names is another. And the demonic/devilish appearance often resonates with the experience of being accused of being sinners. Reclaiming symbols that have been used against one’s people is also a very common practice. LGBT folks identifying with satanic imagery is no more self-harming than, like, Americans proudly singing Yankee Doodle.

 

[LesserThan]

I apologize if my phrasing was insensitive. I was trying to express why someone might have an easier time identifying with a character who is alike them, as for example, my disabled partner does with disabled characters in D&D. If this doesn’t resonate with your own experience, that’s fine. It takes all sorts.

Huh? Nobody persecutes me personally. In some settings, Tieflings in general are persecuted because of their fiend heritage, and personally I enjoy playing Tieflings in such settings. I like to roleplay overcoming such adversity. But, again, I have friends who would not enjoy that, and that is a valid choice as well.

You’re quite welcome!

No need to apologize if you did not mean wheelchair bound could not play a walking Conan.

The power is that of the industry to demand things at personal tables.

"sanitize settings", that you replied to is what got me thinking, but here you state you are fine with teifling persecution in some settings. The problem of sanitizing would be if your partner demanded Forgotten Realms or Rifts to stop persecution of Devils or DeeBees. That can be changed at individual games, not eradicated from the origins of the setting. Bad example as Realms has been sanitized 30 times over for Greenwood to kowtow to TSR and WotC every 4 years, while Hicknan and Weis maintain their artistic integrity in their own setting and reserved the right ro destroy it themselves as they did with Saga or whatever they called it.

So, I am glad I misunderstood you and you do NOT think settings should be sanitized for everyone because a few might get upset. We can't put rubber and foam on all the pointy things in the world after all.

Just wish the entire entertainment industry, games, movies, books, etc, would go back to Vulcan logic.

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one."

Everyone has a right to change any setting in any game, but the "sanitization" I assumed being spoken of just destroys individuality in settings AND people with what video games call a "meta" that everyone is expected to follow, which is the opposite of diversity.

Thanks for answering and clearing those things up.

 

[Scribe]

Sure, but BG3 isn’t synonymous with D&D. It’s a 3rd party product, so it has the luxury of being able to go outside the bounds of a game recommend for ages 12 and up.

Yep, Wizards can continue to play to an audience with a product that doesnt seem to grow up with its user base, hoping that 3rd party or licensed product can appeal to a demographic that has aged a decade since 5e was released.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep, Wizards can continue to play to an audience with a product that doesnt seem to grow up with its user base, hoping that 3rd party or licensed product can appeal to a demographic that has aged a decade since 5e was released.

There's an argument that the extent base will be slow to leave, so they need to set their visual language more to the new players coming in. The extent fanbase isn't going to always like that, but there's always a tendency to focus more on newer players than ones that may be aging out anyway.