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

[Stormonu]

...Side note - My 5th grade (and favorite) teacher, Mrs. Mastoris, looked much like Bea Arthur.

As for artwork, as long as I can look at it and say "yeah, I'd play that character." or "that'd make a great NPC/Villain." I'm okay with it.

Said by a fat guy with an old one-eyed wizard avatar.

 

[Hussar]

Sigh. Why does every discussion of art in RPG's go circling around the same talking points. Is it 2004 again? Or 1994? Or 1984?

Good grief, you can go back to 1980's Dragon magazine letters and see this EXACT same argument. You'd think that we would have moved on by now.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

I disagree, as this seems to conflate "verisimilitude" with "realism," and the latter is not what the former means. Verisimilitude in fantasy simply means having a world that is consistent about operating according to its own set of rules of how things work. Some of those things might happen to dovetail with how things work in the real world (i.e. humans are burned by fire), but that in no way means that everything does.

Ah, but if we were to say that Dungeons and Dragons was internally consistent then the fact of the matter is many "disabilities" or skin conditions can be easily cured with magic. D&D art doesn't depict people with acne because it can be cleared up by your pimply teen going to temple once a week to get a healing from the local cleric.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm dark skinned, male, and with African features. So I'd expect WOTC if they want my money, to include art of humans and near humans of my gender, ethnicity, and overall look.

I am also out of shape as I'm coming out of my winter exercise hibernation. So I'd expect WOTC if they want my money, to NOT include art of humans and near humans with my beer gut, whiskey brain, and untoned muscles for their RPG that defaults to heroic fantasy.

If D&D defaulted to grim, gritty, and grounded. WOTC should draw all the fat (censored) they want in the book.

 

[Alzrius]

Ah, but if we were to say that Dungeons and Dragons was internally consistent then the fact of the matter is many "disabilities" or skin conditions can be easily cured with magic. D&D art doesn't depict people with acne because it can be cleared up by your pimply teen going to temple once a week to get a healing from the local cleric.

That presumes that a few instances of artwork necessarily inform us about the state of D&D's implied setting, rather than just the specific individuals and locales that are depicted in each piece. Likewise, the ability of healing magic to affect congenital conditions isn't explicitly defined that I'm aware of. As such, while there's certainly a legitimate argument to be made for assuming that (low-level) healing spells can take care of such conditions, the basis for arguing that they can't isn't without merit either (and that's beyond getting into issues of accessibility and affordability, etc.).

 

[mamba]

I mean what you're wrong about is that being a chainmail bikini.

it might not be a bikini, bit it isn’t sensible armor either

 

[Crimson Longinus]

it might not be a bikini, bit it isn’t sensible armor either

No. it is no armour at all, it's just skimpy clothes. And that's fine, not every character needs to wear armour. But making skimpy clothes out of chainmail makes no sense, except perhaps in some fashion show.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wait--since when does 4e Charisma indicate physical beauty? I've never read that--and, while I admit I'm not a comprehensive expert, I'm pretty sure I'd have seen something about that prior to now.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think that needs to be up to individual tables to decide. I, as a possible L, not G, non-practicing B, notorious T, am a fan of that persecution against Tieflings being a thing in my games. But I have friends who would prefer to get away from that kind of persecution in their pretend play time, and that’s a perfectly reasonable desire. I think it’s enough to mention in the Tiefling entry in the PHB that such persecution exists in some places/on some worlds, and leave individual groups to decide if they want to include that, and to what extent.

And of course, make it explicit that this is one of the things Session Zero is meant to address.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Not saying this is my position, but...

I think there's a possible argument that chainmail bikinis are "sex-positive" and fight against oppressive traditions that demand modesty and policing of the female body.

Contemporary culture contains various movements for whom promoting the ability to dress more freely and have more ownership over the body of one's self is important.

I recognize that this isn’t your position.

Sex-positive feminism exists. However, it is a pretty big leap from “women should not be shamed or policed based on what they choose to wear” to “pictures in the PHB should include women in chainmail bikinis”.

The way I see sex-positive feminism likely playing out in an actual game is that players should be free from harassment based on how their characters are dressed, not that the PHB should include women in skimpy chainmail.

To me, the biggest confirmation of this impression is that the people arguing in favour of skimpy chainmail on this thread are all men, despite there being several prominent women posting in this thread.