D&D 5E Elements in a new official setting

[Steampunkette]

no, I mean can you make a sword and sorcery setting without the stuff that will get the company in hot water?

You absolutely can. And D&D has one.

Dark Sun.

In updating it for 5e the writers can remove the last bits of the problematic material that has clung to it over the decades, but even in the 90s it was a "Tame" version of the sword and sorcery films of the 70s/80s being crossed with the Postapocalyptica of Mad Max.

It's certainly not the -perfect- Swords and Sorcery setting, but if the designers leaned hard into that concept, likely by making Preserving difficult/costly, it would be a solid contender for the S&S crown.

 

[Yaarel]

You absolutely can. And D&D has one.

Dark Sun.

In updating it for 5e the writers can remove the last bits of the problematic material that has clung to it over the decades, but even in the 90s it was a "Tame" version of the sword and sorcery films of the 70s/80s being crossed with the Postapocalyptica of Mad Max.

It's certainly not the -perfect- Swords and Sorcery setting, but if the designers leaned hard into that concept, likely by making Preserving difficult/costly, it would be a solid contender for the S&S crown.

I perceive sword-and-sorcery to be sexy, even if lurid, as part of its visceral sensuality.

How would you do "sexy but not sexist"?

 

[Mind of tempest]

I perceive sword-and-sorcery to be sexy, even if lurid, as part of its visceral sensuality.

How would you do "sexy but not sexist"?

now that is a difficult question I have grappled with it to no victory, so any of you guys got an idea.

 

[Yaarel]

now that is a difficult question I have grappled with it to no victory, so any of you guys got an idea.

One rule of thumb is symmetry.

If there is an image of a less clothed beautiful lithe woman, there needs to be elsewhere an image of a less clothed goodlooking muscular man, and similarly an appealing androgynous person.

If there is an image of an ugly or monstrous man, then there must similarly be an image of an ugly or monstrous woman, and so on.

 

[Bitbrain]

I perceive sword-and-sorcery to be sexy, even if lurid, as part of its visceral sensuality.

How would you do "sexy but not sexist"?

Borrow an idea or two from Ages of Aenya, where the male and female protagonists are both thoroughly disgusted by the slavery, political corruption, and objectification of women that is pretty much everywhere in the novel’s equivalent to the city of Rome.

The protagonists also don’t believe in wearing clothes if they can help it, so there is a lot of fanservice.

 

[Steampunkette]

One rule of thumb is symmetry.

If there is an image of a less clothed beautiful lithe woman, there needs to be elsewhere an image of a less clothed goodlooking muscular man, and similarly an appealing androgynous person.

If there is an image of an ugly or monstrous man, then there must similarly be an image of an ugly or monstrous woman, and so on.

False Equivalence.

Muscular Dudes wearing loincloths have been a common theme of Fantasy since the 70s and 80s. The dudes creating those characters aren't looking at them going "Dang! Look at this super sexy man I have created!" they're looking at a power fantasy of rippling muscles and physical power.

Here's Hugh Jackman on the cover of Muscle and Fitness, a magazine centered around the male power fantasy of physical strength:

And here he is on GQ. A magazine all about men's fashion, grooming, style... Y'know. Specifically being attractive.

Same person, same strength, but different results. Instead of flexing, he's suave. Instead of being ripped, he's well dressed. Instead of being angry, he's giving you bedroom eyes and a soft, warm expression.

Or, to put it in Walkyverse terms:

 

[Yaarel]

Muscular Dudes wearing loincloths have been a common theme of Fantasy since the 70s and 80s. The dudes creating those characters aren't looking at them going "Dang! Look at this super sexy man I have created!"

That is exactly what the artists must do − they must be saying − "Dang! This is a super sexy man I have created!"

Heh, if the artists are unsure if a man is sexy or not, they need to ask their gay male friends, to make sure they are getting the image correct.

If there is an image of a nonsexy man who is displaying physical power, then elsewhere there must be an image of a nonsexy woman displaying physical power. And so on.

Symmetry is a rule of thumb.

 

[Steampunkette]

That is exactly what the artists must do − they must be saying − "Dang! This is a super sexy man I have created!"

Heh, if the artists are unsure if a man is sexy or not, they need to ask their gay male friends, to make sure they are getting the image correct.

If there is an image of a nonsexy man who is displaying physical power, then elsewhere there must be an image of a nonsexy woman displaying physical power. And so on.

Symmetry is a rule of thumb.

They need to ask people attracted to men, in general, whether the character they've designed is sexy. And the response is going to be fairly varied. But.

The rule of thumb isn't about what a character -looks- like, so much as the -position- they're in. A sexy pose can make people of any body type look sexy (or like they're trying to be sexy to varying degrees of success) to the people around them

The way a person dances, or smiles, or shakes their hips, or bites their lip... These things are where sexiness comes in. A woman can wear a 3 piece suit and look sexy as heck with practically no skin showing based on her attitude. And a guy can wear a pair of low rider jeans and look outrageously angry and kill the mood.

Similarly, someone in tears and distress, no matter how attractive their bone structure, doesn't look sexy. They look hurt and upset and we approach them on that basis. Y'know?

Skimpy clothes can help frame a situation as sexual, but body language and expression are much more powerful indicators!

Zach Kornfeld in his underwear. A skinny and hairy geek who isn't inherently "Sexy" just existing.

Same guy oozing sexuality at the camera.

He may or may not be significantly more attractive in one image than the other, but his position, expression, and presentation are much sexier in the second image, at least.

And here he is being sexy while wearing more clothes.

Framing does a whooooole lot.

 

[Yaarel]

They need to ask people attracted to men, in general, whether the character they've designed is sexy. And the response is going to be fairly varied. But.

The rule of thumb isn't about what a character -looks- like, so much as the -position- they're in. A sexy pose can make people of any body type look sexy (or like they're trying to be sexy to varying degrees of success) to the people around them

The way a person dances, or smiles, or shakes their hips, or bites their lip... These things are where sexiness comes in. A woman can wear a 3 piece suit and look sexy as heck with practically no skin showing based on her attitude. And a guy can wear a pair of low rider jeans and look outrageously angry and kill the mood.

Similarly, someone in tears and distress, no matter how attractive their bone structure, doesn't look sexy. They look hurt and upset and we approach them on that basis. Y'know?

Skimpy clothes can help frame a situation as sexual, but body language and expression are much more powerful indicators!

Zach Kornfeld in his underwear. A skinny and hairy geek who isn't inherently "Sexy" just existing.

Same guy oozing sexuality at the camera.

He may or may not be significantly more attractive in one image than the other, but his position, expression, and presentation are much sexier in the second image, at least.

And here he is being sexy while wearing more clothes.

Framing does a whooooole lot.

Regarding these three images.

He is decent looking.

The first image is fine, calm, perhaps amused.

I perceive the second image to be too passive, coy, to be sensual in a masculine way.

The third image which crops off the genitalia is almost by definition sexless.

 

[Steampunkette]

Regarding these three images.

He is decent looking.

The first image is fine, calm, perhaps amused.

I perceive the second image to be too passive, coy, to be sensual in a masculine way.

The third image which crops off the genitalia is almost by definition sexless.

"Sensual in a Masculine Way" is going to be culturally and personally determined. As a woman who is attracted to men living in America, I think he's much sexier in the second image than the first specifically -because- of his passive, open, position. He's very -inviting- in that image. Moreso than he would be if his arms were crossed and his legs together and turned away.

And the third, as well. It isn't "sexless" because his dick isn't in the frame. The angle of his neck, the cant of his hips and shoulders...

Much more attractive than just "Skinny nerdy guy wearing nothing but underpants".

And way more attractive than "Bulging musclebound guy wearing a loincloth and coming at me with an axe and fury in his expression"