-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
How do you feel about nudity in RPG books?
- Thread starter Bedrockgames
- Start date
UselessTriviaMan
Explorer
As a 13-year-old, I was absolutely in favor of nudity in the Monster Manual. (Yay, succubi!) Nowadays, I agree with Wicht. There's really no need for it, unless it's specifically an adult-oriented and -themed book. The Book of Vile Darkness is really the only one that comes to my mind where it really did seem appropriate, since it's very much an adult-themed book.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I am thinking less Book of Vile Darkness and more about nudity that you might see in a typical art gallery.
A tasteful nude picture would be much better than the not-nude-but-obviously-sexualized pictures that dominate in a lot of RPG books.
Nudity, in appropriate context, is natural and definitely not offensive. I'd definitely prefer the characters on pictures to be portrayed nude when they should be nude, instead of portraying them in skimpy clothing and strange poses when they are supposed to, for example, fight.
Nudity, in appropriate context, is natural and definitely not offensive. I'd definitely prefer the characters on pictures to be portrayed nude when they should be nude, instead of portraying them in skimpy clothing and strange poses when they are supposed to, for example, fight.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
I assumed the OP meant tasteful nudity and not cheesecake, still unless there's great meaning in using nudes, nudity doesn't belong in RPG books.
Celebrim
Legend
I feel that it is a mistake to break the comic book code if your goal is to maximize your audience.
As for nudity itself, I'm really struggling to think of a case where I'd find nudity appropriate in gaming artwork.
One big problem you are going to run into to is that even if you think you are being tasteful and respectful in the presentation, you are going to have a hard time avoiding the appearance of being gratuitous, sexist, and racist. This is the National Geographic problem. You are out somewhere where everyone is bare chested and it is a fact. But if you single that fact out by taking a picture of it, whatever your intention in doing so, you don't get to control how it is viewed by a reader now or in the future. One reader reads it as obvious voyeurism on your part. One reader views it as obvious 'fan service' on your part to attract readers via appeals to titillating content. Another viewer reads you as objectifying the person on account of their gender. Another viewer reads your motive as being to display that the ethnicity in question are uncivilized and savage.
All the same problems will arise if you have nude artwork in your gaming book. There are probably a few cases where I'd overlook it, but in general, this is a case where showing less skin is often displaying more skillfulness. But then again, this is coming from a guy that thinks Victor Hugo's handling of the marriage night scene from Les Miserables is the best done 'sex scene' in all of literature, even though and perhaps precisely because he refuses to give the reader any view of the event.
Last edited:
KirayaTiDrekan
Adventurer
I think this touches on issues of prudishness and cultural "puritanism" that probably cross into a political discussion not entirely welcome on these forums. That said, I'm all for it. If the nudity is tasteful and has context appropriate to the book in question, go for it. I think its shameful that the human body has somehow become not "family friendly."
I do not mind topless depictions of gods, goddess and creatures, if that is their classic representation of them.
Example the Greek God and goddesses were often depicted semi- to fully nude but Norse gods were not depicted nude.
Beyond this, I say that nudity is not needed.
Example the Greek God and goddesses were often depicted semi- to fully nude but Norse gods were not depicted nude.
Beyond this, I say that nudity is not needed.
What idea are we talking about? The idea is maybe more important then the nudity itself.
I'm kind of liberal, so I think I would be OK with it, but I am OK with a lot of things so you know. The other half everyone else already told you. It's generally not OK for the good majority of people and they will be taken back sometimes before taking the idea into account even.
Celebrim
Legend
You're probably right, but I would like to note that any actual prudes wouldn't discuss the subject at all. No one here actually seems embarrassed by the topic, or outraged that the question was asked. So any charges of prudery that cast differing opinions in pejorative language would probably violate other terms of discussion on the forums at least as fast as discussions of social norms raised political problems.
Speaking as someone with a family, I found it interesting how quickly the kids decided that displays of affection by their parents were gross without any apparent indication of needing to be taught that. I can speculate on a variety of biological advantages to that being instinctive, though actually performing controlled research with children would be really difficult and I don't see an easy way to test the theory.
And while standards and conventions regarding what is modest vary between cultures and within cultures by context, I know of know widespread culture that espouses no standards of modest behavior. I don't think the issue is so much that the human body is not family friendly - almost everyone with a family got their family in the same way - but that everything has an appropriate context. People can be perfectly happy with presenting the human body in one context - say swimming on the beach - and still feel its display in another area inappropriate. I suspect that much of the opinions evidenced here regarding artwork in an RPG book are some sort of variation on that. I don't think that 'nudity is seldom appropriate' is the same as being prudish or Puritanical (leaving aside the fact that the maligning the Puritans as prudes is based on ahistorical slander).
And regardless, standards regarding modesty tend to be very personal, and as such it is very hard to transgress in common areas without offending someone. It's just a bad economic risk.
As far as my personal taste, I tend to see artists wanting to use nudity as adornment, rather than because its necessary. And while that's probably occasionally appropriate - I'm not upset by the Sistene Chapel as an obvious example - my experience is that a little goes along ways and most of the time its just a cheap gimmick. Dress your art in too much of that, and pretty soon that's all that people will see. The literary equivalent occurs all the time. I don't know how many really interesting sci-fi and fantasy novels I've read that were discussing a wide variety of topics and ideas, and developing setting and character, and then the author has his many characters in an explicit sex act and even if the scene itself is well done after that it's like the text is lobotomized and all these formerly interesting characters spend the rest of the work obsessed about whose body parts are touching whose body parts to the detriment of the story. It's not merely that you may distract your readers; the bigger danger to the artist seems to be that they distract themselves.
Another equivalent is the use of profanity. At times, it's almost essential to a good text ("Frankly my dear...", "I want my father back..."). But I find that the temptation to sprinkle your writing with profanity is far more debilitating than attempts to avoid it. Eventually you impoverish your ability to express yourself, resulting in terrible writing. I'd probably stop reading after a while an RPG liberally laced with profanity, even though I'm sure few terms therein haven't escaped my lips at times.
So sure, I'm not saying that nudity would never be appropriate, any more than profanity is never appropriate; but I think you better have a very good reason.
