Nudity in RPG books?

[Elf Witch]

Hey, I'm almost certain someone's mentioned this already, but here goes...

I have absolutely no problem with cheesecake on the cover of a book, though I would prefer it to be consistent with the setting. I've been with D&D a long while, and, to an extent, "Dragon Magazine cover" was prectically synonymous with cheesecake. Mind you, the cheesecake in question was primarily done by Caldwell and Elmore, and those same covers wound up in the "Art of Dragon Magazine" book. No one had any huge problems with it, and, if someone did, I didn't see anything in the letters to the editors, though it's certainly possible Dragon didn't publish any.

Heck, let's take it a step further - the original DM's Guide had cheesecake, though it was barely visible. The female adventurer in the efreet's hand is wearing some decidedly abbreviated armor.

In a way, cheesecake was an honored D&D tradition. Oh, BTW, Dragon also had nudity on its covers - though it was generally from the side.

So making a lot of the people who play DnD uncomfortable is okay because it is a time honored tradition? So was paying woman less than men for the same job or making blacks drink from a differernt water fountain were at one time time honored traditions and today most people don't think it was okay.

DnD has grown from mainly young men playing it to include woman, older players, younger players.

Woman have worked very hard to be more than just objects and to overcome centuries of ineguality and it infuriates me when I see the double standard in a hobby I enjoy. I remember the letters to Dragon over showing a bare chested man. That was a no no but showing half dressed barbie doll proportioned woman is totally acceptable.

 

[jester47]

My intention in posting the link to "Liberty Leading the People" was supopsed to be in contrast to my example about the warrior maiden. Out of context of my post you start to factor in the symbology. I was just trying to convey the idea I was talking about.

Also, as a side note, at the time late 1700s early 1800s bare breasts were seen as a sign of virtue. The idea was that a woman could show her breasts as proof they had not been "used" to rear a child. The connection being that virtue and virginity were closely related.

Thus when you make a game that is based on a lot of derivatives of romanitc notions, you can expect some concepts in the art of romaniticsm to show up. In our largely repressed consumer culture this notion gets turned into the chainmail bikini due to pandering for a certain demographic.

Aaron.

 

[adembroski3]

You didn't have an option for it...

but I am not bothered at all by nudity, my only question is "Why?". If there's no point, I don't wanna see it.

Well, I take that back... I WANT to see it, I just don't think it should be there

 

[Fenes]

I am not bothered by nudity. For me, violence is more of a concern than nudity - though neither really bothers me in an RPG book. I do think, however, that anyone who considers nudity in a game book a problem and has no problem with his children happily massacring people left and right and stealing their things in a game is a hypocrite - though let me stress that I do not think either thing harms a teen.

I also don't think every book has to be child/teen proof - if I had the choice between a sanitized semi-historical sourcebook and a version which sticks more closely to history I know what I'd choose.

IMHO, anything that is ok in a teen movie is ok in a game book - and judging from today's teen comedies that's a lot of cheesecake.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm an anthropology student.

Trust me, showing the same audience that Topless Archers Inc. is targeting some random tropical topless tribe is going to hit them square in their libido -- there's pretty much nothing titilating about a well-rounded Amazon tribeswoman breast feeding her kid...personal tastes for me says quite the opposite actually (obviously, her husband(s) feel differently, heh).

But it makes sense in the environment (namely, a hot jungle and a kid who wants to be fed every couple of hours). That's nudity that I have no problem with.

Meanwhile, asking a Nymph to wear a diaphanous shawl is likely to get one blinded...I mean, it's basically a physical representation of untamed beauty. If it's clothed, some of that symbolism is lost. If it's not attractive, some of that symbolism is lost. And that makes the art less great, because they're concealing what it *is*, and what is on the page is not what PC's are likely to see. It basically is *required* to be titilating, because that's the entire point; it's hot... This is nudity that I've also got no problem with -- if something's supposed to be an epitome of beauty, lust, loveliness, or handsomeness, it better be that, and it probably should be nekkid.

Of course, there's no mandate as far as I can see that Nymphs have to be female...Michelangelo's David is as great a source as Venus-on-a-halfshell. Adonis, Aphrodite, Succubus, Incubus, whatever. Not titilating to me, but it probably should be to someone, and apparently unlike others, I'm aparently secure enough in my manhood to be able to see a 'tackle and rod' and not question my sexuality.

At the same time, it's not just the rotund tribeswomen who walk around topless....some dudes walk around wearing nothing but an immense shaft of wood (some four feet long) over their alltogether, often even less, and for much the same reason that the chicks walk around without a shirt -- it's friggin' hot. There better as heck be some unattractive thuggish half-orcs walking around feeling the breeze, too.

Of course, not every critter needs to be naked, either. Sure, your odd elf chick in the jungle might not wear a top at home, but in anything like a temperate clime, even that would be scaaaarrry.....

 

[Turanil]

I never considered buying any Avalanche Press products because of the silly nudity on the cover. When a publisher releases a book with a cover like that, I interpret their decision to mean, "We don't have any compelling reason for you to buy this book -- it doesn't have any useful information or compelling ideas, but here's a half-naked hottie for you."

You were right in thinking that. I bought two of their product (not because of the cover though), and found them being of bad quality...

Anybody here bothered by the idea of making a movie that features a woman in her thirties getting jiggy in the bathtub with a ten-year-old-boy--who is played by a boy that is actually ten years old? Guess what, the movie's been made and it stars Nicole Kidman.

I guess that the ten-years-old actor will remember it for a long time, and that his friends will hear for years that he took a shower nude, with Nicole Kidman! (Now I didn't see that film: are they seen both together explicitely, or just as silhouette behind some kind of glass pan?)

 

[Dark Jezter]

So making a lot of the people who play DnD uncomfortable is okay because it is a time honored tradition? So was paying woman less than men for the same job or making blacks drink from a differernt water fountain were at one time time honored traditions and today most people don't think it was okay.

Way to liken artwork depicting chainmail-bikini wearing girls to sexual descrimination and racial segregation. Yeah, that's a valid comparison.

That, kids, is what we call a strawman (excuse me, strawperson) argument.

DnD has grown from mainly young men playing it to include woman, older players, younger players.

And the audiance is still mostly men in their teens, 20s, and 30s.

There are lots of female gamers, though. You are right about that. And if said female gamers publish an RPG suppliment with a muscular, shirtless barbarian man on the cover, I don't see any reason to feel uncomfortable or threatened.

Woman have worked very hard to be more than just objects and to overcome centuries of ineguality and it infuriates me when I see the double standard in a hobby I enjoy. I remember the letters to Dragon over showing a bare chested man. That was a no no but showing half dressed barbie doll proportioned woman is totally acceptable.

Mind getting down from the cross, please? The rest of us need the wood.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Way to liken artwork depicting chainmail-bikini wearing girls to sexual descrimination and racial segregation. Yeah, that's a valid comparison.

That, kids, is what we call a strawman (excuse me, strawperson) argument.


Mind getting down from the cross, please? The rest of us need the wood.

and this is what we like to call an insulting and inflamatory post. Nice job there.

Its perfectly relevant to point out that the argument "its a tradition" in defense of bad ideas is nothing new and no defense. It HAS been used for many forms of discrimination, it was used when someone got around to noticing how badly my public high school screwed with the student's religious freedom, and its not a strawman. And if you can't handle someone talking about how they personally might be affected by an issue without belittling comments and insults, maybe you should go over to nutkinland for the kids without standards of conversation.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Dark Jezter]

and this is what we like to call an insulting and inflamatory post. Nice job there.

Thank you. I do try.

Its perfectly relevant to point out that the argument "its a tradition" in defense of bad ideas is nothing new and no defense.

Indeed. It is a lousy defense.

It HAS been used for many forms of discrimination, it was used when someone got around to noticing how badly my public high school screwed with the student's religious freedom, and its not a strawman.

The definition of a strawman is an argument that is set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. When Grodd JoJoJo mentioned that cheesecake was a D&D tradition dating back to the first edition DMG, Elf Witch stated that segregated drinking fountains and lower wages for women also used to be traditions. Elf Witch then went on a rant about female oppression and double-standards, none of which had anything to do with Grodd JoJoJo's original post.

Elf Witch is definately guilty of using a strawman.

And if you can't handle someone talking about how they personally might be affected by an issue without belittling comments and insults, maybe you should go over to nutkinland for the kids without standards of conversation.

If pointing out silly arguments and rolling ones eyes at martyrish rants are wrong, then I don't want to be right.

 

[rich]

and this is what we like to call an insulting and inflamatory post. Nice job there.

Its perfectly relevant to point out that the argument "its a tradition" in defense of bad ideas is nothing new and no defense. It HAS been used for many forms of discrimination, it was used when someone got around to noticing how badly my public high school screwed with the student's religious freedom, and its not a strawman. And if you can't handle someone talking about how they personally might be affected by an issue without belittling comments and insults, maybe you should go over to nutkinland for the kids without standards of conversation.

Kahuna Burger

well, you beat me to it. I tried to refrain from getting too irritated, but this thread has reinforced my low opinion of the "internet community." All this preaching and name-calling -- what's the point? Why do people think that everyone who disagrees with them, or states a contrary opinion, is a hyprocrite?

In any case, I should have avoided this thread, but I happened to buy the Quint Sorceror (Mongoose) recently and was rather surprised to see two illustrations of topless women in it. Going back through the book, most of the pics of men are "head shots," whereas just about all the pics of women are sexual. Two topless women, one pictured covering her bare breasts with her hands, and several scantily clad women. Even the female "head shots" have vaguely drawn but very noticable breasts included.

So are these pics in some way "relevant" to the material? Are female sorcerors naturally more sexy than other female characters? Conversely, are male sorcerors primarily "intellectual" rather than "physical"? Or are we to assume that historical sorcerors lived during times and in climates where clothes were deemed unnecessary? Or perhaps most female sorcerors work as prostitutes in their spare time?

It must be obvious that many, if not most, of these illustrations are unnecessarily sexually suggestive. Now, if that's OK with you than fine. But don't try to excuse it by talking about historical accuracy (did historical centaur females wear blouses?) or topical relevance. And really, how many of you are actually basing your campaigns on an accurate ancient Greek foundation? Do you also ban all post-Bronze age weapons? Do you use saddles or do you ride around in chariots?

Finally, I think its worth noting that the US Congress is in the process of legislating higher fines for "indecency" in the radio and television media. Right or wrong, this is the current social/political environment -- a significant number of Americans do not want their kids exposed to "indecency." Promoting nudity for the sake of more nudity is only going to lead to more trouble for the role-playing industry/community.