-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Nudity in RPG books?
- Thread starter Sir Elton
- Start date
- Status
TracerBullet42
First Post
Zappo said:Heh!
Well, involuntary humor is still humor.
Sometimes it's the best kind!
Now...back to the nudie talk!
Chupacabra
First Post
Hell, there's not enough nudity in RPG's.
Incenjucar
Legend
Part of the problem, as I think I said before, is that women have an extra 'zone' of 'evil naughtiness'. A guy could be naked sans for a loin cloth or a speedo, and it wouldn't be considered nudity. A woman just has to have a small fraction of her chest visible to be considered 'nude' by the standards of many people (even if she's actually mostly clothed). In addition, this same are can be -almost- shown (Just so long as there's no pink to be seen) without many issues, and the impression of it against clothing is usually able to pass fairly easily. Finally, many of the popularly 'attractive' views of women (Soft and curvy, skinny-as-fricking-hell, etc) are not very empowering (men, on the otherhand, are pretty much always at least well-toned and strong-looking, even if not buffed out -- only so many women fantisize about skinny twerp guys). As such, it's much easier in a purely logistical manner to make a hormone-inducing female image than a male one, and those male ones can usually be seen as just a buff archetype from those unattracted. Finally, the reproductive organs have a much stronger 'no-no' factor than the rest of the body -- one can dislay their breasts a great deal easier than one's crotch without getting arrested. This all makes it that much harder to keep the art equal between men and women in this regard, which tends to exaggerate the social unequalities already present in it. Indeed, if breasts weren't considered to be any different than a man's chest, it might be easier to find a good middle ground.
---
In regards to the tangent, I don't see why you'd need to go nudist to make them immune to pornography. All it will do is take away the interest in visual sensations, so that all they'll have is the physical sensations, which are where the problems lie (STDs don't get passed on through porn, besides). Frankly, I've found the best way to make someone uninterested is to subtly encourage it. Go too far, of course, like my folks did (..my dad used to point out the T&A as we drove around..), and you get situations like myself -- I didn't admit that I liked girls until I was 18. It works with other things (Fire included). You take the mystery out of things, and they're not as interesting for a youth. I've hunted, and yawn at horror movies and violent video games as a result. I've played with fire like mad, as we used to have a rather nice fireplace (I even thrust my entire arm in to the flames and pulled it out again a few times), and helped with a hundred huge bonfires (yay acres). I've got a healthy respect for fire as a result. Extremes are rarely neccissary.
---
In regards to the tangent, I don't see why you'd need to go nudist to make them immune to pornography. All it will do is take away the interest in visual sensations, so that all they'll have is the physical sensations, which are where the problems lie (STDs don't get passed on through porn, besides). Frankly, I've found the best way to make someone uninterested is to subtly encourage it. Go too far, of course, like my folks did (..my dad used to point out the T&A as we drove around..), and you get situations like myself -- I didn't admit that I liked girls until I was 18. It works with other things (Fire included). You take the mystery out of things, and they're not as interesting for a youth. I've hunted, and yawn at horror movies and violent video games as a result. I've played with fire like mad, as we used to have a rather nice fireplace (I even thrust my entire arm in to the flames and pulled it out again a few times), and helped with a hundred huge bonfires (yay acres). I've got a healthy respect for fire as a result. Extremes are rarely neccissary.
WizarDru
Adventurer
Generally, I'm not terribly in favor of nudity in RPG materials, for the reasons that mmu1 already mentioned.
Example 1: My wife plays a rogue in our main campaign. So she was definitely interested in seeing Mongoose's Essential Rogue, when it came out. All it took was one shot of a poorly drawn topless elf chick for that book to be rejected. By BOTH of us. The picture had no context to the material...it was just there to tittilate. And as stated by several others, I have much better resources for that sort of material, if I so desire.
Example 2: The Book of Erotic Fantasy is a loaded sexually loaded images...but it is appropriate. I'm not sure that I'll ever have call to use it, but it's not poorly written, nor is the graphic imagery inappropriate for the content of the book. Having a picture of a man and a woman engaged in love-making while discussing that topic is appropriate. Showing a naked woman with the description of the temple prostitute class? Appropriate. Not something I'm gaga over, but the book is what is says it is. And just like the Book of Vile Darkness, if I had it, my kids wouldn't be allowed to read it.
Example 3: The Nymph and Succubus from the 3.5 MM. Skirting the edge, perhaps, but appropriate. While they may have lascivious looks, they're not engaged in any particular activities, and their appearance is appropriate to the material.
That having been said, I generally would prefer no nudity in my D&D books. I don't think it's particularly necessary, and if leaving it out allows D&D to appeal to a larger audience, then why not? The same applies to removing gory pictures of combat or the like...their inclusion may be nice to look at for some, but their removal from the core materials allow them to offer the hobby to a larger market.
Further, when the question of kids comes up, non parents always assume that nudity is without context...and it isn't. A 4 year old is prescient enough to ask 'why isn't that person wearing any clothes?' We're not talking about presenting normal people in a casual light, treating nudity as just another way of being. We're discussing heroic and monstrous characters depicted in often exagerrated ways...and I'd rather my daughter not get the impression that being a chainmail bikini wearing vixen is what she should be shooting for, later in life.
All things considered, I'd like to be able to offer the books to my nieces and nephews (and my own young ones) without worrying about the content. YMMV.
Example 1: My wife plays a rogue in our main campaign. So she was definitely interested in seeing Mongoose's Essential Rogue, when it came out. All it took was one shot of a poorly drawn topless elf chick for that book to be rejected. By BOTH of us. The picture had no context to the material...it was just there to tittilate. And as stated by several others, I have much better resources for that sort of material, if I so desire.
Example 2: The Book of Erotic Fantasy is a loaded sexually loaded images...but it is appropriate. I'm not sure that I'll ever have call to use it, but it's not poorly written, nor is the graphic imagery inappropriate for the content of the book. Having a picture of a man and a woman engaged in love-making while discussing that topic is appropriate. Showing a naked woman with the description of the temple prostitute class? Appropriate. Not something I'm gaga over, but the book is what is says it is. And just like the Book of Vile Darkness, if I had it, my kids wouldn't be allowed to read it.
Example 3: The Nymph and Succubus from the 3.5 MM. Skirting the edge, perhaps, but appropriate. While they may have lascivious looks, they're not engaged in any particular activities, and their appearance is appropriate to the material.
That having been said, I generally would prefer no nudity in my D&D books. I don't think it's particularly necessary, and if leaving it out allows D&D to appeal to a larger audience, then why not? The same applies to removing gory pictures of combat or the like...their inclusion may be nice to look at for some, but their removal from the core materials allow them to offer the hobby to a larger market.
Further, when the question of kids comes up, non parents always assume that nudity is without context...and it isn't. A 4 year old is prescient enough to ask 'why isn't that person wearing any clothes?' We're not talking about presenting normal people in a casual light, treating nudity as just another way of being. We're discussing heroic and monstrous characters depicted in often exagerrated ways...and I'd rather my daughter not get the impression that being a chainmail bikini wearing vixen is what she should be shooting for, later in life.
All things considered, I'd like to be able to offer the books to my nieces and nephews (and my own young ones) without worrying about the content. YMMV.
James Heard
Explorer
I think the world might be nicer if more women grew up thinking that wearing chainmail and carrying swords while being absolute sex-kittens would be an honest goal for chasing with their careers and lifestyles. I know that part of me admits that I made a bit of an error in not sculpting my torso into Conanesque proportions in my youth, perhaps I'd run more in the chainmail bikini circles a bit more than sitting around reading ENWorld. 
Seriously though, I don't worry about my daughter seeing any sort of empowered female role models at all - even if they're wearing chainmail bikinis. It's still hard enough finding female characters for her to enjoy that aren't simpering that she's forever complaining. The important thing about Buffy for my daughter was that it was a female lead character, and I doubt that would have changed if they played up the T&A bit even more than they did. Girls ARE tittilating, women should ENJOY being sexy, but they can be other things too. Chainmail bikinis may be completely unrealistic, but I don't see the problem. My daughter watches anime all the time with people with funny animal ears too, that doesn't mean that the animal ears are what she's getting out of it.
Anyway, that's again my vote for pro-nudity. There's nothing wrong with it except what people make of it and people like to make an awful lot more of it than there really is. Everybody has genitals, get over it.
Seriously though, I don't worry about my daughter seeing any sort of empowered female role models at all - even if they're wearing chainmail bikinis. It's still hard enough finding female characters for her to enjoy that aren't simpering that she's forever complaining. The important thing about Buffy for my daughter was that it was a female lead character, and I doubt that would have changed if they played up the T&A bit even more than they did. Girls ARE tittilating, women should ENJOY being sexy, but they can be other things too. Chainmail bikinis may be completely unrealistic, but I don't see the problem. My daughter watches anime all the time with people with funny animal ears too, that doesn't mean that the animal ears are what she's getting out of it.
Anyway, that's again my vote for pro-nudity. There's nothing wrong with it except what people make of it and people like to make an awful lot more of it than there really is. Everybody has genitals, get over it.
Incenjucar
Legend
Afrodyte said:
There's always an outlier, but it's safe to say that there's more songs about big butts than scrawny arms.
In most modern cultures, guys want to be strong (Usually in the most displayable manner), and, generally, women want men who are powerful within their own field, be it in brains or brawn or charisma (And, if possible, all of these), though later in life stability and trustworthiness starts taking the place of "Oooh, pecs!". Power is attractive, and in our current culture, it's usually the 'manly' role of power. Men, in turn, tend to prefer women who make their own power more obvious (Hence the Conan-esque=buff, Chainmail bikini girl=looks like she's nursing but underfed pairings) in that regard. It's why so many men are intimidated by taller women (Myself, while I have a preference for Asian women, would certainly not mind a seven foot Amazon with a PHD coming on to me by picking me up by the collar with one hand and telling me I made an error in my physics equation and thus owed her dinner for the help, but then, I'm weird too.)
Of course, in many cultures, nudity is all but meaningless, and they can very easily seperate "Yeah, so, he's naked, so? Looks like it's cold." and "Oooh baby, yeah, shake it!"
Zappo said:Heh, ok, I don't think we're quite there yet. Here's an example. I draw it from my own work because no D&D product I own features nudity (reason for which I voted option 4).
In the Abyssal Campaign (link in my sig, no big spoiler follows), at a certain point the characters will encounter a prisoner in an Abyssal fortress/prison. I wanted to emphasize the sheer inhuman cruelty of the tanar'ri towards their prisoners; one of many big and small elements I used to this end is that prisoners are stripped of all possessions and given a single loincloth to cover themselves. The afore-mentioned prisoner, when the PCs meet him, has suffered a very serious wound and he was forced to use the loincloth as a bandage; as a result, he is completely naked.
Here are some observations: first of all, that encounter has absolutely nothing even remotely approaching sexual about it. The NPC is the portrait of misery, completely unattractive for anyone, and has lots of more important things to worry about. Second, the nudity made sense in the circumstance - actually, avoiding it would have required a bit of plot-bending. I could have done it, but why?
Third, and this is the point, I am terrible at drawing and the adventure has no illustrations (save for maps). Does that mean that there is no nudity in the adventure? No. There is. Not in the illustrations, but in the plot. That's what I mean when I say that art is more than just drawings.
If I had a skilled artist, would I ask him to draw the encounter with the NPC? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a rather dramatic moment, but there are so many things in the campaign that I'd like to have a drawing of. But certainly, considerations that are purely marketing in nature would not influence my choice.
Having played in the Abyssal campaign I agree totally that the nudity made sense. I was thanking the gawds that I had chosen eschew materials and was playing a sorcerer not a wizard in that section of the adventure.
If that scene had been drawn I would only have had a problem with it if it had been done in a sleezy way.
There is a big difference between nudity and sex as several people have already stated. In this case the nudity really brings home the reality of how much trouble you are really in. When we were playing through this section and the DM was describing it believe me it did not come across as sexual in anyway.
- Status
