However, and again, a pet peeve of mine: Don't reduce "sexy" to "looking like sexy human(oid) females". From the ongoing discussion, I see a lot of talk about creatures like harpies, succubi etc. and guess what? They are all traditionally female. And use the beauty standards of us (western) humans. What I'd like to see is 1) beauty standards *other* than what you can find in a Victoria's Secret catalogue (because even if a succubus wants to seduce, she'd have a hard time seducing a dwarf without displaying a beard and some muscles, for example) and 2) male characters/creatures in the same "sexy type" roles you'd typically see women in. Because, you know, women like to see a cute guy as much as men like to see a cute girl.
For sure, and to be fair, the male incubus is included in products like the 5th edition D&D MM, and was also included in one of the 4e supplements as well. I also agree with your observations about different racial/cultural assumptions. However, given that the audience is primarily western, and that others may not have as nuanced view toward in-world considerations, it’s not a huge surprise to me that developers use their limited art spaces for more iconic and immediately identifiable imagery.
Which leads me to another point: I am totally against using sexuality in predominantly negative contexts. Especially when paired with the general trope that all sexy monsters are female. This sends out a message that can be very harmful for women who like to embrace their sexuality: Sex is bad, women only try to seduce men and if men fall for the sexy ladies, they'll end up as prey. This trope, which can be seen often throughout our fictional past stems from a desire to control the sexual habitus of people: Good girls don't like sex and dress modestly (they only sleep with their husband and only after marriage) and good boys won't be lead astray by "harlots".
I think this is just a byproduct of most adventurers being drawn to conflicts that need solving and naturally portray said adventurers as protagonists in the fight against evil, so naturally they’re going to be exposed to more negative aspects of all aspects of life. Hobgoblins, for example, portray a negative example of a militaristic society in D&D, which isn’t universally a negative societal structure. While it wouldn’t hurt to have positive depictions as well, they’re harder to include in an organic fashion, particularly in a work that prides itself on being grim and gritty.
Regarding nudity: You will dress for protection only if your skin is thin/sensitive enough to get hurt by your environment. Or if you don't have protective body hair.
Granted, though comfort or pride/culture might also come into play. This was more directed at the quips about a succubus still wearing clothes; so long as they need to infiltrate society to corrupt their prey, they’ll at least make a token effort at normalcy.
I agree that sales can be an argument, but this is not for us to decide. I, for example, wouldn't expect to expose children to a darker, grittier RPG setting because such settings in general are not the most kid-friendly ones. And from a German point of view, nudity wouldn't be the main reason why I would keep the book away from young children, but the to be expected depictions of lethal violence.
100% agreed, I’m anti-censorship, even self-censorship to the last. I just wanted to make it clear to the OP, who is running the kickstarter, that my personal convictions aren’t always economically viable. I’d prefer it if they were, though.
Nonsense. I, for example, take a close eye on fantasy art. It tells so much about the ethical point of view of a system's design crew and the intended target audience.
Here is where we absolutely disagree, art in no way shape or form is relevant to the ethics of the producers, if anything it merely indicates the genre and expectations of the work in question. An anime themed RPG might have every piece of art be heavily stylized with every character rocking a perfect body, a classic sword and sorcery game might have chainmail bikinis and barbarians with an affinity for body oil, and so on and so forth. None of those are exclusionary unless you’re not interested in participating in that fantasy, which can be the case regardless of your IRL qualities.
Inclusive art just says "this is for everyone!". Now, I guess ZWEIHANDER isn't really age inclusive (read: not for kids), but that's fine for me. Stating your inclusivity is the same as stating your design perspective.
It never needed to be stated, though, especially since you’ve already concluded that the product in question is already exclusionary along a different axis. Point is, nothing stopped people from playing before statements like these, and after the statements are included groups of jerks are going to continue to remain jerk-ish.
Saying that this statement is made only for "cheap marketing" is a slap in the face of every designer who believes in diversity in RPG design because he/she thinks it is the right thing to do.
Because it isn’t the right thing to do, full stop. It can be a choice they make, but making the blanket statement that doing so is morally correct is probably cutting to the core of my huge, huge issue with the concept. We’ve come to a point in time, where, as you said above, we try and extrapolate endorsements of ethics or politics from works that frankly aren’t there.
Up-thread Salamandyr is dead on the money when he talks about the shifting nature of the word ‘inclusive’, because that no longer means the inclusion of multiple groups, it means the inclusion of said groups in such a way that’s unambiguously supportive of them, which is a ridiculous box to try and force designers into, and in many ways is insulting to the groups in question. A topical example of this is the current storm in a teacup surrounding
Beauty and the Beast, which features the first confirmed gay character in a Disney film, and there are still cultural critics flipping out because he’s a simpering henchman to the villain. Basically if your inclusiveness doesn’t include the full gamut of negative and positive possibilities, it’s definitely not worth it.
For representation, yes, a setting can include certain cultures and be very specific about it. You also wouldn't see white people in your feudal japanese setting, but maybe something akin to the Ainu or chinese/mongol immigrants. In contrast, a setting which focuses medieval europe can easily include black or arabic people. A general, setting-less system shouldn't be too exclusive, however.
Agreed. All I’ve ever asked is that a given work sticks to its guns creatively, if it can allow for all ethnicities/cultures/etc to be present, then yeah, go to town. I simply resent it when a work tries to be more focused (for any number of reasons) and people cry about it.
Also, again, I guess that women won't complain about nudity when an equal amount of men are in a state of undress and are presented in the same (tittilating or not) way. I surely don't
Absolutely, parity between all tastes and depictions should be considered.