Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lylandra" data-source="post: 7042309" data-attributes="member: 6816692">I agree that there's nothing wrong with people or creatures who use "sexy" as a way to define themselves (because they like displaying it in a given circumstance) or to use "sexy" to gain an advantage (sexually active creatures who like to attract humanoids or other species). Nudity does not have to equal sexy, but it can, and if it does one should make really really sure that the artist knows what he/she is doing or it descends down to cheap titillation land quite quickly. 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. 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". Regarding nudity: You will dress for protection only if your skin is thin/sensitive enough to get hurt by your envirnonment. Or if you don't have protective body hair.  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. 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. 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. 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.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. 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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification