D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Interestingly, the TSR boxes sets of minis I remember (from 1983, I think) didn't have many female figures, but they were all appropriately clothed. The only one running around showing a lot of skin was a male barbarian*, IIRC.

*technically, "fighter with axe", as barbarians hadn't been invented yet.

Yeah, very few female minis in most lines- that's why they had that one box of nothing but.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Showing female nudity? EVERY DAY, ALL THE TIME. The female body is healthy and natural and even ladies love looking at it!!!

Showing male nudity? Whoa there, hoss. That's okay where appropriate.

Touché. But that was kind of my point. Someone else's "where appropriate" is not my own, I just find it inappropriate to use anything less than artistic integrity to the scene at hand as a basis for selection.

If you'd seen a hundredth of the number of art shows I have over the years, you'd realize how absurd and bigoted it would be to only select art that would be considered inoffensive. That's kind of the point of art : do what you want, if people don't like it, that's okay. Where including certain art pieces in D&D is concerned, I either want more inclusivity, or the status quo. I just think the word "inclusive" means "inclusive...so long as that doesn't include straight men's preference for female beauty because that's wrong and will turn off women". Phooey. I can tell you, 100% for sure, going to Venice and seeing nude sculptures all over the place, women seemed to enjoy seeing it, and still join fine arts programs in record numbers.

I call BS on people thinking female nudity would turn off women. Art shouldn't be cheesy, but it should challenge you, and certainly no artist could work thinking about bobby joe's mom at the PTA meeting will think about it if she opens up his copy of the Monster Manual and sees a half-naked demon in there.

Call the police!!!! Sanitizing art is a form of vulgarity and an affront to the human spirit. Don't tell me my preferences are wrong, and I won't tell you yours' are. Specifically, relating to D&D, it IS censorship what I'm hearing from many quarters. How many attractive heroes can there be? 0 ? 1 ? 1 / chapter ?

"Where appropriate", is, as you rightly point out, arbitrary. One simply cannot limit oneself to publishing material that virtually no one will find offensive, it leads to the type of intolerance and exclusionary society that the lowest common denominator -- money -- will lead to.

PG -13 is the biggest hoax ever. You can find PG-13 material with dozens of murders in it, but a single breast is rated R. That's disgusting to me. Complete inversion of priorities. D&D classically, let's face it, focuses on the violent aspects of teenage boys. Can we finally admit that we are adults and have more than blood lust in our souls?

I find it sad that people would consider roleplaying a seduction an inappropriate way to prevent a war, (and thus that type of non-violent option should be alluded to in text and drawings as being viable), whereas merely slaughtering your enemies is the only solution. If Next is supposed to re-balance the game to all three pillars, combat, exploration, and roleplaying...I think it's entirely appropriate for RP scenarios to include, allude to, and portray human sexuality as being relevant to challenge resolution. There are tons of seduction or honey trap type scenarios in spy novels, in literature, in mythology...too many to mention really, to ignore that. And since the vast majority of the human race is straight, and most straight men, I would assume, like me, enjoy beautiful women, that's entirely germane to the human condition.

It's misandrist in the extreme to ignore one of the prime motivators of the human male in fantasy tropes (save the beautiful princess), if we're talking about being inclusionary. I'm not at all advocating "cheeseball" art or chainmail bikinis, I just think the fair maiden up in the tower shouldn't be covered up in a burka. I guess some people here think so. If on the very next page, it's the hapless prince being saved by the Paladin Brienne, great! go for it. Just be inclusive. Don't deny the core audience of D&D what it wants and expects = supporting classics (save the princess, avoid the succubi, plug your ears when the sitens come, and of course the muscle-bound Conan guy in a loincloth for the ladies...and the gay men too ? heck, go for it! Conan is awesome).

Don't tell me they need to cover up Conan because it's inappropriate for him to adventure in this . It's fantasy. If people think that's an evil picture, they can bugger off back to Dubai or the Dark Ages or something and leave the sensible, modern world behind. D&D is not about being closed minded or prudish.

 

[JonWake]

You really don't get it, do you?

Do you even know what censorship is? You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it is.

 

[mythago]

Gorgoroth, you're not really having a conversation with anyone here. You're monologuing.

 

[JonWake]

Feminazi's stole my ice cream.

http://vimeo.com/64941331

 

[TanithT]

D&D is not about being closed minded or prudish.

Reading comprehension. Do you have it?

Catering exclusively to straight men's preference for 'female beauty' at the expense of making women look stupid is not okay. It excludes women, and it also makes the men in this hobby look like stereotyped nerdly virgins who don't actually know any real women. It's just not a flattering picture.

This is not in any way equivalent to there being a problem with nudity, especially if the nudity is not grossly out of place and unequally portrayed. Two fantasy warriors of both genders wearing next to nothing, not an offensive picture. Men and women on a beach in bikinis and speedoes, not an offensive picture. Naked succubus being sexy, not an offensive picture, particularly if a similarly naked incubus is also portrayed doing the same thing.

Men and women executives in the boardroom, the men are in business suits and the women in bikinis, that's where it starts to send the message that the women aren't actually there to be executives. Male and female adventurers, the men are in real armor and the women are in sexy lingerie, same message. The message is that men are the heroes and women are just the sexy playthings. It says that men are worthy of respect but women are not, they are strictly there for eye candy. This is the uncool part.

Do you want nudity and sexuality in your D&D game? Listen closely, since you have not been getting this message. I don't care. No one in this thread cares. No one in this thread is objecting to naked succubi or scantily dressed characters who are at a party, in their own bedrooms, or in an all out orgy for that matter, not in gaming supplements that are intended for adults. Because it makes complete sense for them to be naked or sexual, so it's not stupid and not offensive unless you go out of your way to make it so. There are lots of ways you can show sexy people or monsters of both genders and not have it be stupid or demeaning to anyone. It is not the nudity or the sex that is the problem.

I am seriously starting to wonder what is up here, because you are making up arguments that don't even apply and yelling at people about them after being repeatedly told that you are basically arguing with imaginary people. Nobody in this thread is actually saying any of the things you keep ranting about. Yet you keep ranting about them. That is really weird.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you'd seen a hundredth of the number of art shows I have over the years, you'd realize how absurd and bigoted it would be to only select art that would be considered inoffensive.

I probably match, if not exceed, your experience. Among other things, I have a minor in art and another in art history. Some of my pieces were considered for a permanent collection, but were, alas, too ephemeral. While it is not my profession, I still design professional logos and jewelry. And the contents of my house could be in a friggen museum.*

In addition, I have a Master's degree in marketing sports and entertainment.

So trust me when I say this: There is a vast difference between an art exhibition and art as part of a commercial entertainment publication.

The former may do many things, including challenging the preconceived notions of the anticipated audience. Inducing feelings of alienation or anger may even be the primary goal of a given piece or movement.

The latter is there to help sell books by inviting the reader into the world described by the words. Being offensive hampers that goal.

Sanitizing art is a form of vulgarity and an affront to the human spirit.

Women and minorities asking for the same consideration & respect in comissioned artistic depictions as the white male protagonists in a commercial product is not sanitizing, it is equalizing.

In the early days of film & television, minorities were largely cast in stereotypical roles, the product of the dominant group in society. So Black actors got to play undereducated, superstitious servants, entertainers and tricksters.

Over time, those stereotypes were largely eradicated, and now any role is open to blacks, like action heroes, God...or even undereducated, superstitious servants, entertainers and tricksters. Just like everyone else.

Similarly, female protagonists in fantasy art frequently get depicted in poses & attire that are hypersexualized & nonsensical in comparison to their male counterparts- again, an image created by society's dominant group.

All people are asking for is female protagonists who are attired as sensibly as the men they adventure with.

And THAT shows respect for the human spirit.

And since the vast majority of the human race is straight, and most straight men, I would assume, like me, enjoy beautiful women, that's entirely germane to the human condition.

"I'm a straight male posting under an alias on the Internet, and I like good looking women."

"Well, welcome to Straight Guys Anonymous." *polite applause*

"I...I have to say that...I also like women who are smart."

"Nothing wrong with that." *a smattering of grumbles* "Hey! There is nothing wrong with that."

"I even like women who are implicitly smart...you know, fictional brainy women."

"Got it...you dig brainy chicks."

"Well...it seems to me that fictional women who go into combat with their vitals exposed to show off their sexuality are...dumb. And armor with breasts? Those are just shot traps, directing the force of a blow inward. What warrior worth her salt would wear that? It just seems to me that a lot of th..."

"Stop right there, buddy! Don't go censoring our fantasy art!"

"But..."

"But nothin'! You probably don't like women at all! C'mon, get him!"

It's misandrist in the extreme to ignore one of the prime motivators of the human male in fantasy tropes...

It is not misandrist in the least to insist that the female associates of the male adventurers be just as sensibly dressed for the job of rescuing the princess as their compadres.

I just think the fair maiden up in the tower shouldn't be covered up in a burka.

Well, if she is from that kind of culture...

But even so, this is a straw(wo)man: nobody has said word one about depictions of helpless prisoners. The objections have been entirely about the depictions of protagonists.





* That is not an exaggeration: short list of names to drop: Jiang, Seidler, Erté, Dali, Satava, Peña, Mata Ortiz, McCandless, Tobias...

 

[Mike Eagling]

If you'd seen a hundredth of the number of art shows I have over the years, you'd realize how absurd and bigoted it would be to only select art that would be considered inoffensive.

TL;DR

Are you addressing the matter at hand or just espousing your opinions on art?

I've not read the whole of this thread yet it is clear to me that no one is claiming all art should be inoffensive. No one is even suggesting the illustrations in DnD Next should be entirely inoffensive.

Here is a direct question for you: do you accept that or are you just issuing a polemic?

 

[Hussar]

Ah, heck with it, I'll jump on too.

I call BS on people thinking female nudity would turn off women. Art shouldn't be cheesy, but it should challenge you, and certainly no artist could work thinking about bobby joe's mom at the PTA meeting will think about it if she opens up his copy of the Monster Manual and sees a half-naked demon in there.

Can you point to a single example in this thread where this has been advocated? I mean, we're 668 posts in, so, there's a wide variety to choose from.

If you cannot find a single quote in this thread, then who are you talking to?

PG -13 is the biggest hoax ever. You can find PG-13 material with dozens of murders in it, but a single breast is rated R. That's disgusting to me. Complete inversion of priorities. D&D classically, let's face it, focuses on the violent aspects of teenage boys. Can we finally admit that we are adults and have more than blood lust in our souls?

I'd point out that you're talking about American rating systems. The rest of us, who don't live in the US, have no idea what you're on about. Because, I'll tell you right now, a PG-13 movie in Canada has nudity in it. I remember being a bit surprised when Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula was PG-13 despite a pretty graphic rape scene with an animal.

But, I'll also point out that the cover of my Mentzer Basic book says, Age 11 and up. And I don't think D&D has ever changed from that. The 3e Basic game said 12 and up. Not sure what the 4e basic game said. So, I think it's fairly safe to say that D&D has long been a game for early teens.

 

[Derren]

Catering exclusively to straight men's preference for 'female beauty' at the expense of making women look stupid is not okay.

And I as a straight (white) man am very offended that WotC marketing department apparently think of me as groin driven Neanderthal who only buys products because there are naked woman in/on it and is totally oblivious to everything else.