The Proper Use of Nudity in FRPG Art

[Eltab]

I had a player that played a path of the Berserker Barbarian that wore a lemon yellow mankini, does that count.

Fellow player has a half-orc Barbarian who wears only a loincloth (sometimes even less).

 

[aco175]

Has anyone used the Tipper Gore definition of pornography for this art. She was the vice president's wife back in the 90s and on a panel for explicit lyrics in songs. She said something along the lines of; "I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it."

 

[Voadam]

Has anyone used the Tipper Gore definition of pornography for this art. She was the vice president's wife back in the 90s and on a panel for explicit lyrics in songs. She said something along the lines of; "I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it."

The quote is usually attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter's dissent in a 1964 obscenity case.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Don't really need an objective one for this discussion - just a functional one, meaning, a definition of the function of art, as used in RPG products. Heck, we don't even need an explicit definition, but we ought to agree that there's some specific functions in mind. And, for RPG products, they mostly depend on the opinion of the person buying the product.

(edit)

Yes, and I was trying to put that into a useful context for discussion on an RPG board, in which creative freedom is not the sole, or necessarily even the largest, consideration. This lofty "I am an ARTISTE!" stuff is largely immaterial when talking about selling RPGs, because there's that annoying bit about selling - which means making something that people want to buy.

It’s an old conundrum for the artist- as old as the first art purchase: doing what you want Vs doing what you can sell.

For most of recorded history, artists didn’t really have to choose one or the other. You could do what you want, and still have commercial success. That’s how many subsidized their “pure” artistic endeavors.

But with the advent of the Information Age, that’s becoming less and less of an option. If you do controversial art today, it’s more likely you’re going to have a tougher time getting commercial work.

And that’s for any form of artistic expression. Look at the backlash Ludacris got when he became a soft drink pitchman. Or how the choice of Kehinde Wiley for the Barak & Michelle Obama official portraits was fraught with controversy.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

We MUST have nudity, and we MUST NOT have nudity.

"Huh?"

Look at the illustrations in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. They don't shy away from featuring nudity IN MONSTERS. Succubi don't wear clothes! Harpies don't wear bras! Etc. It would be a shame to illustrate them wearing clothes. You might as well draw a picture of a red dragon wearing a sweater.

On the other hand, in the AD&D core rulebooks there is not a single adventurer running around in a chainmail bikini or similar nonsense. That is NOT how an adventurer dresses. (The only possible exception is the cover of the DMG, with that scantily-clad girl in the efreeti's clutches. I do not interpret her to be an adventurer, though. I interpret her to be a slave girl.) So no "adventurer babes", PLEASE. And no "pumped-up" men, either. Look at the adventurers in the old MM encountering that giant spider. Look at the adventurers in D2: Shrine of the Kuo-toa. Look at the adventurers in the AD&D Fiend Folio. All of them are lean and mean and roughed-up. They look like they are fighting their way through dungeons. They do not look like they just finished working on their six-packs at the gym.

Please note that I have taken my examples from the old AD&D books simply because that is what I have. I do not own the 2nd or the 3rd edition rulebooks. This thread isn't for Edition Wars.

Wow, 18 pages of thread, and here I am replying to the first one. Whew. Should I?

Well, where are the centaur schlongs? Ogre balls? Ettin junk? Oh, sorry, girl monsters are supposed to show tits to increase our sense of verisimilitude, but lets not get further.

Yeah, the adventurers in many books sure look tough and realistic: a white sausagefest on the road. Now and then we have a girl to help us fill the quota.

Yeah, attack the monster. Distract it! Show it that leg! Sad you forgot your bra when we had to quickly break camp, but stuff like that happens.

Of course, for Dragonlance, this was turned into an art form. Rough adventurers all, and the girls are experts at showing glistening thighs and perfectly styled Farah Fawcett hair. If they are not slave girls, of course, then all bets are off.

Play "where is Goldmoon" on this pic. Don't worry, it's not hard, Caldwell added some extra glisten this time.

But I like Caldwell. He was creative.

A gargoyle head spewing gems on string from your crotch. Masterclass of understated design!

Ha, I wonder what the official D&D artbook wants to tell us.

Oh.

I am old. Old D&D art was often sexist trash. It was good, 80s sexist trash, perfect to catch and keep adolescent boys. Yes, there are exceptions. Warrior princesses, maybe someone hid a token black character somewhere in the background.

But mostly its all Alias: men thinking drawing tits on a warrior woman is female empowerment. Stuff that worked 40 years ago, but thank god it wouldn't work today.

 

[Weiley31]

Well, where are the centaur schlongs? Ogre balls? Ettin junk?

Well: gotta make things fair. BRING EM ALL ON!

It's the right thing to do.

 

[Garthanos]

There are numerous occurrences of music, film and other art forms that have used elements from other cultures that those cultures find deeply offensive, possibly sacrilegious. It is rarely done with the intent to offend.

Hmmmm given how a huge percentage of the religious population consider the gender of someone else's love interest deeply offensive I find that not such a valuable measure of what to avoid

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmmm given how a huge percentage of the religious population consider the gender of someone else's love interest deeply offensive I find that not such a valuable measure of what to avoid

You might not, but (for example) using elements from a culture’s or religion’s sacred ceremony for a pop video certainly displays a lack of respect.

“Respect is a two-way street” is a common aphorism. But so is “two wrongs don’t make a right.” While you might consider their interests in others sexuality disrespectful, it doesn’t follow that you have free license to be equally disrespectful in return. “An eye for an eye” eventually leaves everyone blind.

In any process of ending or de-escalating a conflict or disagreement, someone usually has to be first to let something go in order to convince the others involved that they’re bargaining in good faith. That’s part of why the Golden Rule is central to most major religions and even non-theistic ethical frameworks.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, where are the centaur schlongs? Ogre balls? Ettin junk?

Good questions. As someone already said, bring 'em on.

Yeah, the adventurers in many books sure look tough and realistic: a white sausagefest on the road. Now and then we have a girl to help us fill the quota.

View attachment 149041
Yeah, attack the monster. Distract it! Show it that leg! Sad you forgot your bra when we had to quickly break camp, but stuff like that happens.

She's not distracting the dragon by showing it her leg, she's got its attention because it's realized (in part due to her lack of armour and warm clothing) that a) she's the caster in the crew and thus the biggest threat, and b) she must have some magic item keeping her warm.

 

[Umbran]

It’s an old conundrum for the artist- as old as the first art purchase: doing what you want Vs doing what you can sell.

For most of recorded history, artists didn’t really have to choose one or the other. You could do what you want, and still have commercial success. That’s how many subsidized their “pure” artistic endeavors.

I think you vastly overstate the case of how successful artists are if they just do what they want. If nothing else, for most of recorded history, I suspect most art ever created has been in form of practical goods (clothes, pottery, etc), rather than art that has no function except as art. The form of practical art is dictated by the need of the buyer, not the artist. I make an artwork of a bowl because bowls sell, and I took it as my craft, and so on.

From there, the Warhols, Dalis, and Michelangelos of the world are small in number, a handful, in comparison to the masses who produce art, and cannot make a living at it.