Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
The relationship Americans have with violence, as opposed to sex, is ... well, it's definitely something.
I blame the 80s.
What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
- Status
The relationship Americans have with violence, as opposed to sex, is ... well, it's definitely something.
I blame the 80s.
cranberry
Adventurer
Well, in the 80's, they were blaming Satan.
ilgatto
How inconvenient
TLDR: End of? Probably not.
'Erotic' content.
As has been suggested by some in the time it took me to write this, I suppose one of the issues here may well be how folks interpret 'erotically charged art' or 'concepts', fueled by who they are.
While I believe that it is the right of everybody to think what they want, things may become a bit of an issue in general when many people thinking the same thing gather and express their shared notions, effectively forming a 'public opinion' if enough of them meet. More issues may arise if this 'public opinion' contradicts another one - justifiably or not - and one of them ends up being sold as the 'right opinion' in a particular arena. Discussions may follow, tempers may flare, people on all sides may be ostracized, wars may erupt - and then history will typically repeat itself.
A problem with an opinion being the 'right opinion' can be that some folks who are of this opinion may translate this into 'being right'. Now, since such folks are simply 'of an opinion', just like everybody else with one, I think it would be fair to say that, if they 'are right', everybody else is right, too.
In my opinion.
So what about scantily clad women drawn by male artists in RPGs?
Perhaps a little context.
I think it would be fair to say that RPGs as we know them today have their origin in the early 20th century in the Western world when it was the domain of men - as has been argued. Of these, some indulged in notions of the weird and fantastic, spoke about it in congregations, wrote about it, painted it, lived it, and inspired others to do the same.
Being men, many of them programmed to procreate with women and at least some of them having to pretend to be heterosexual, the erotic aspects of the weird fantastic would, in general, involve women. Also, men being men and often seen as silly or worse when deemed unable to live up to what society expected of them, I suppose it could be argued that the erotic aspect of the weird and fantastic appealed to a lot of them, which was jumped upon by the entertainment industry - most of it dominated by men. So yes, Tarzan, John Carter of Mars, Conan, and even the Birdmen of Gor happened. Pulp fantasy magazine covers happened. Yes, women writers had to adopt pseudonyms that wouldn't betray their gender if they were found 'good enough', by men, to be published as fantasy or SF writers.
This has all happened.
Now IIRC, EGG has claimed on occasion that he wasn't inspired by Tolkien as much as he was by the (pulp) fantasy of his youth. I would therefore argue that he tried to create a game of heroic fantasy as he saw it, as shaped by what he read to date. Perhaps much the same can be said about Dave Arneson, who I believe was known to binge-watch B-movies before sessions of his Blackmoor game. Say what you like about either, but I would say that these men created a game that appealed to many folks like them, which may help to explain why later versions of the game also contained some questionable content. And D&D as published by TSR is not the only game in this respect. "Vital Statistics" anyone?
So are you offended by men drawing scantily clad women? Do you think Pellucidar or, say, Jules Verne is the bomb? Do you think fantasy art involving barely clad women is what makes heroic fantasy heroic fantasy? Does two-dimensional demi-gods saving sensuous and undressed maidens in distress? Do you think pulp fantasy magazine covers should never have been what they are? Do you think scantily clad women should never be seen again in D&D? Do you think women should draw attractive specimens of whatever gender? Men? Do you consider some D&D content objectionable? Do you think slavery is an integral part of Dark Sun? Do you think it is used gratuitously and therefore demeans what actually slavery is about? Do you think D&D must be made more inclusive, more welcoming to people of all colors and genders by removing content you think or know will exclude or offend them? Do you think slavery and sexual content have their place in other RPGs than D&D? Do you think decisions like that should be the responsibility of the table involved? Do you think WotC caves in to pressure when they decide not to publish Dark Sun 5E? Do you think this would be nothing more than a savvy move? Do you think WotC will choose not to do so because they care for 'their community'? Do you think EGG expressed questionable opinions? Do you think Mrs. Pulling accusing D&D-ers of being spell-casting devil worshipers ridiculous?
That is all perfectly acceptable.
But is also your opinion.
In my opinion.
So, do we lose something when we start eliminating controversial content from D&D? I would vote against doing so retroactively, for I think history should never be forgotten, as I've said earlier.
Would I care about future publications? Personally, I don't really care one way or the other and if the wind takes the game to a 'sanitized version' advocated by many here, so be it.
However, a small part of me cannot help but feel that we will lose a certain je ne sais quoi if everything people might take offense at is removed from future editions. I still see D&D as a game of heroic fantasy and there is much to be said for the old-school and 'exotic' feel of it, warts and all, even though I, too, don't go for such exaggerations as slavery used as window-dressing (or worse) and lustful maidens throwing themselves at the feet of two-dimensional Ueber-males to be 'dealt with' at their leisure.
Indeed, I recall frowning when I first read about slavers in D&D, even if only because I found it tasteless and not in line with how I see a fantasy world in my mind. There is no slavery in my own world, which I sell to players as having an 'enlightened' quality to it as far as many real-world aberrations are concerned, which includes slavery and some aspects of sexuality.
However, all of this does not prevent me from using 'controversial' aspects of pulp fantasy in my adventures. For example, I have recently been remodeling the classic White Dwarf adventure The Halls of Tizun Thane so as to make it even more in line with its pulp origins. In this adventure, which I'll run in the Hyborian Age instead of my own world, the PCs are supposed to run into Izis, a 'harem girl' with Charisma 18 still held captive by one of the castle's occupants, so there's slavery, sexualized women, and forced prostitution for ya.
And so I decided to take it one step further and made here a Priestess of Derketo, and use her to walk the line between being both a Conan-esque slave girl and very much not so. I plan to have her play with the PCs pretending to be the one, while actually being the other, until I start registering actual reactions in my players, which she/I shall then continue to exploit until they realize that things are not at all what they seem to be and that she is a very real woman.
Now, perhaps some or many of you may feel that this is just another example of sexploitation, slaveploitation, or even ‛using women as tools’ but I beg to differ. First, I have have done things like this before with similarly controversial subjects (e.g., wanton murder, strict concepts of good and evil, unwavering religious convictions) and all I can say is that they have invariably led to very memorable adventures to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Second, I consider using Zizis the Stygian in this way as a means to confront people with their deepest-seated notions about themselves, about matters sexual and servile, and about the concept of men and women in general - to make them look at themselves as human beings as it were.
Perhaps I should add that, although I know where to go with her, getting there is going to be quite a challenge for myself as well for many reasons – one of them being that I'm not a woman last time I checked.
So do I need future editions of the game to feature helpless harem girls with Charisma 18 for all of this? Probably not but I cannot say for certain that I would have come up with the idea if the adventure in question hadn't existed.
EDIT: woman > a woman
'Erotic' content.
As has been suggested by some in the time it took me to write this, I suppose one of the issues here may well be how folks interpret 'erotically charged art' or 'concepts', fueled by who they are.
While I believe that it is the right of everybody to think what they want, things may become a bit of an issue in general when many people thinking the same thing gather and express their shared notions, effectively forming a 'public opinion' if enough of them meet. More issues may arise if this 'public opinion' contradicts another one - justifiably or not - and one of them ends up being sold as the 'right opinion' in a particular arena. Discussions may follow, tempers may flare, people on all sides may be ostracized, wars may erupt - and then history will typically repeat itself.
A problem with an opinion being the 'right opinion' can be that some folks who are of this opinion may translate this into 'being right'. Now, since such folks are simply 'of an opinion', just like everybody else with one, I think it would be fair to say that, if they 'are right', everybody else is right, too.
In my opinion.
So what about scantily clad women drawn by male artists in RPGs?
Perhaps a little context.
I think it would be fair to say that RPGs as we know them today have their origin in the early 20th century in the Western world when it was the domain of men - as has been argued. Of these, some indulged in notions of the weird and fantastic, spoke about it in congregations, wrote about it, painted it, lived it, and inspired others to do the same.
Being men, many of them programmed to procreate with women and at least some of them having to pretend to be heterosexual, the erotic aspects of the weird fantastic would, in general, involve women. Also, men being men and often seen as silly or worse when deemed unable to live up to what society expected of them, I suppose it could be argued that the erotic aspect of the weird and fantastic appealed to a lot of them, which was jumped upon by the entertainment industry - most of it dominated by men. So yes, Tarzan, John Carter of Mars, Conan, and even the Birdmen of Gor happened. Pulp fantasy magazine covers happened. Yes, women writers had to adopt pseudonyms that wouldn't betray their gender if they were found 'good enough', by men, to be published as fantasy or SF writers.
This has all happened.
Now IIRC, EGG has claimed on occasion that he wasn't inspired by Tolkien as much as he was by the (pulp) fantasy of his youth. I would therefore argue that he tried to create a game of heroic fantasy as he saw it, as shaped by what he read to date. Perhaps much the same can be said about Dave Arneson, who I believe was known to binge-watch B-movies before sessions of his Blackmoor game. Say what you like about either, but I would say that these men created a game that appealed to many folks like them, which may help to explain why later versions of the game also contained some questionable content. And D&D as published by TSR is not the only game in this respect. "Vital Statistics" anyone?
So are you offended by men drawing scantily clad women? Do you think Pellucidar or, say, Jules Verne is the bomb? Do you think fantasy art involving barely clad women is what makes heroic fantasy heroic fantasy? Does two-dimensional demi-gods saving sensuous and undressed maidens in distress? Do you think pulp fantasy magazine covers should never have been what they are? Do you think scantily clad women should never be seen again in D&D? Do you think women should draw attractive specimens of whatever gender? Men? Do you consider some D&D content objectionable? Do you think slavery is an integral part of Dark Sun? Do you think it is used gratuitously and therefore demeans what actually slavery is about? Do you think D&D must be made more inclusive, more welcoming to people of all colors and genders by removing content you think or know will exclude or offend them? Do you think slavery and sexual content have their place in other RPGs than D&D? Do you think decisions like that should be the responsibility of the table involved? Do you think WotC caves in to pressure when they decide not to publish Dark Sun 5E? Do you think this would be nothing more than a savvy move? Do you think WotC will choose not to do so because they care for 'their community'? Do you think EGG expressed questionable opinions? Do you think Mrs. Pulling accusing D&D-ers of being spell-casting devil worshipers ridiculous?
That is all perfectly acceptable.
But is also your opinion.
In my opinion.
So, do we lose something when we start eliminating controversial content from D&D? I would vote against doing so retroactively, for I think history should never be forgotten, as I've said earlier.
Would I care about future publications? Personally, I don't really care one way or the other and if the wind takes the game to a 'sanitized version' advocated by many here, so be it.
However, a small part of me cannot help but feel that we will lose a certain je ne sais quoi if everything people might take offense at is removed from future editions. I still see D&D as a game of heroic fantasy and there is much to be said for the old-school and 'exotic' feel of it, warts and all, even though I, too, don't go for such exaggerations as slavery used as window-dressing (or worse) and lustful maidens throwing themselves at the feet of two-dimensional Ueber-males to be 'dealt with' at their leisure.
Indeed, I recall frowning when I first read about slavers in D&D, even if only because I found it tasteless and not in line with how I see a fantasy world in my mind. There is no slavery in my own world, which I sell to players as having an 'enlightened' quality to it as far as many real-world aberrations are concerned, which includes slavery and some aspects of sexuality.
However, all of this does not prevent me from using 'controversial' aspects of pulp fantasy in my adventures. For example, I have recently been remodeling the classic White Dwarf adventure The Halls of Tizun Thane so as to make it even more in line with its pulp origins. In this adventure, which I'll run in the Hyborian Age instead of my own world, the PCs are supposed to run into Izis, a 'harem girl' with Charisma 18 still held captive by one of the castle's occupants, so there's slavery, sexualized women, and forced prostitution for ya.
And so I decided to take it one step further and made here a Priestess of Derketo, and use her to walk the line between being both a Conan-esque slave girl and very much not so. I plan to have her play with the PCs pretending to be the one, while actually being the other, until I start registering actual reactions in my players, which she/I shall then continue to exploit until they realize that things are not at all what they seem to be and that she is a very real woman.
Now, perhaps some or many of you may feel that this is just another example of sexploitation, slaveploitation, or even ‛using women as tools’ but I beg to differ. First, I have have done things like this before with similarly controversial subjects (e.g., wanton murder, strict concepts of good and evil, unwavering religious convictions) and all I can say is that they have invariably led to very memorable adventures to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Second, I consider using Zizis the Stygian in this way as a means to confront people with their deepest-seated notions about themselves, about matters sexual and servile, and about the concept of men and women in general - to make them look at themselves as human beings as it were.
Perhaps I should add that, although I know where to go with her, getting there is going to be quite a challenge for myself as well for many reasons – one of them being that I'm not a woman last time I checked.
So do I need future editions of the game to feature helpless harem girls with Charisma 18 for all of this? Probably not but I cannot say for certain that I would have come up with the idea if the adventure in question hadn't existed.
EDIT: woman > a woman
Last edited:
BrokenTwin
Biological Disaster
If you mean the 1880s, maybe.
The American relationships with violence and sexuality are old things. Old things that live under the hills of our cultural landscape. Old things with tentacles living under those hills...
BrokenTwin
Biological Disaster
Well, male power fantasy and some powerful homo-eroticism.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
I was thinking more of Temple of Doom.
Because, to channel my inner @Bagpuss ... that was almost a decade ago, and it had an outsized influence on culture!
Sound of Azure
Contemplative Soul
Frankly, if I want sexy art, I look for books or sources dedicated to it. I don’t need it in my RPG manuals- unless the RPG is dedicated to such things, I guess.
AnotherGuy
Hero
Yeah we get it. It's never the same thing when it doesn't suit the conversation.
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Because they aren't just slightly more powerful. They are far more powerful than even the most powerful mortals. Kelemvor could snap his fingers and you die.
AnotherGuy
Hero
Really? Are we talking players that are a couple IRL?
Ruin Explorer
Legend
This is a fallacy, in that it presents false reasoning.
No significant proportion of the audience is buying non-erotic-focused TTRPGs, videogames, etc. for "sexy art" as were. However, that does not in any way mean that such creations should not have "sexy art" in them. There's an underlying prudish sentiment that's being taken as read, taken as common, when it actually isn't. This idea that media/artwork is either "sexual" or "not sexual". That there's some thick and obvious dividing line, and the related idea - a very American Puritan one, that it's dangerous or wildly inappropriate to expose people to anything "sexy" when that wasn't the obvious focus of the product.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting you're personally a prude, but the idea that unless an RPG is "dedicated" to the erotic, nothing "sexy" should be depicted in it is absolutely a prudish and puritanical idea, and rather culturally specific to the US (albeit disturbingly common there).
The reality is, unless the book is specifically aimed at children, it's probably fine for the artists/creators who make it, to include some artwork which some people will regard as "sexy" or "risque" or whatever. It's not required that it be included, but equally, the idea that it shouldn't be included simply because the RPG isn't "dedicated" to that is a faulty one.
This is important to me because it's a fundamental artistic freedom, and honestly a lot of good art involves an element of sexuality or sensuality. And when people dislike that, or just want to draw lines around what is "okay", it also (surprise surprise) tends to be LGBTQ+ sexuality/sensuality that gets picked up and kicked out first.
Specifically I'll be sad if all/most TTRPGs end up like this - Everyone Is Beautiful and No One Is Horny - Blood Knife
I know I'm extending a lot from a short post, and I don't expect you intend prudishness or the like, but I do think you're illustrating a poorly-examined/unreflected bias that's unfortunately increasingly common today.
Bedrockgames
Legend
Just to be clear here, I am talking strictly about art in books. I don't personally care for things getting into that territory in RPGs (nothing against people who do, I just find it socially embarrassing, uncomfortable and feel there are too many issues that come up). Thing like romantic relationships might happen in a campaign but they are usually dealt with off camera or if we need to understand what is happening between characters, in the second person (i.e. My character takes her on a date in the park for the afternoon) and we leave it at that with out getting into details.
AnotherGuy
Hero
That last sentence sums up for me the argument against removing controversial content altogether from the hobby or even a mature D&D line.
Bedrockgames
Legend
This gets at what I am trying to say a lot better than I have been able to. That art depicting the beauty of the human form isn't necessarily sexual. I do martial arts and fitness (less now as I am older and have a lot of chronic illnesses, but I still dabble in them as much as I can). For me a movie like Conan, or artwork in that vein, is more about how amazing it is that the human body can be pushed to such levels of physical athleticism and performance. Obviously Arnold is an ideal (I myself am 5'7" and have a leaner build so it would be insane for me to emulate his physique). But there is something very compelling about the two leads in that movies, and imagery that captures a similar style. I don't consider it sexual or sexy though (anymore than a martial arts in peak physical condition performing a kata is sexy). But these things can also be perceived as sexy (and Conan has a moments in it that are)
I made a book once that was inspired by Strange Tales from the Chinese Studio, which as a work contains sensual elements, but it isn't like it's all erotic. So the RPG book included a handful of images I thought tastefully captured those aspects of it. The game itself is a far cry from erotic. It's about fighting monsters, investigating the supernatural, etc. But in some of the backstories to adventures, having an NPC who is say in love with a Fox Spirit, seemed appropriate. That is about the extent of it. So the images help contribute to that theme.
I agree. This is where I think the whole 'kids 12 and under are part of the audience' thing is being misused somewhat in this discussion. It has become a kind of 'think of the children' argument. I was probably 11 or so when I started. I never got the feeling that RPGs were aimed at me. I liked them because they seemed to be targeting an older audience (and anyone who has read the players handbook, knows it is written in a dense style, with high word count, and not something that is written towards 12 year olds). That said, I don't think including blatant pornography would be appropriate for a game like D&D. But I remember there being a handful of racier images in some of the books. Whatever people think of that style of art in terms of whether they could make it into the PHB and DMG today, they didn't have much impact on me (there were far racier things at the check out stand where I used to buy candy or on TV).
This is where I am coming from on this as well. I think a lot of my view of it is shaped by coming of age in the 90s, when artist freedom, artists pushing boundaries, was linked to a lot of progressive social issues (though to be fair, in the US, censorship has often been a confluence of religious right elements and parental concern elements on the left, as we had with the PMRC). I was also raised by former hippies so that might have something to do with it too.
Scribe
Legend
Yes, it is sad. Great link.
Bedrockgames
Legend
That is a very interesting article. Reading it now.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
How is this different from sitting down at a table of strangers to play a heist scenario that you didn't write and are told to run/play if you want to participate? If you don't like something, you aren't going to want to have to play it.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Yeah and unfortunately it's coming at art from both sides of the political spectrum. On one side, it's being used as a tool to try and relitigate the LGBTQ+ debate (which was basically over, for the most part), and to oppress those groups - and "think of the children" and "it ain't right" and appeals to the idea of "if it makes you uncomfortable, it's inherently bad" are a huge part of that. On the other, you have a lot of what people on Twitter refer to as "22-year-old minors" who are people aged like, 18-30 basically who feel they should never under any circumstances be made even remotely uncomfortable by anything at all, and for some that absolutely includes art or writing which might be considered "sexy" unless it's like, carefully separated off with a massive cordon sanitaire around it. - they're people who basically brought up in the "Everyone is beautiful, no-one is horny" paradigm, or formed their current identities during it - I think this latter group will grow out of it for the most part at least.
Scribe
Legend
There are too many things I could pull out of that article, but yeah it really captures the vibe of a lot that is going on and being discussed.
Over sanitized, safe, removed from the reality of well, the reality of humanity. Like how people, with bodies, function.
Thanks again for the link @Ruin Explorer I guess its a good thing we dont have "Thread Block" as a function around here after all.
Over sanitized, safe, removed from the reality of well, the reality of humanity. Like how people, with bodies, function.
Thanks again for the link @Ruin Explorer I guess its a good thing we dont have "Thread Block" as a function around here after all.
- Status
