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
- 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.
- Status
Similar Threads
