Why Are Warrior Women Never Ugly?

[JoeGKushner]

I suppose that your first answer still stands:


This doesn't concern a warrior, but I have to think of Joe Kushner's recent review of Necromancer's "Eldritch Sorcery", where he mentions that he doesn't like the Rick Sardinha cover. It depicts a female wizard or sorceror who is not particularly beautiful. Personally I find the picture very evocative, and it sets the perfect mood for a book about spells.

It's a fantasy rule that women must be beautiful. I remember a discussion of exactly this topic on rpg.net with the recent FR "Waterdeep" book as an example. It was pretty enlightening.

For the record, I thought it was an ugly cover and that it wasn't very clean, evocative or well, pertenent to anything found within the book. Just some female wizard in an odd position floating in the middle of the cover.

 

[Conaill]

Why is it that female heroes are always depicted in art as lithe, flawless beauties with perfect skin and chainmail miniskirts?

Whoa. Silly question. It's because the fantasy genre caters to hormonal teenage boys and...hormonal adult men.

A better question - why are female heroes NEVER squat, muscly brutes?

Hey - thanks for giving me some inspiration for my next character!

Mother Bertha - middleaged female half orc, veteran of many wars. Has a weakness for soft cuddly, defenseless things... but will bite your head off if you dare point that out!

I'm a little thorn on the class though. Barbarian or Fighter would be an obvious one. But perhaps a Witch (sorceror variant) might make for a fun change of pace.

 

[Ghostwind]

So, out of curiosity, why is it okay for some to have a female spellcaster baring skin and not a female fighter?

Personally, I don't mind seeing either. But then, I grew up on the likes of Frazetta, Vallejo and the like. Fantasy art is just that. Fantasy.

Edit: Spelling (grrrrrrrrrr)

 

[drothgery]

So, out of curiosity, why is it okay for some to have a female spellcaster bearing skin and not a female fighter?

Err.. I think you mean baring skin (a spellcaster that wasn't bearing skin would be kind of repulsive).

But to answer you question... it's because what a spellcaster is wearing has no affect on how dangerous she is or how effective she is at spellcasting (in D&D, armor makes arcane casters less effective). She stays out of melee, and uses magic to protect herself. A fighter wears armor. And a rogue stereotypically dresses to avoid attention, not attract it.

 

[Ghostwind]

Ah, but perhaps a female fighter might be inclined to use her "assets" as a distraction against her opponent by allowing a bit more visual?

 

[der_kluge]

...
because no one likes looking at ugly people.

 

[Thanee]

I can't think of any series where the main "tank" warrior was a woman and the main spellcaster was a man.

In the 2nd D&D movie, the 'tank' is a female barbarian.

But the main spellcaster (wizard) is a woman, too. The cleric and rogue are male, tho, as is the 'hero'.

Bye
Thanee

 

[The Shaman]

Ack! Someone beat me to it.

Great minds...yadda-yadda...

 

[Voadam]

But to answer you question... it's because what a spellcaster is wearing has no affect on how dangerous she is or how effective she is at spellcasting (in D&D, armor makes arcane casters less effective). She stays out of melee, and uses magic to protect herself. A fighter wears armor. And a rogue stereotypically dresses to avoid attention, not attract it.

Unless the warrior is Conan, or the warrior women he hangs out with, like Belit, Red Sonja, et al.

 

[Thanee]

Or a swashbuckler, or a pirate, or a ninja... no wait, no ninja.

But someone who actually wears armor for protection should wear it where it protects.

No bare midriff chain shirts and such.

This is, BTW, the only thing I would criticise about Claudio's shaper picture, the body armor.

Bye
Thanee