D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Lonely Tylenol]

And this line is where I start to think there's no point in talking to you. If you can't conceive of female beauty that doesn't involve a lack of clothing and heightened sexualization, you've got problems.

It's not necessary that there be skin. But skin is and has always been an attractive feature on both males and females. Being attractive without showing skin is often a function of pointing out in a clever fashion that skin is being concealed. So if you're going to say that it's okay to put attractive women in D&D books, some of those women (not all of them, of course) will be showing some skin. Also, I regularly saw women wearing scarcely more clothing than some of those posted examples while walking around in downtown Montreal in the summertime. I suppose those real-life, normal women were actually just placed there to be "fan service" for me.

However, it seems to me that what you're saying by "they don't need to lack clothing" is "I don't like it when they show skin." That's fine. You can not like it all you want. Other people have different opinions on what makes an attractive painting, and it's not your job to tell them what to think.

As for new people coming into the game, I think you really have to have a stick in your rear to think that the WotC books are anything like offensive, or even silly. Valar Project, sure. "Women of Fantasy" artbooks, sure. Superhero comics, sure. I've seen older D&D stuff that is on the creepy side of things, but it's not a fair representation of the genre today, and this can be pointed out to the detractors.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to post all the images of women in WotC books that are perfectly normal and acceptable so that we may tally them up and determine on what side of the line WotC's art is on. But I fear this will not happen, because it will demonstrate that the art is, in the vast majority of cases, perfectly reasonable. And if that happens, we will have one less thing to complain about. Dire consequences, indeed.

 

[Moonshade]

I didn't have much luck finding paintings of handsome men in seductive poses and ridiculous outfits (it's winter and she chooses a bikini!), but I laughed when I saw this photo. It might be the closest I've seen to a male equivalent of the chainmail bikini.



Artificial, passive pose that emphasises his physical assets and a tiny outfit that's not exactly what most men would choose to wear? Yeah.

The model could be hot if he was wearing something and had a more natural pose, but I don't need that level of porny eye candy in D&D art.

If I wanted to play a sexy character, I'd model her after the gorgeous, confident Monica Bellucci. I wouldn't want to play a character who was sexy in a cheap pornstar way, and that's what chainmail bikini babes tend to look like. For me, "hawtness" is a woman who doesn't need to wear that bikini to get attention, she'll show up in a formal outfit or beautiful dress and still dominate the room. Similarly, I don't need to see a man half-naked to decide that I find him attractive. Suggestiveness is sexy; art doesn't need to have nudity to be appealing, IMO.

I'm going to be stereotypically girly here and say that I like PCs, especially mages, who wear clothes. There are so many gorgeous dresses in period dramas and historical/fantasy-themed art, when I find a nice one I often print it so I can let the other players know what my character is wearing (If only I was good at drawing! Then I could design my own PC portraits). That kind of wish-fulfillment is much more to my liking than chainmail bikini-style outfits and my PCs can still kick ass, the fighters when they change into armour before battle and the spellcasters by using their magic.

So let's ban sexy everywhere because it makes fat and unattractive women feel uncomfortable.

Better solution, work on improving your self esteem.

Like "You want them to wear burqas!", an overreaction.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

So let's ban sexy everywhere because it makes fat and unattractive women feel uncomfortable.

Better solution, work on improving your self esteem.

Or perhaps make artwork of attractive full-figured women, which I almost never see. Sexy is certainly not limited to the thin women commonly depicted in fantasy art. I don't see why the only heavy-set women I ever see in D&D are invariably the innkeeper's wife. Perhaps if there were more examples of attractive women who aren't rail-thin, some of the problems people have with the art would be solved. I don't think it's too far out to suggest that perhaps the reason why some women are turned off by the art is that, rather than it being too sexualized or showing too much skin, they see that in this domain, like all others, thin women are not only the norm, but the totality.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If I wanted to play a sexy character, I'd model her after the gorgeous, confident Monica Bellucci.

Who is, in that picture, wearing an outfit that squashes her boobs into cleavage and emphasizes her figure by clinging to her skin. I don't really see much difference between this outfit and something that shows more skin. Considering that one of the arguments being made is that if a picture depicts skin, it's only "fan service", and that anyone who likes such a picture is just a sexist creep, I guess I have the distinction of being one of those hallowed and revered males who don't equate skin with sexualization. Sexualization comes with or without skin. So if you have a problem with sexualization in D&D, Monica here should get the boot along with the other pics up there.

Red Sonja there is probably beyond the pale, but she comes out of an older generation's fetishes--ones that D&D used to have. However, that sort of thing was worked out of the genre over the years. There are no chainmail bikinis (or even scale mail, like Sonja's there) in D&D anymore. Skimpy outfits? Sure. However, I don't see why anyone should expect women in fantasy art to have collars up to their chins and skirts covering their ankles, like some puritan schoolmarm. Sometimes it's hot outside, especially if you're carrying around forty pounds of steel and gold.

I'd also probably argue that Monica's outfit is more overtly sexualized than some of the "objectionable" images posted above from the WotC books. Why is this picture okay, but those other ones aren't, if what we're worried about is titillating some sweaty gamers?

 

[Rel]

So let's ban sexy everywhere because it makes fat and unattractive women feel uncomfortable.

Better solution, work on improving your self esteem.

Don wins the prize for least productive and most inflamatory post in the thread so far. He won't be posting in this thread any further. Don't follow his example.

 

[Aloïsius]

If I wanted to play a sexy character, I'd model her after the gorgeous, confident Monica Bellucci.

Hum ?

And, in this movie, Cleopatra/Bellucci was wearing the most provocative and unpratical outfit possible.

 

[Moonshade]

Who is, in that picture, wearing an outfit that squashes her boobs into cleavage and emphasizes her figure by clinging to her skin. I don't really see much difference between this outfit and something that shows more skin. Considering that one of the arguments being made is that if a picture depicts skin, it's only "fan service", and that anyone who likes such a picture is just a sexist creep, I guess I have the distinction of being one of those hallowed and revered males who don't equate skin with sexualization. Sexualization comes with or without skin. So if you have a problem with sexualization in D&D, Monica here should get the boot along with the other pics up there.

I'd also probably argue that Monica's outfit is more overtly sexualized than some of the "objectionable" images posted above from the WotC books. Why is this picture okay, but those other ones aren't, if what we're worried about is titillating some sweaty gamers?

I chose that Monica pic because I think it's an example of sexy without showing skin, and sometimes the argument seems to be that if a woman wants to play a sexy character she must be in favour of the CMB/half-nakedness, then. But context is important: Monica isn't on a battlefield, risking her life by exposing her stomach. It's a pic in a casual setting and not this, where her armour must be either intended for ceremony or very heavily enchanted to be of use in battle. The Monica pic doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, a showcase for a beautiful actress and her designer dress, and there are magazines that exist just for that purpose: interviews with stars and fashion. If you buy Vogue you know what you'll get but the pic would be out of place in The Economist, same as barely-there armour on a fighter, IMO. Either wear armour that covers your vulnerable spots or leather/cloth that allows freedom of movement. Combining the two defeats the purpose unless it's to be as sexy/revealing as possible at a cemonial event.

And Monica's outfit is far, far classier than


What was the artist thinking?

This is art with skin that I don't mind. She looks like an earthy druid type, she's not in battle and doesn't need to cover herself for protection, her pose is casual.

And, in this movie, Cleopatra/Bellucci was wearing the most provocative and unpratical outfit possible.

But was Cleopatra fighting her enemies on the battlefield? Should I start going through Getty for pics of what Monica herself has chosen to wear at Cannes? I didn't intend to make this the Bellucci Thread, just to provide one example of how it's possible to cover yourself and still be sexy.

 

[Clavis]

Just to provide some context for our conversation...

Historically, armor worn by women (such as Joan of Arc) looked almost exactly like that worn by men. Not only was there NO boob definition at all, the breastplate was made only slightly larger in the upper chest. That's because when women went into battle they bound their breasts tightly with cloth to create the ancient equivalent of a sports bra. Since without modern bras a woman's breasts will sag and flatten after her early 20s, getting them flat was little problem. In addition, you can't wear metal armor of any kind effectively without a layer of padding underneath it. Any womanly shape at all would get lost underneath the padding and metal. That goes for chainmail as well, because you would still only see tightly bound breasts under padding, under the mail. No boob definition at all. With a helmet on, a female warrior would look almost EXACTLY like a male warrior.

While we're being historically accurate, let's mention that Caucasian women in pre-modern times generally had pretty hairy armpits, legs, and private parts. There were ways of removing that hair without modern cheap razors, but they were REALLY painful. In fact, hairy pits and crotch are desirable for warriors in armor because they reduce chafing. A picture of what a pretty female barbarian from the North would actually look like would be pretty off-putting to most gamers, male and female alike.

I will venture that most female gamers would NOT want to play a realistic warrior women, if they knew it meant binding their breasts, keeping themselves furry, and smelling like an old tin can all the time (from the vinegar and salt used to clean metal armor). Not to mention what they would stink like after a summer day, unshaven under layers of padding and metal in a world without deodorant.

My point is, the game (and its art) is total fantasy. If anybody wants to bring up "realism" let's know what we're really talking about. Pre-modern life was horrible. That's why we stopped living that way. We want fantasy worlds were people are clean, woman can keep full breasts past the age of 20, and there is a measure of gender equality. We want fantasy worlds were female armpit hair never needs to be depicted in paintings of barbarian women, and people don't die of the common cold.

We have fantasy because the real world can sometimes suck so badly. Let's be careful about how much "realism" we ask for in the depiction of anything pre-modern, because we might not like what we see.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Wow...you caught Eros sunbathing on Mount Olympus. And he's got Amor's Soccerball of Love (points firearms having been banned since the Athena incident and the renaming of the athenian currency from owls to nightingales )

If you caught that as a drawing, it'd certainly make a good model for either some classical god of erotic love, or an incubus. Better than your last one, too.

 

[Rechan]

However, it seems to me that what you're saying by "they don't need to lack clothing" is "I don't like it when they show skin." That's fine. You can not like it all you want. Other people have different opinions on what makes an attractive painting, and it's not your job to tell them what to think.

I personally don't believe this.

As I've said before multiple times, I just think the "fighter in armor that shows her boobs and exposes her thighs" = bad. Skin for rogues/mages/psions/etc = okay. I've used this picture multiple times as an example of perfectly acceptable art. Though, I think there's a range that we can go: this is just tacky*.

*That's in a WotC book, btw.