D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Rechan]

If I cast fly (which has a Somatic component, which might very well be flapping one's arms), then you are damn right -- I can fly.

That requires you to be able to Cast the Spell first. That's about 5 levels difference between just slapping on some armor with your mid-driff showing and expect your stomach to repel swords.

 

[Nifft]

That requires you to be able to Cast the Spell first. That's about 5 levels difference between just slapping on some armor with your mid-driff showing and expect your stomach to repel swords.

Six for me, as my Charisma far exceeds my intellect, which is nonetheless prodigious in its own right.

Yet the point stands: it's fantasy. Insert realism at your own risk.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Cadfan]

And you were presented with counterexamples of how your clothed actress also appears in skimpy garments as well.

And this is relevant how? Monica Belluci must be a virginal princess who only acts in tasteful and historically realistic movies, or else boob-holes in armor are a good idea?

I don't think this will be putting words in Moonshade's mouth, because I think she's made herself pretty clear. Moonshade was arguing that a woman can look sexy without wearing ridiculous and revealing clothing, which she favors because, as a woman, she generally likes being sexy, but doesn't like taking off her clothes in public. She provided a picture she felt was an example of exactly that. The fact that the actress in the picture once acted in a silly movie where she wore a silly costume doesn't change anything.

And as for the whole, "They're wearing light clothes to give them better freedom of movement!" thing... yeah... That's an after the fact justification if I've ever heard one. I'm sorry, but the combat advantages of wearing pants vastly outstrip any gains in mobility obtained by wearing a loincloth and going commando. And the "its all about mobility" argument certainly won't help you defend plate mail armor with a hole cut in the chest so that boobs can hang out, or women wearing plate mail shirts, plate mail gloves, plate mail boots, but no pants. There simply is no justification for these things.

 

[Rechan]

Huh? Maybe I missed something in this thread, but did somebody actually start relating rules mechanics to the artwork? I would be in total agreement with you if somebody said they were gaining the full bonus for chainmail armor, but the weight and armor check penalties are lower because they are only wearing a chainmail loincloth.

Huh?

I'm using the Metagame idea of Armor bonus to explain the point of covering up vs. not covering up, because people are rejecting the notion of "Her stomach is exposed, but she can't get stabbed in the stomach."

If women are wearing chainmail bikinis, clearly they think the chainmail bikini provides SOME protection. Otherwise they'd just be wearing a cloth bikini.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

/snip

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.

On the first point, I can't speak for anyone else, but I kind of like skin - I just don't like:

A) Wildly and unecessarily sexualized covers (no WotC books fits into this catergory), because it makes it embarassing to bring the book out in public/mixed company. E.g. the old Exalted 2nd magic book, can't remember it's name. Was just... oy vey...

B) More pertinent to this thread, I don't like skin that doesn't make any damn sense. If someone is wearing armour with huge gaps in it, there should be explanation (like they had to put it on in haste, or it's some kinky sacrificial outfit, a la Alias). It's one thing to be as naked as can be when you're frolicing in the woods, or swimming, or whatever. It's quite another to be running into battle dressed in a bizarre male-fantasy outfit for no apparent reason. Druid McBerryeater looks nice, but if she was intentionally wearing the same outfit into a melee/arrow fight, I'd be somewhat appalled.

In general WotC are very good about this, btw. Which is precisely WHY I'm kind of irked about the PHB cover. I mean, we've got dozens or hundreds of good, empowering images of female characters with appropriate skin/no skin (i.e. not hookerplate), so why break that trend on the cover of the most important and common book in the line? Seems bizarre. Of course, it's also bizarre to put two very different Tieflings on the cover, so I really have no idea what's going on there.

As for that godawful blue outfit on the person with the electric whip, maybe to you that's "not what we're talking about", but if so, then we're talking at cross-purposes. "Bizarre sexist outfits" are a subset of "really stupid outfits", and honestly, I'd like to see "really stupid outfits" gone from 4E too.

 

[Rechan]

Yet the point stands: it's fantasy. Insert realism at your own risk.

I direct you straight to the debate over the Bo9S being D&D Fantasy.

 

[Nifft]

Druid McBerryeater looks nice, but if she was intentionally wearing the same outfit into a melee/arrow fight, I'd be somewhat appalled.

We'd probably see Druid Berrymore as naked as a jaybird, and in all other ways looking identical to a jaybird, directing lightning blasts and calling storms of green fire down upon her foes.

Or, she could go completely bear, and kill her foes in melee.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

And the "its all about mobility" argument certainly won't help you defend plate mail armor with a hole cut in the chest so that boobs can hang out, or women wearing plate mail shirts, plate mail gloves, plate mail boots, but no pants. There simply is no justification for these things.

Apparently the justification is "It's fantasy la la la".

 

[Nifft]

I direct you straight to the debate over the Bo9S being D&D Fantasy.

Okay. Link please?

-- N

 

[Nifft]

won't help you defend plate mail armor with a hole cut in the chest so that boobs can hang out, or women wearing plate mail shirts, plate mail gloves, plate mail boots, but no pants. There simply is no justification for these things.

The same goes for the outfits worn by the Spartan men in 300, though. Except that was supposed to be based (somewhat) on reality.

IMHO there's nothing wrong with ridiculous clothing or armor, so long as it's applied to everyone. Stupid punk spikes? Swords thicker than your torso? Chainmail loincloths and bikinis? Sure, why not. Worked fine for Conan, worked equally for Xena.

IMHO it's only a problem if clothing is applied unequally.

In other words: if everyone looks silly, it's a genre convention. If only girls look silly, it might be sexist.

Cheers, -- N