D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Clavis]

Then why aren't the robots and ray-guns and dinosaurs and flying saucers in the art?

Please don't give anyone at WOTC ideas...

Oh, wait, there's already Eberron!

 

[Rechan]

Oh, wait, there's already Eberron!

Sigh.

I wouldn't call any of that "robots, ray-guns and flying saucers", but that's a semantics debate for another thread.

 

[Clavis]

I mean, I assumed people would think "Oh, comic-book adaption", but apparently a lot of people though "Oh, actual history!". Let's not even get into how side-lined the Athenian Navy got, and how the 300 deal was only possible because of them. Or the whole "Delphic Priests were pervy traitors" deal. Ok just stopping now. Movie based on a COMIC BOOK, not on reality. Deep breaths.

You mean the Persians didn't have mutant Ninjas? Xerxes looked like Osama Bin Laden, not a 7-foot tall gay go-go dancer? Say it isn't so, say it isn't so!

 

[Rechan]

If you want to feel good about yourself by deluding yourself into thinking that makes them somehow less than you, then by all means, knock yourself out. It won't change anything, but if it helps your self image, then cool.

There is no excuse for being insulting and condescending. I never got on a high horse or implied that I was better. Attributing any judgment call about other people to my statements was your own addition.

 

[Rechan]

But again, if it's too much of a stretch for your game*, don't bother using it.

It doesn't matter what's in my game. It matters what's in the art.

 

[Clavis]

You mean this one?

I don't play Exalted, so can anyone tell me whether "Bikini Wax" is an in-game magical effect?

 

[Cadfan]

Again, as long as the particular silliness of their attire applies equally to male and female characters, what's the big deal?

That's a fair question that deserves an honest answer.

There are several common objections to sex-pot fantasy art in D&D.

1) It objectifies women and is therefore inherently bad.
2) It demonstrates discrimination towards women.
3) Sex-pot fantasy art is ok in its proper place, but that place isn't D&D.

If you believe the problem is number 2, then balancing cheesecake with beefcake is an entirely adequate solution.

If you believe number 1, odds are you disapprove of scantily clad male imagery as well as scantily clad female imagery, so that wouldn't work. Most people who are against objectification on principle don't feel that objectification for all is an adequate fix.

And then there's me, in group 3. I don't agree with argument 1 because I don't mind objectification in its proper place. An artbook entitled "Women of Fantasy, fold out pinups included within!" would be a good place for slavegirl images and other fantasy art which objectifies the women being depicted. Shelley's "Confessions of a Part Time Sorceress" would be an example of a really bad place for lots of slavegirl art.

I don't agree with argument 2 because, while I think it would be sad if D&D marketed itself as exclusively a boy's game, I don't think that's an inherent wrong either. Maxim may be discriminatory because it features articles for men and not women, but I don't think that's a bad type of discrimination. So I don't think discrimination is inherently wrong either, if that's what you're about.

I agree with argument 3, because I don't think D&D* should be about hormones. I'd like a game where the default is family friendly.** I believe people are perfectly capable of adding in the plate mail thongs and so forth if they want, and it doesn't need to be in the art or built into the rules. I don't have a problem with the concept of a sexy rpg in general, but I don't think D&D is or should be it. If D&D wants to become that sort of game, I think WOTC should just say so, and we'll all know where we stand. But I don't think they want that either.

I know it seems like nitpicking to point out every armor boob-hole in the artwork, when most of the artwork isn't so bad, and much of it is quite good. But, well, that's how we advanced out of the era in which a woman's only role in D&D was as a slavegirl or prostitute, into the era in which her role was a nearly naked barbarian or sorceror, and into the present. Somebody paid attention to this sort of thing. Somewhere WOTC has a style editor or an art editor in charge of exactly this issue.

*My objection applies to D&D as its presented in the official materials, go to town in your homebrew if that's what you want. I don't think anyone should be policing your homebrew game except those in it, but I think its fair to police the official brand image. Which of course WOTC already does.
**I know, its violent, we've been over that.

 

[AllisterH]

I don't play Exalted, so can anyone tell me whether "Bikini Wax" is an in-game magical effect?

This is Exalted.

A game where you pretty much gain nothing from wearing armour. A game that has an Appearance stat which actually has mechanical benefits.

Seriously, does it even make sense for a Solar to wear armour?

 

[Rechan]

Seriously, does it even make sense for a Solar to wear armour?

Yes.

Even if your character has a very high Dodge pool or Parry pool, and has a Charm that can allow them to apply their full pool of dice to every attack that's coming at them (AND they have a round to turn that Charm on)... eventually an attack is going to get through.

And if you're not wearing armor, you're going to eat all that damage.

Unless your character is particularly built so that they have high soak charms, and can take a hit. But then there's nothing protecting them from the hundred arrows coming at them.

Damage is very scary in Exalted, because it operates on the "Death Spiral" effect. Take x amount of damage, -1 to all your dice pools. Take more, now you have -2 to all your pools. The more you're injured, the more you suck at fighting and defending.

And that's assuming that your character is even focused for dealing with melee opponents. They might be a social character (Eclipse caste), or spellcaster (Twilight). Sure, every Caste can focus in an area of combat, but if you're devoting all of your resources to this, then that's all you're going to be able to do.

And for that matter, the guys with the biggest armor? They're the hardest to kill. You basically have to try and whittle them down until they die from a thousand papercuts.

I played an ascetic monk Dawn (the fighting Caste), who didn't want to carry around weapons or armor. I had a full dodge pool (and a charm that let me apply that full dodge to every attack coming my way), full martial arts (and eventually a style that upped my soak), and I still had to get armor in case I got tagged by a heavy hitter. The GM invented a magical kind of ink so I could get tattoo armor that functioned like armor (and I had to spend the resources to get it) JUST so I could stay true to my character concept. And that was subpar armor compared to the regular stuff.

 

[Moonshade]

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

It almost sounds like you're saying that if I refer to an actress or a character I have to be sure that the only things she's ever worn are Victorian outfits, otherwise the point I'm trying to make about a particular picture is rendered invalid.

Even though April Lee is responsible for this, I wouldn't hesitate to call her an artist who draws handsome men, because that's what they mainly are.

You're jumping back and forth between arguments here. On the one hand, you're saying that skimpy outfits are dumb because they don't provide protection

They're dumb for a fighter whose purpose is to get close to enemies and be within reach of weapons.

On the other hand you're saying that sexy, but skin-covering, outfits are okay, even though they don't provide protection

How many mages wear armour? It's better for them to focus on spellcasting and stay away from enemies they can't match in combat. And there's no need for armour for a character depicted enjoying a noble's feast, studying a spell or engaged in some other kind of out of combat activity; at those moments, they're not expecting to need physical protection and aren't placing themselves in harm's way.

You're saying that sexy is okay so long as it's fully clothed, but once it starts to show a little skin, it's bad because someone might stab that skin.

I was trying to say that I think it's perfectly possible to look sexy despite some skin being covered and that women who want to portray their character being sexy wouldn't necessarily choose a CMB for that.

That doesn't make any sense. Either it's okay to put sexy pictures in the books or it's not. If it is, it's okay to put both clothed-sexy pics and skimpy-sexy pics. If it isn't, then Monica in the black dress is out just as much as Monica in the Cleopatra getup. If we approve of black-dress Monica, then we've tacitly approved Cleopatra Monica, stupid-looking-blue-outfit girl up there, and, by the addition of your bold quote, the shadowdancer.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? I was assuming that D&D characters have different classes with different purposes, which leads to them choosing different outfits. They will also find themselves in different situations where they will again have to wear outfits that suits the event. A beautiful dress that doesn't reveal too much skin for the noble's feast, a bikini for the harem dancer, armour for the fighter who will be getting close to the weapons of her enemies; I don't think that's unreasonable.

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 wasn't expecting that pic to lead to an analysis of what her costume designer made her wear in a film. Many of Natalie Portman's Star Wars costumes were classy and lovely, and I don't think they'd be made less so if someone started posting pics of her playing a stripper in Closer.

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

That's it, basically. If I was a policewoman sent to arrest a dangerous criminal I'd definitely want whatever protection was available, a bullet-proof vest and so on, but I'd still like wearing pretty dresses in my free time and at parties.