D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Nifft]

I've not seen any "rougly equal" number of silly male outfits, actually. I've seen, er, ONE so far in this thread, of equal levels of "silly outfit suitable only for an adults-only fancy dress party" (that idiot Sorcerer, whatever he's called, and the outfit of one thousand straps). So just waving your hands and saying "Huzzah, all is equal!" seems a bit damn silly.

I agree that WotC are a lot better than, say, previous RPG companies, but I still have a problem with them having an uncharacteristically hookerplate-armoured person on the front of the bloody 4E PHB. I'm not sure how that's difficult to understand.

Even if it's not yet time for "hurrah!", can we agree that the goal should be equality rather than Victorian mores?

The cover of the 4e PHB is too pixelated for me to judge it adequately, so I'm arguing on a theoretical basis only.

As to silly male outfits... of course there have been more female images. Did you read the damn thread title?

But here, have some more:

(Note that in the above image, the female is a Monk. She's not wearing armor. The Bard and Barbarian are wearing... what?)

(You may think that this is an image depicting bad armor on a female Elf. It's not; she's a Wizard; she's not wearing armor. Compare the armor of the Barbarian against the armor of the Rogue.)

Nice arms and exposed sternum, gentlemen.

Spikes, yet exposed arms, shoulders and chest.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

Even if it's not yet time for "hurrah!", can we agree that the goal should be equality rather than Victorian mores?

The cover of the 4e PHB is too pixelated for me to judge it adequately, so I'm arguing on a theoretical basis only.

As to silly male outfits... of course there have been more female images. Did you read the damn thread title?

But here, have some more:

1) Looks like leather armor to me.

2) Looks like monsters, but I'll give you that one.

3) Uh, the bard is wearing a Harlequin's outfit it looks like. He's a bard. You don't get to say "He looks silly"; ALL BARDS look silly.

Are you certain that's a Barbarian, also? I know it's a half-orc, but he looks like he's wearing a mage's robe.

4) That's a vest that you can barely see under his arm, but yeah. Silly.

5) That's just another pick of Hennet whose outfit has been established as just bad.

6) I'm not sure what you're saying here. It's been established that barbarians don't wear armor (and where's that guy going to find armor to fit anyhow?) Is your issue with the rogue's armor, which looks like standard depiction of leather armor?

7) Pinhead got his groove back? Okay, silly.

9) No, his chest is covered. Only the arm portion of the shoulder, and the upper arm is. I also only see spikes on the guantlet. I'm more concerned that he's flipping that spiked chain around, which is going to tear up his naked arms, I bet.

10) There's nothing silly, there. Though there is a lot of exposed skin - he's getting sacrificed. But I see your point - you could raise the same issue that it wouldn't be fair if it was reversed. On the other hand, his positioning - and the mood of the piece - and the fact he has some severe modesty there, it isn't sexualized. It's like the Druid Berrymore posted earlier in the thread.

 

[Nifft]

I've read that summary six times and I'm trying to figure out how I feel with it, and how you're setting up your counter argument, and I'm still not sure about it.

Aside from breasts? Yes, in the way of stomach/thighs, since those are, well, pretty vulnerable areas. That's the "realism" part. But the other leg of that is that chest/stomach/thigh are also very sexualized parts.

If no one cared about the half-naked woman part of the "going against pointy objects while wearing useless protection", then the fact the armor is useless wouldn't be much of an issue. But I don't see a lot of useless armor slapped on guys; it's almost universally applied to women.

Okay, see my post above -- guy armor shows off different parts, but it does feature many creative omissions to enhance the viewer's experience of the subject's physique. You might not find that physique as arousing as you do the physique of a female, but you must admit that isn't solely the fault of the artwork.

If you're really concerned about realistic coverage, though, why is it okay to omit helmets? Faces are darn sexy too, and heads (and necks) are darn vulnerable.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

1) Looks like leather armor to me.

Dude has exposed head and arms; lady has sensible head and arm cover.

2) Looks like monsters, but I'll give you that one.

Half-dragon Sorcerers.

3) Uh, the bard is wearing a Harlequin's outfit it looks like. He's a bard. You don't get to say "He looks silly"; ALL BARDS look silly.

Are you certain that's a Barbarian, also? I know it's a half-orc, but he looks like he's wearing a mage's robe.

It's Krusk! Of course he's a Barbarian. Devis, Krusk and Ember. He's wearing a pimp coat!

5) That's just another pick of Hennet whose outfit has been established as just bad.

You're right... I thought his face looked different.

6) I'm not sure what you're saying here. It's been established that barbarians don't wear armor (and where's that guy going to find armor to fit anyhow?) Is your issue with the rogue's armor, which looks like standard depiction of leather armor?

Barbarians usually wear Light armor, though Medium is an option too; orcs wear studded leather.

9) No, his chest is covered. Only the arm portion of the shoulder, and the upper arm is. I also only see spikes on the guantlet. I'm more concerned that he's flipping that spiked chain around, which is going to tear up his naked arms, I bet.

Yeah, his arms and his head, too. (My point about the spikes is just that he's wearing what look like Heavy armor gauntlets, but barely a chain vest for protection. Also, that the spikes are silly in their own special way.)

10) There's nothing silly, there. Though there is a lot of exposed skin - he's getting sacrificed. But I see your point - you could raise the same issue that it wouldn't be fair if it was reversed. On the other hand, his positioning - and the mood of the piece - and the fact he has some severe modesty there, it isn't sexualized. It's like the Druid Berrymore posted earlier in the thread.

I think if you saw a naked female, chained to an alter, arching her back, with her eyes closed, her hands and teeth clenched -- well, really. Can you honestly say there's nothing sexual about such an image?

These came from four books chosen at random. I could find more if anyone would be convinced by dumping a bunch of full frontal dude-ity in this thread.

Cheers, -- N

 

[SteveC]

I have unfortunately not had as much time to respond to this thread as I would have hoped today (work, whatcha' gonna' do?) but I just wanted to say that the comments about Monica Bellucci as an example of modest behavior and dress are really off-base. Monica Bellucci is an amazing woman: smart successful, and VERY sexy. She often appears naked or in revealing outfits in both movies and her modeling career. See her in Brotherhood of the Wolf (where her naked body is used to fade to a winters hillside) and Shoot 'Em Up where she dresses extremely seductively for much of the film...and also has a nude scene.

Not exactly the poster child for prudish behavior. However, if you read some of her interviews about the world of modeling and fashion, you'll see that this is a very bright, strong-willed woman.

--Steve

 

[Jhulae]

You mean this one?

I've been out of Exalted for quite some time (ever since WW pissed me off with their handling of one of the coolest RPGs I've found in a while, but I digress)...

Anyway, I might just have to use that pic for the outfit of a new character I'm thinking of...

 

[Rechan]

Dude has exposed head and arms; lady has sensible head and arm cover.

Okay, saying "His head is exposed" is different than "Her chest isn't protected." The same as teh upper arms. That's why there are things called Gauntlets and Bracers (the forearms); are there any actual armor pieces that are meant to protect the upper arm? Are there any huge vital organs there?

It's Krusk! Of course he's a Barbarian. Devis, Krusk and Ember. He's wearing a pimp coat!

That's not d20 Modern, right?

Yeesh. You're right. That is retarded then.

Barbarians usually wear Light armor, though Medium is an option too; orcs wear studded leather.

Huh. First time I looked at that, I thought it was a Giant (he looked much taller than Mialee). I guess I didn't register that was Lidda, not someone else, beside him.

Looking at it again, he looks more like a green bugbear than an orc, but yeah.

 

[Jhulae]

Okay, saying "His head is exposed" is different than "Her chest isn't protected." The same as teh upper arms. That's why there are things called Gauntlets and Bracers (the forearms); are there any actual armor pieces that are meant to protect the upper arm? Are there any huge vital organs there?

Pauldrons (and lamé). And while there are no *vital* organs there, having one's arm chopped off in a fight can be just as bad as getting sliced anywhere else..

 

[Nifft]

Pauldrons (and lamé). And while there are no *vital* organs there, having one's arm chopped off in a fight can be just as bad as getting sliced anywhere else..

Exactly.

The upper arm has the same number of vital organs as one finds in the sexy exposed inner thigh of the lady warrior. The upper arms are a trifle easier to hit with a downward chop. Also, I suspect they appeal to a different crowd than those who like sexy exposed lady thighs. But not a less important crowd.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

That's not d20 Modern, right?

Complete Scoundrel.

Anyway, if these are helpful, I can find more. I only looked in Comp. Scoundrel, Dragon Magic, Drow of the Underdark and Minis Handbook (which had nothing).

Cheers, -- N