D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Cadfan]

I understand what you're saying just fine. Its what you're attempting to express that leaves me mystified.

 

[Moonshade]

Wait. Am I trying to find pictures for your personal ... uh ... use? Are we discussing nudity or your taste in men?

Seriously, you need to apply the same standard to pictures of men as you do to pictures of women. Whether or not it turns you on personally is not an indication of the artist's intent, particularly if you're only attracted to one sex or the other.

Well, there's a lot of disagreement over whether stars who appeared on People's Most Beautiful lists deserved to be there. I was giving my personal opinion on those pics: I noted that those guys weren't my type but I did call them handsome in the end because I thought that's what enough people would think of their looks.

They're naked and male.

Are you telling me you would not object to a naked female if she had pointy ears? Or if I could say, "but really she's not a woman she's a tree"?

They're animals. There's a bit of difference between pointy ears and a horse on two legs.

Mialee gets a lot of hate because she looks like an ugly alien. Her facial features are out of proportion, and her outfit is stupid. (Not too revealing, nor too chaste, just too stupid.) Finally, her facial expression is always blank. This is half the reason IMHO Lidda is so popular -- she actually smiles every once in a while.

I think smiles can make both male and female characters more appealing.

 

[Ciaran]

I wish to see more illustrations of this nature.

That is all.

 

[Aloïsius]

They're naked and male.

Are you telling me you would not object to a naked female if she had pointy ears? Or if I could say, "but really she's not a woman she's a tree"?

pointy ears is not the same as "horse face". Or even "barkskin".

Look at this :

Not the same than this :

 

[Nifft]

Well, there's a lot of disagreement over whether stars who appeared on People's Most Beautiful lists deserved to be there. I was giving my personal opinion on those pics: I noted that those guys weren't my type but I did call them handsome in the end because I thought that's what enough people would think of their looks.

Right, but your personal opinion about their attractiveness is pointless. We're not discussing how hot they are.

We're discussing whether women disproportionately have outfits that constitute exploitation.

They're animals. There's a bit of difference between pointy ears and a horse on two legs.

Okay, so how about these?

Is nudity okay by you as long as there are some non-human features?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mad Mac]

Ok Nifft, you win. A topless man is the same as a topless woman. The only thing that matters is the amount of visible skin. If the man happens to be a huge horse beastman, that doesn't matter either, he's male and that's what counts.

I wouldn't get too sidetracked. By my count, 4/6 of the pictures he posted are of naked dudes who are also not animals. Besides which, I can see a lot of "sexism" complaints if Wizards started bomboarding us with topless Mermaids, Centaur Women, ect.

I thought the male armor pics were pretty illustrative as well. Male fantasy armor doesn't have cleavage slits (for obvious reasons) but it does tend to cut away parts to accentuate the character's manliness. The fact that these parts are different from women parts doesn't mean the artistic intent is that different.

 

[Nifft]

I wouldn't get too sidetracked. By my count, 4/6 of the pictures he posted are of naked dudes who are also not animals. Besides which, I can see a lot of "sexism" complaints if Wizards started bomboarding us with topless Mermaids, Centaur Women, ect.

I thought the male armor pics were pretty illustrative as well. Male fantasy armor doesn't have cleavage slits (for obvious reasons) but it does tend to cut away parts to accentuate the character's manliness. The fact that these parts are different from women parts doesn't mean the artistic intent is that different.

Yay! Thanks, it's really nice when someone clearly gets one's point.

Anyway, in the interest of promoting my secret agenda*, here's the Iconics plus two other illustrations (one monster, one artifact) from the XPH:

Psion and Psion

PsyWar and PsiWar

Other and Other

Notes: the Psions are both showing more chest than strictly necessary. The PsyWars are both showing a little arm, but nothing beyond that. They seem to have half-reasonable armor on. Both Other pictures are supposed to be wearing armor, but have pointless missing bits right around the chest / abs area.

IMHO, these pictures can be criticized on many angles, but they are at least equal in terms of sexist exposure and exploitation.

Cheers, -- N

*) Secret Agenda: to prove that the Expanded Psionics Handbook is the most balanced 3.5e product EVAR!

 

[Rel]

IMHO, these pictures can be criticized on many angles, but they are at least equal in terms of sexist exposure and exploitation.

I'm more than a little put off by the fact that the Wilder always looks to me like she's talking on her cell phone while trying to hail a cab.

 

[Henry]

I'm more than a little put off by the fact that the Wilder always looks to me like she's talking on her cell phone while trying to hail a cab.

That doesn't bother me as much as the Annulus' picture that I've entitled, "Frisbee of the Gods."

The "boobie-porthole" on many D&D outfits does always make me chuckle every time I see one, though. As a social outfit, I can see it. As adventuring gear, it always makes as much sense to me as a wizard with dozens of bells, whistles, and chickenbones on his staff - hideously impractical in a dangerous situation.

 

[Moonshade]

I wouldn't get too sidetracked. By my count, 4/6 of the pictures he posted are of naked dudes who are also not animals.

I don't think it's too much when one third of the response to this:

Nifft posted a lot of pictures of ugly men who maybe bared a bit of arm and chest, but can someone find official D&D art that resembles this?



Handsome man, mostly naked, intended to be eye candy.

consists of this:

I took a look inside the BoED, because I assume the art in there is intended to be handsome.

[cut three images]

How on earth could it seem like a good idea to post those pics in reply to a request for handsome men who show skin? Would a photo of Angelina Jolie with a request for more in the same style make people think that the cow picture posted by Aloïsius was the kind of art the person wanted to see?