D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Geron Raveneye]

Huh, I didn't see that point, but I'll willingly agree with it. The art should be primarily of characters who you'd like to be, rather than who you'd like to see.

Is what I got from him posting about illustrations of "men drawn to appeal to men", since I don't think there's much "gay porn" in D&D.

It's a point about D&D artwork I'm standing on, too...that most of it is used as "that's how your character could look". And while the more mature part of our hobby doesn't care as much about the looks of their character anymore rather than the character, a big lot of gamers DOES care about the looks...they want their characters to look cool, sexy, heroic, out-of-this-world, etc...and sometimes that means running around in skimpy armor while being invincible. The ablative HP make that possible, after all. At some point, AC from armor is just a speedbump for the hitting capacity of a monster anyway, so why bother with the actual protectiveness if my +25 from various sources make that +7 from a fully functional plate armor only 3 points better than the +4 I get from my "Victoria's Secret" mithril Mail Shirt of Teasing Cleavage or my "Manpower" Partial Breastplate of Manliness*.

*as offered in the yet to be published 4E "Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue 2008"

 

[Ciaran]

The thing is, I think I have the general idea.

You're the one claiming that all the examples so far are terrible. If you're going to claim to know what's better, you've gotta be ready to back it up somehow.

While I'm not a (straight) women, as a gay man I can categorically state that not one of the illustrations you've posted of men or half-male abominations are the least bit titillating. For the most part, they're not even particularly pleasant to look at. I'm not sure how I'd be expected to "back up" such a statement, as my Erotic-O-Meter is in the shop right now, but I'd be willing to try if you were to explain how one would go about it.

As to why your pics aren't sexy? Well, none of them have any real sensuality to them; the poses are stiff and/or aggressive, the faces arrogant or blank. Your 2nd pic (the angel with the spiked chain) at least looks like he's just hanging out, which is tolerable; but the 3rd (the tattooed angel) looks like he's about to cry, and the other four characters each look, in their own distinct ways, like they want to beat the crap out of the viewer. And that ain't sexy.

 

[Nifft]

While I'm not a (straight) women, as a gay man I can categorically state that not one of the illustrations you've posted of men or half-male abominations are the least bit titillating.

To be fair, realize that many of the pictures I've posted have been to demonstrate that silly armor happens to men, too -- NOT to titillate anybody.

As to why your pics aren't sexy? Well, none of them have any real sensuality to them; the poses are stiff and/or aggressive, the faces arrogant or blank.

So, sexyness has little to do with amount of skin shown. Got that, and pretty much agreed with it a while back -- see my comment on Lidda / Vadania.

But let's turn this around. If sexyness has nothing to do with amount of skin shown, what are people objecting to regarding depictions of women?

Thanks, -- N

 

[Piratecat]

But let's turn this around. If sexyness has nothing to do with amount of skin shown, what are people objecting to regarding depictions of women?

Just speaking for myself? You'd have to be a moron to charge into battle in some of those clothes, and I find women (in both the real world and RPGs) much more interesting when they're smart.

 

[Nifft]

Just speaking for myself? You'd have to be a moron to charge into battle in some of those clothes, and I find women (in both the real world and RPGs) much more interesting when they're smart.

If we're saying that stupid armor is the problem, that at least is something concrete and can be fixed -- though I maintain that some genres willfully disregard armor, and so long as they do so without regard for sex, their silliness is inoffensive.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Moonshade]

Hey look, it's a response to this same statement, a few posts up!

I'm trying to ask you why you thought to respond to a specific request, with a photo as a guide, with a picture of a horse. You haven't answered, only posted more non-human pictures. I asked: "can someone find official D&D art that resembles this? Handsome man, mostly naked, intended to be eye candy." How is a horse a sensible response to this, or support a claim that D&D has art that women find attractive?

We're talking fantasy RPGs here, after all. Just because elves basically look like slender humans with big eyes and pointy ears doesn't mean the call for "hot models" has to limit itself to humans only, I'd say.

[cut images]

We should be a little broader of mind when talking about "sexy" FRPG art, when there's more than just humans and human-looking races around.

It's a horse on two legs.

But I think its fair to say we would be deliberately missing the point.

It's getting absurd. I repeat, a horse on two legs! As an example of eye candy for women!

 

[wgreen]

It's getting absurd. I repeat, a horse on two legs! As an example of eye candy for women!

So, furries would be cool, then? (Do a Google image search on "furry" with SafeSearch off if you don't know what I mean.)

-Will

 

[Nifft]

I'm trying to ask you why you thought to respond to a specific request, with a photo as a guide, with a picture of a horse. You haven't answered, only posted more non-human pictures. I asked: "can someone find official D&D art that resembles this? Handsome man, mostly naked, intended to be eye candy." How is a horse a sensible response to this, or support a claim that D&D has art that women find attractive?

It's a horse on two legs.

It's getting absurd. I repeat, a horse on two legs! As an example of eye candy for women!

Is this really the best argument you have?

I'll answer seriously, but I want you to ask yourself if you honestly think this kind of tactic raises the level of the discussion.

- - -

The picture you posted has elements of realism and elements of fantasy, and is a hybrid of fetishes. The man pictured has shaved his chest, but no other part of his body -- his beard, arms and legs stand in stark contrast to his chest and abdomen. His coverings consist of two bits of outerwear (shinguards) and one undergarment. All are shiny and golden -- none are actual usable athletic equipment.

The elements presented are:
- Some furry bits
- Some smooth bits
- Lots of exposed skin
- Muscles
- Elements of the fantastic (golden sports gear)

So, I found six pictures in the first book I chose to look at which fit as many of those criteria as possible.

Did I miss an element? Is the drugged look on his face key to his appeal? If so, I doubt I'll find you much artwork to meet your needs -- most D&D pictures feature folks who are alert, if not actually active.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Geron Raveneye]

It's a horse on two legs.



It's getting absurd. I repeat, a horse on two legs! As an example of eye candy for women!

Yeah, and a human is just a hairless ape with too much brains for its own good. It might shock you that something like an equine humanoid is viewed as eye candy for women..or rather, for SOME women...by same women, even. *shrug* But lets see if we can find something for you specifically on the D20 landscape of fantasy art.

..looks a little wimpy maybe, but SOME women like the softer looks.

Is that more to your liking, then?

 

[SteveC]

It looks like we may actually be making some progress here, but I just want to be certain:

Are we okay with cheesecake at this point, providing we have corresponding beefcake?

'Cause if we are, the rest of the details are just up to the individual artists to work on.

Just wonderin',

--Steve