| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 05:22:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Shadowflame
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
In the end - use the art you find appropriate. In-game, the DM will tell you what is what. If you don't want to wear that +5 Plate Battle Halter of Tactical Superiority - then don't, and keep your full suit of plate. No DM worth his dice is going to insist you put it on. Just because Alias wore slightly risque' armor does not mean every warriorette is going to do so.
- OMH
Funny thing, that. IIRC, when her gear was described in the first book, it was originally described as sensible gear. The stuff on the cover is the hardly-counts-as-armour that was specifically described... as the stuff she was put into by the bad guys. Forcibly. And the hole over her heart was meant for a specific purpose; namely, killing her.
Also, you say 'don't consume the products if you object to them'... dude, I don't think you realise how prevalent this stuff really is. It's wearying, and alienating. Especially the bit by guys who mansplain that it's no big deal, a fuss over nothing, because hey, it doesn't bother them...
Keeping silent and not contributing changes nothing. These are things that should be pointed out.
Or, basically, Garen Thal's whole post earlier in the thread, which was excellent.
I won't comment too deeply on the armor Alias was 'given', but by your own description, there's a reason for it, no? 
My wife prefers 'realistic' armors...many are the times she's rolled her eyes at the 'skimpy' look in artwork, even though she is a fan of Elmore, Caldwell, and Parkinson, and her objections usually go no further than "Geez, you guys are so freaking weird.". By contrast, our very bestest friend (and her sister by choice), had a preference for the 'skimpy' look, and what's more, she could pull off the look with flair and style (her character could, that is) - she made it work. So it is not exclusively a 'guy' thing, and it never has been. As many of our sisters-in-dice like that sort of thing as not.
And when I say 'don't consume the products', I honestly mean exactly that. If something offends or disgusts someone to that point, they should put it back on the shelf and pick up something else. Vote with the wallet. I honestly believe you should follow your own standards in that regard, and not heed any 'mansplaining' - what does or doesn't offend someone else shouldn't influence your own choices - if it bugs you, reject what it offers, and purchase a product that gives you what you're looking for.
True story: Back when Paizo was still publishing Dragon, they published an issue on sorceresses. Why? From the mail they had gotten in a certain period, some had been for rules, others had been for world information, others for other miscellaneous and sundry, and a large part (well over half) had been letters asking (essentially) "Where are the chainmail bikinis????"
The private response: "Geez, this is nuts...I know...let's do an issue on a class that does tend to wear skimpy outfits. Sorceresses!" To the readers, they said "We've heard you! Here ya go!" Without actually addressing the specifics, they neatly solved the problem. I will try to find the issue in question.
I won't say that it's a fuss over nothing. But in many cases, it does seem like there are those who are trying to tip the seesaw all the way in the opposite direction (whether from genuine belief, or just in the name of political correctness, or what have you). The problem there lies with the fact that someone in the consumer base is going to wind up being alienated. The market for such things is there - so the companies have to basically choose who they're going to torque off with including/excluding certain materials and artwork. And they will go with the proven formula more often than not.
- OMH
I don't think that's a valid argument in this case... And "don't buy it if you don't like it" isn't the best advice. The issue is that women in fantasy are predominantly depicted with unrealistic attire -- telling someone if they don't like it to not buy it means their selection is going to be very small indeed. Should someone be denied something they'd otherwise enjoy simply because they don't like the cover art?
Heck, I'm a straight guy who takes great enjoyment in seeing women not wearing a lot. And I think some fantasy art is ridiculous.
I don't see how depicting fantasy women in reasonable attire is going to alienate anyone. Most of my friends are now married, but we were, at one time, the stereotypical nerds who couldn't dream of getting near a real woman. And none of us, despite being socially awkward, would have ever put a book down because it didn't have a girl in a chain mail bikini on the cover. I've known a wide variety of gamers since then, from regular geeks to nerds-among-nerds with horrific body odor, and none of them have ever complained that cover art wasn't revealing enough.
Not providing fan service is not going to alienate anyone. It will make the hobby more attractive to women, and make male gamers not look so bad for having books covered with scantily clad females. Everyone wins.
Women can be sexy without showing unreasonable amounts of skin or being in ridiculous poses. If we want more women gamers, we need to recognize that. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
 |
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 05:31:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think that's a valid argument in this case... And "don't buy it if you don't like it" isn't the best advice.
It's just like fashion. It evolves. In the 16th century, you'd hardly see women's skin. They're practically covered from neck to toe.
The change of fashion (and everything else, for that matter) can be attributed to people's change in the way they express themselves. There's more freedom now than before. 'Avoid it if you don't like it' may not be the best advice, but you can't expect all to think nor feel the way you do. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 08:30:21
|
Did I miss some part of the original post in this scroll?
A close reading of it, or even just a quick scan, will reveal that the question posed there is about whether artwork in gaming products ought to represent functional armour or fantastic armour which could not be worn in combat without magical assistance.
There is nothing about gender politics in there. If discussion of gender politics of the real world is allowed on Candlekeep*, it is still off-topic for this scroll.
'Fantastic' wasn't meant as some sort of secret code for 'sexist'. Nothing even suggests that fantastic armour is necessarily more revealing than functional armour. Super-heavy plate, armour with spikes, horned helmets, breastplates extending down to the waist and a variety of bizarre and elaborate armour constructions that show no naked flesh and nothing to suggest sexuality indeed appear to be the leading wave in depictions of fantastic armour, as far as I can see.
These are at the far extreme of 'fantastic' in that many examples of them would quite simply not allow movement without magic. At the very least, without the aid of magic most of them would be so limiting for combatants that even if they made them immune to any possible attack, they still wouldn't be useful for anything but deep-sea diving or scientific exploration, much like modern hard suits.
In fact, many of the types of 'armour' that appears to infuriate some of the scribes here are less fantastic than most full-body suits I've seen in fantasy art, simply because we know that real, historical humans have entered combat naked or nearly so. While entering battle clad only in a loin-cloth (whatever the material) might not be the best idea, many groups of humans during a lot of pre-history and history didn't really have anything better.
And during any time period, someone might be caught in a violent event while not dressed for warfare, making it plausible that people wearing outfits with religious significance or made for entertainment purposes or even for the purposes of attracting a mate might appear in violent scenes. So adventurers dressed in things that are not armour are not inherently 'fantastic', they are just people who are not soldiers dressed for something other than war.
In the interest of keeping this scroll focused on the actual subject and avoiding drowning interesting issues of hoplology, historiography, anthropology, archeology and history of science and technology, not to mention how these are influenced by working magic, in tedious political argument, I ask the scribes and the moderator interested in discussing the gender politics of modern American fantasy art to start a new scroll for that subject.
*On one hand, the Code of Conduct contains no such prohibition, as long as the real world subject has some relevance to the Forgotten Realms (in this case, being about artwork for it) and there is no connection to the contentious subject of The Forgotten Realms Cosmology (2e-3e).
On the other, moderators have, over time, obviously evolved a new set of unwritten forum rules. One of these appears to be some sort of general prohibition on the discussion of anything that could be interpreted to connect with any real world phenomenon or idea about which there is more than one opinion.
Personally, I find it all but impossible to draw a precise line between permissable subjects and the proscribed. I have fond hopes that at some point in the not-too-distant future, the Sage will find the time to call a moot of moderators and set down a great code of laws. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 10:52:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
On the other, moderators have, over time, obviously evolved a new set of unwritten forum rules. One of these appears to be some sort of general prohibition on the discussion of anything that could be interpreted to connect with any real world phenomenon or idea about which there is more than one opinion.
Personally, I find it all but impossible to draw a precise line between permissable subjects and the proscribed. I have fond hopes that at some point in the not-too-distant future, the Sage will find the time to call a moot of moderators and set down a great code of laws.
Your constant whining over the perceived injustice in not being allowed to discuss anything at all is getting freaking old. You got a problem with the moderation here, either take it up with Big Al or leave.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 12:10:14
|
| I recall Alias' armour was originally Cassana's - and Cassana was a vain conceited attention whore who deliberately fashioned her magical armour to make it seductive and revealing. The novels hang a lampshade on this, and Alias herself is sometimes annoyed by the types of attention her armour provokes. This sort of magical pretention was mentioned earlier in this scroll; crafting armour which without magic would be laughably ineffective, perhaps just for style (or lack thereof), perhaps as an intentional display of power. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 13:38:28
|
I voted realistic. But I DO LOVE THE CHAINMAIL BIKINI!
|
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 16:10:35
|
Revealing =/= sexy, necessarily. Armor or clothes or whatever can be sexy without being revealing and vice versa.
IMO, looking ridiculous basically makes you not look sexy--like going outside in winter wearing a bikini. You just look clueless, not sexy.
Also, exploitative outfits are not sexy. It's very easy to "go there," particularly in fantasy art, and such violations of common decency to women should be acknowledged and avoided. This is only one of the numerous manifestations of institutional sexism in the fantasy genre, and we get no better about it by ignoring or explaining it away.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 17:26:34
|
| and if anyone has seen them the prints that show off his swords, but the armors on hte Kit Rae women = not sexy and just plain annoying( they show too much flesh) |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 17:55:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Revealing =/= sexy, necessarily. Armor or clothes or whatever can be sexy without being revealing and vice versa.
IMO, looking ridiculous basically makes you not look sexy--like going outside in winter wearing a bikini. You just look clueless, not sexy.
Also, exploitative outfits are not sexy. It's very easy to "go there," particularly in fantasy art, and such violations of common decency to women should be acknowledged and avoided. This is only one of the numerous manifestations of institutional sexism in the fantasy genre, and we get no better about it by ignoring or explaining it away.
Cheers
thats true....
and the elf lady in the 3.x phb( or was it the dmg????) was covered, and was showing very little flesh( yes her head did count as showing flesh) and the artwork made her look sexy.
same with storm in the 3.x frcs.
and the image of Seoni in Pathfinder, I think is sexy and she shows off a good % of her flesh.grant it would not stob a weapon strike, buts she wears an ethnic style robe and being a robe it would not stop anything anyway.
Art is in the eye of the Beholder and that beholder has several eyestalks..... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 18:24:00
|
First off, I don't think any paricular subject is 100% 'taboo', but at times mods may feel certain subjects are entering... unsavory.. waters, and request we dial it back.
For instance, during discussions, myself and other have made comparisons to certain aspects of RW religions, BUT we shouldn't actually discuss the religions themselves, and certainly NOT be judgmental about those aspects (making it precarious, sometimes, when you are try to prove something is 'bad' about an in-game faith, because then you SHOULDN'T use the RW comparisons in that regard).
Another good example is when we refer to someone as a 'canon nazi', or the more commonly (on the internet) known phrase 'grammar nazi'. Both convey a certain mentality toward the subject matter, but we certainly shouldn't discuss Nazi Germany (but comparisons to specific aspects, WITHOUT being judgmental, are okay so long as you are able to handle walking that tightrope).
So we are allowed quite a bit of freedom here, and sometimes I do think the mods 'jump the gun', but better for them to nip things in the bud (albeit sometimes prematurely), before conversations degrade into volatile RW debates.
As for the subject matter, I think this is getting into the much broader area of sexualizing products, which is done by car and tobacco companies, and just about everything else these days. We can't get away from it, and since the primary target market for these games has always been adolescent boys (weather this is really true today or not), we will continue to get 'chainmail bikini babes' on covers.
Seriously, I don't mean to offend anyone, but get over it. I do not enjoy looking at scantily clad men, but I never let that stop me from buying any of the Conan novels (or any others). In fact, if you look at most of the fantasy art of the 70's, you would probably find just as many 'man-in-a-loincloth' pics as chainmail bikinis, and yet, I have never heard a man complain about that, despite the fact MOST of the consumers of that genre do not want to look at it.
Why should anyone's enjoyment of novels and game products be dictated to me by some sort of out-dated, puritanical set of (double) standards? If a thousand people like something, and one person does not, should we conform to that one person's tastes?
And if every single fantasy & scify novel and game book produced from this moment on contained more historically accurate (and functional) clothing and armor, I probably wouldn't even notice, because it is a complete non-issue for me. Do I think the genre may suffer a bit for it - taking the 'fantastical' out of fantasy? Yes, I do, but it wouldn't personally effect me in the slightest.
And if we go this route - conform to the 'moral majority' (or whatever), what next? Trolls wearing T-shirts and Jeans? After all, I find their lack of clothing DISGUSTING. And what about naked dragons? Canonically, they BREED with human females, and yet, there they are, strutting about with their junk hanging out. Maybe we should put some clothes on them as well?
I really don't get this argument at all - why does fantasy have to conform to someone's explicit set of standards? Are we going back to the dark ages, and want to cut all the genitalia off the statuary in the Vatican because ONE MAN found it offensive? Its art, and I find any movement to censure art VERY offensive - far more offensive then the naked human body.
IMG, my assumption has always been that females wore the same exact armor as males. Whats on the cover of a game-product did not matter - it's just an illustration. I will admit I like my famale MU's to be scantily clad, but I grew-up with sorceresses like Circe, who were more 'Enchantress' then anything else, so it suits me. However, if I found a product (or novel) I was interested in, and the cover depicted a fully-clothed (right down to her ankles) female mage, it wouldn't stop me from buying or enjoying it - I probably wouldn't even notice, truth be told.
C'mon - what would happen to Drow females if we started down this road? Put them in turtle-knecks and baggy trousers? Its a slippery slope. I think most of us are well-aware of what happens when a game company starts listening to the gripings of a small minority. 
P.S. - this is the highly edited version - if anyone gets offended by this, you should have seen the unedited rant. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Feb 2012 18:25:21 |
|
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 18:36:57
|
To be fair, men never complained because men aren't so prominently objectified in wider society. Scantily-clad males were usually in heroic poses, while their chainmail-bikini-clad female comrades were usually strapped to an altar or something. It has improved in recent years, but the societal problems that caused it are still there. Look at the cover art of a 3e product that isn't too old, "Dragons of Faerun." All the men are wearing armor, while the mage-woman ducking behind the pillar appears to be dressed like a stripper during a battle.
But people who are simply offended by unclad flesh IN GENERAL, for "moral" reasons and not gender politics, really just need to grow up, in my humble opinion. |
Edited by - Eladrinstar on 20 Feb 2012 18:37:41 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 19:04:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eladrinstar
To be fair, men never complained because men aren't so prominently objectified in wider society. Scantily-clad males were usually in heroic poses, while their chainmail-bikini-clad female comrades were usually strapped to an altar or something. It has improved in recent years, but the societal problems that caused it are still there. Look at the cover art of a 3e product that isn't too old, "Dragons of Faerun." All the men are wearing armor, while the mage-woman ducking behind the pillar appears to be dressed like a stripper during a battle.
But people who are simply offended by unclad flesh IN GENERAL, for "moral" reasons and not gender politics, really just need to grow up, in my humble opinion.
I don't think anyone was complaining about it for moral reasons, instead of just wanting armor that looks like it would offer protection to more than just a couple strategic bits. I know that my personal beef with it is that even though its fantasy, if I see someone wearing armor, I want that armor to look like it will protect them in combat. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 19:09:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
P.S. - this is the highly edited version - if anyone gets offended by this, you should have seen the unedited rant.
Beautifully put, and I could neither agree more nor have put it better myself.
Even gender politics is only good for so much mileage before it becomes tedious and invasive. I agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but that does cut both ways.
And as I have repeatedly said, the game companies are going to use whatever method sells the most product. If that means chain bikinis, then chain bikini pictures they will sell. My opinion is irrelevant in that circumstance, because the consumers are voting with their wallets.
- OMH |
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 19:38:29
|
| Back on topic - I voted middle ground. I like spikes on armor or other fantasy elements, why not. Evernight and other MMORPGs style armor is kinda OK, too. But I hate chainmail bikini with a passion, since it's so unrealistic my teeth hurt. And yes, I get the comment about other AC-enhancing items... |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 20:21:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think anyone was complaining about it for moral reasons, instead of just wanting armor that looks like it would offer protection to more than just a couple strategic bits. I know that my personal beef with it is that even though its fantasy, if I see someone wearing armor, I want that armor to look like it will protect them in combat.
This attitude I can understand. I may not agree with it, but I do understand it, because I feel this way about other aspects of fantasy (like the ever-shifting geography of FR - don't get me started).
So I guess we all have various lines we don't want crossed, and its a matter of multiple lines for each of us, rather then just one (for instance, someone who finds a 'chainmail babe' objectionable might not find a depiction of human sacrifice objectionable, whereas someone else might reverse how they feel about those two things).
*meh*
You can't please everyone (nor should they even try)
As for me, I love stupid-sized weapons, even though I know they look ridiculous. I would never think any characters (PC or NPC) IMG were carrying anything like that, but its still fun to look at, IMO.
However, if they never showed any like that again, I wouldn't miss them either. To me, art is art, and it doesn't really effect my choices or how I run my games.
EDIT: AS a perfect example of this - I like a lot of Eberron stuff (not the setting as a whole, but I loved cherry-picking from it). However, I couldn't stand most of the artwork associated with it (too 'comic-bookish', for my tastes). I bought a lot of Eberron products in 3e, even though I felt this way about the art, because it simply did not impact my liking the quality of the rest of the product.
On the other hand, 'inaccurate' art drives me up the wall (having the text in a monster description NOT match the pic, for instance). I don't care if the troll is wearing a chainmail bikini, or that its sword is nine feet tall - just make sure you get the damn skin-color right (and whatever else about its appearance). Thats a pet peeve. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Feb 2012 20:27:32 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 00:10:43
|
MT, you seem to be addressing different objections people have to female fantasy armor, which should really be kept separate:
1) Unrealistic, i.e. not offering protection: this is an argument from practicality, and the armor rubs people the wrong way if they are expecting the armor to serve an actual practical purpose. This is what this thread is about--whether you (the participant) prefers armor that is realistic or fantastic.
I'm not troubled by unrealistic armor--there's all sorts of male and female armor that is unrealistic--the kind of stuff hired lads and lasses might wear to parties to be the "sexy escort," or gladiators might wear in the arena to amuse fans, or aren't functional but for show (because magic is an adventurer's real protection), or bards might exaggerate when saying something like "the lady general wore gleaming chainmail cut to reveal her ample charms" (when in reality she was a gruff and tough warrior decked out in heavy armor that covered every inch of her). I have no problem with any of those things.
2) Sexualized, i.e. armor whose only purpose is to make the creature "sexy." A lot of the armor (male and female) in fantasy art is sexualized, either suggesting virility/strength (male armors) or softness/allure (female armors). This isn't all that surprising, considering that it IS fantasy we're talking about here, and looking *sexy* is a big part of looking *cool.* That said, it's plenty possible to have an image that is sexy or sexual without being offensive or objectifying (usually to women but sometimes to men), and that's really what fantasy art should be, I think.
There's a fine line here, that different audiences draw in different places. Because on the other side of that line lies . . .
3) Sexist, i.e. like #2 except to an objectifying degree. Generally, chainmail bikinis are (pretty much by definition) sexist. Generally, if a woman's armor incorporates a thong--sexist. It has to do with the composition, too--women in fantasy art usually get portrayed in the throes of passion (if you look at their faces, body language, etc.), even if that's not what's going on--this is a fantasy of women as passive sexual objects, turned on even by life-or-death combat. Men, on the other hand, even scantily clad on covers of fantasy products, tend to be presented in poses of power and strength--basically, a fantasy of male virility. When women's only role in fantasy art is to be tied to an altar, cringe and grab the hero's calves in a "save me!" submission pose, or attacked by a monster, there's something wrong with how you're portraying women in fantasy.
In conclusion, it is perfectly fine (indeed, hard to avoid) making fantasy characters sexy, i.e. sexualizing them to some extent. This is "fantasy" we're talking about, after all. But making anyone (most commonly women) sexual objects in fantasy art or anywhere else is not cool, and we shouldn't put up with that.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 03:27:18
|
Well, again, armour in the Realms can be magically augmented.
In our world, attempting to march off to battle wearing nothing more than bracers would get you killed. In the Realms, those bracers can be superior to a full suit of plate, offering the same protection yet entirely unencumbering and unrestrictive. Perhaps Manshoon and He-Man would prefer "manly" metal devices which allude towards real armour ... but Cassana/Alias and Xena might prefer devices which emphasize their femininity, bracelets and bikinis. Some of our historical armour pieces were crafted for women and even children, and although not as extreme as chainmail bikinis they're obviously not intended to serve more than ceremonial functions ... imagine what all those idle nobles would have had crafted for their daughters if their gold could've purchased magical armours? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 03:46:27
|
the web messed up and my post didnt stick and was lost in the ehter.
anyway, as I had said.
the armor arguement has a possible flaw, its half the arguement.
the midevil fight book that was on A&E or NatGEo... was showing how an unarmored man could fight an armored foe and win.
afaik this part of weaponfighting has never been put in dnd.
but that style of fighting would make the elf in the gold armor elmoore cheesecake armor functionable.
I'm going off to youtube now to see if that segment is up there...
note: this argument does not support the chain mail bikini though....
not the right link... working on it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B6hkBdpI3w
oh darn... not the link I was looking for.. but the image is there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Sb0EHsxA8&feature=related |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
Edited by - sfdragon on 21 Feb 2012 04:27:00 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 04:03:46
|
| A man with a rifle could win a fight against a man in a tank turret, too. But I'd personally very much rather be the man in the tank. Of course, our world doesn't have magic bullets. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 21 Feb 2012 04:05:43 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 05:05:51
|
But my whole point was that art is art - especially cover-art.
If the art is an illustration depicting something specific - like a suit of armor in one of the splats - then YES, it should be functional, because most folks will believe thats precisely what their armor will look like if they wear that type.
If one of my players points to the cover of a module or whatever and says "thats what I am wearing", in most cases I would probably laugh at them. I know how ridiculous most of those armors are (and I'm talking male and female here - the men are dressed just as silly in most cases), but it doesn't make me enjoy the artwork any less.
Its just fantasy art, not an accurate portrayal. Hell, in almost every case I can think of, the precise scene on the cover of most novels never really happens - why does it matter what they are wearing?
So yes, we should have accurate armor in illustrations, and perhaps even leaning toward the realistic (which I can get in any book on armor from the library), but covers are just supposed to be cool. The dragon/giant/orc also depicted on that same cover isn't real, nor is the fireball flying from the mage's fingertips (or the 3-foot tall person picking everyone's pockets), so why pick on the armor? I'm just not getting 'the problem' at all.
Is fantasy not allowed to be 'kewl' anymore? Has 'PC' now made the last frontier of free thinkers a boring plain of mediocrity? And its not because I love my 'skimpy' females - I really don't care all that much. What I care about is the idea that artists will stop doing those sorts of pictures because a minority of people don't like them. As I said, I do not like men in loincloths, but I would just as fiercely defend them staying on covers as well. Its part of the genre the way I grew up with it |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Feb 2012 05:06:59 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2427 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 07:04:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Shadowflame
as the stuff she was put into by the bad guys. Forcibly. And the hole over her heart was meant for a specific purpose; namely, killing her.
Er, what? Cassana & Co planned to use her to hunt their foes. I think you mistake Alias for Dragonbait.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think that's a valid argument in this case... And "don't buy it if you don't like it" isn't the best advice. The issue is that women in fantasy are predominantly depicted with unrealistic attire -- telling someone if they don't like it to not buy it means their selection is going to be very small indeed. Should someone be denied something they'd otherwise enjoy simply because they don't like the cover art?
On yet another eyestalk - if the publisher happily jumps for the lowest common denominator, including terminally puerile cover art - maybe sacrificing self-respect to encourage this trend would not end well in terms of quality (surprise). I prefer to shut up at this point, out of politeness and flame-safety. 
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
If discussion of gender politics of the real world is allowed on Candlekeep*, it is still off-topic for this scroll.
I'd understand blatantly trolling cheap provo4 & other "community organizers" once they pop in - it means a thread already rolls downhill anyway, but this... come on. Do you really need to bait the moderators so thickly? 
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
and if anyone has seen them the prints that show off his swords, but the armors on hte Kit Rae women = not sexy and just plain annoying( they show too much flesh)
That, too. "Provocative marketing" quickly becomes boring, and almost anything more unsubtle than Zettai Ryouiki risks ending up in that pile.
I don't see why fanservice would necessarily require sillyness in general. Applied to armor - more or less normal chainmail can be even better than a near-skin-tight suit at showing (off) the curves if done right, due to additional metallic shine that breaks through shading.
Chainmail bikini grade fanservice? That's admitted and begging haplessness - it boils down to "I don't think I could't draw well enough that it be worth a look on its own and... oh, look! Boobiez!".  Fanservice as such have its place, but done pointlessly like this? Or as a habit remaining after the artist learned to do better than this?  Meh.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Is fantasy not allowed to be 'kewl' anymore? Has 'PC' now made the last frontier of free thinkers a boring plain of mediocrity? And its not because I love my 'skimpy' females - I really don't care all that much. What I care about is the idea that artists will stop doing those sorts of pictures because a minority of people don't like them.
Seriously? Anyone who wasn't used to it back from the pre-internet times still bites this paltry bait?
This specific sort of "kewl" was a huge hit with 13-year olds in pre-internet age. Aye. I understand that. But now? It's just bewildering. I don't even see any point. Those who want (or even not - there's spam ), probably will get some porn proper.
Those who don't want - will roll eyes and possibly suspect this covers lack of any other merits, as it frequently is the case.
So blatant fanservice tries to sit between two stools. The lowest common denominator now requires a level of complexity of "Twilight" to be a hit - it's far more than one pic. Chainmail bikinis look like shooting fish in a barrel... with duds. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 12:08:34
|
| More or less realistic, especially in the game, In the illustrations there can be some differences, such as the typical Elmore, but I really, really hate the WotC style and what I have seen of Pathfinder. Now as for chain-mail bikinis, I like the old Frazetta/Vallejo style on book-covers, but that's jewellery, not armour. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 15:42:23
|
Very true Jorkens; Art is art.
And by 'PC', I meant 'politically correct'. I realize that in most places that has two well-known definitions, and on RPG boards it has three, and I think there might have been some confusion there (you mentioned the internet, so I think you thought I meant 'personal computer').
Whats on the cover of a product is just to get people to pick it up and glance through it - its advertising, not an engineering schematic. Get over it.
You want accurate? Then put dirt all over everyone, and lose some teeth (and draw the few remaining yellow and nasty), and rust on metal, and draw some broken buckles, and dents & tears, etc... and finish the whole thing off with some squiggly 'stink lines' emanating from the characters, because adventurers don't bath!!!
You want realistic, then take away all the 'shiny' too! With barbarians, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell the males from the females, with all the grime and layers of animal skins.
Or should we stick everyone in brilliant chrome armor, a'la Excalibur? You want real, then remember that people are/were REAL ugly.
Yeesh. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Feb 2012 15:43:30 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 15:49:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You want accurate? Then put dirt all over everyone, and lose some teeth (and draw the few remaining yellow and nasty), and rust on metal, and draw some broken buckles, and dents & tears, etc... and finish the whole thing off with some squiggly 'stink lines' emanating from the characters, because adventurers don't bath!!!
Sounds good to me. It would fit the Realms nicely.
Now if we are talking Lin Carter, bring on the beefcakes and chain-mail bikini's.
But as the hypocrite I always am I would prefer to see a stylized Fabian (not the singer) design for the Realms. The Forgotten Realms adventures book is still the prettiest one designed for the setting in my eyes. |
Edited by - Jorkens on 21 Feb 2012 15:59:02 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 18:45:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Sexist, i.e. like #2 except to an objectifying degree. Generally, chainmail bikinis are (pretty much by definition) sexist. Generally, if a woman's armor incorporates a thong--sexist. It has to do with the composition, too--women in fantasy art usually get portrayed in the throes of passion (if you look at their faces, body language, etc.), even if that's not what's going on--this is a fantasy of women as passive sexual objects, turned on even by life-or-death combat. Men, on the other hand, even scantily clad on covers of fantasy products, tend to be presented in poses of power and strength--basically, a fantasy of male virility. When women's only role in fantasy art is to be tied to an altar, cringe and grab the hero's calves in a "save me!" submission pose, or attacked by a monster, there's something wrong with how you're portraying women in fantasy.
If I may, there are two issues at work in this paragraph, Erik. One is the 'armor issue', and the other is how women are depicted. They often are done together, but that does not necessarily mean they must share the same artistic floor space.
Here is an example: Princess Leia in her famous 'Slave Leia' garb in Jabba's palace and on his pleasure barge. I challenge anyone to state that they truly believe that Leia Organa was a shy, helpless waif. Jabba may have thought such a thing, and we all know how that ended.
But if someone does believe that, then they have no business watching Return of the Jedi, ever, not without at the very least chopping that entire scene from the movie.
Consider Alias. Regardless of what her armor is like, she is a strong female character. She is not Dejah Thoris, by any stretch of the imagination (who is a product of an earlier time, anyways). Anyone who tries to paw at her 'assets' is likely to get a good thrashing, and if they're lucky, that's all they'll get. But the NewThink now states that what she wears is not acceptable (despite the fact that it is much more substantial than 'bikini armor').
I despise depictions of women as fluttering scatterbrains, regardless of what they're wearing - it's cliche and it's boring. I was brought into this world by a strong woman, I married a strong woman, and the 'strong female' archtype is one of my favorites (and I am not referring to physical strength). But dictating what an artist should or shouldn't clad a heroine in, whether they are producing art for a game company or whatever else, echoes with tones of censorship and NewThink.
How women are depicted, and what they're depicted in, I would argue are two wholly different things. Yes, a chain thong and triangles over the bewbs are ridiculous in the extreme, and I have never introduced such garments into a game, but it is not in my purview to dictate what an artist draws or how a game company uses their art. That is the first step down a boiling, grease-slicked slope.
- OMH |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 18:48:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You want accurate? Then put dirt all over everyone, and lose some teeth (and draw the few remaining yellow and nasty), and rust on metal, and draw some broken buckles, and dents & tears, etc... and finish the whole thing off with some squiggly 'stink lines' emanating from the characters, because adventurers don't bath!!!
You want realistic, then take away all the 'shiny' too! With barbarians, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell the males from the females, with all the grime and layers of animal skins.
Or should we stick everyone in brilliant chrome armor, a'la Excalibur? You want real, then remember that people are/were REAL ugly.
While the idea that any of warfare, wilderness survival or spelunking (common adventuring activities) are especially comfortable or hygienic enterprises is somewhat ridiculous, an even worse assumption is the notion that everyone was dirty before the modern day.
Standards of hygiene and bathing varied enormously. During those time when bathing was rare, people would still usually clean themselves daily (part at a time, not all at once, to conserve water), take care of their teeth and spend a lot of their spare time on darning clothing, polishing ornaments or armour, etc.
People are always people and almost everyone likes to look nice, appeal to the opposite sex and feel comfortable.
If there was a specific period of time when hygiene standards were especially low, it usually had a clear economic root cause. Hot water was expensive or enough water was hard to come by at all.
To any student of Earth history, it is obvious that the Realms are not Earth. One of the primary differences is that the wealth level of society and both average and median real wages compared to cost of living (and therefore the standard of living) are much higher than at any time in Earth history before the 20th century.
The Realms are rich. And when people are rich, they will often spend their wealth on eating well and taking good care of themselves.
Adventurers may occasionally have to rough it, but unless they are very unsuccessful adventurers, they will have a lot of chances to wash up between delving into dungeons or crossing dangerous wilderness. Or they could do like Roman soldiers on campaign and wash in cold water. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 21 Feb 2012 18:49:51 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 19:40:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
To any student of Earth history, it is obvious that the Realms are not Earth. One of the primary differences is that the wealth level of society and both average and median real wages compared to cost of living (and therefore the standard of living) are much higher than at any time in Earth history before the 20th century.
Exactly. Including the ability to purchase certain types of armors and magic that weren't available on medieval Earth, including those that would not have functioned on medieval Earth, but which function just dandy in Faerun, including those which would barely qualify as armor in a terrestrial sense, but which are mightier protection than anything a modern chain or plate armorer can produce.
- OMH |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2427 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 21:01:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Very true Jorkens; Art is art.
<click... clang!> ...I'm happy to present to the present company an art term of the day: "chromo-litholeo-margarine fake". quote:
I took my "Last Shot" back. Behold the result! I put him into a lovely red coat without a speck on it. That is Art. I polished his boots,-observe the high light on the toe. That is Art. I cleaned his rifle, - rifles are always clean on service, - because that is Art.
- Dick
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Whats on the cover of a product is just to get people to pick it up and glance through it - its advertising, not an engineering schematic. Get over it.
You like it when the publishers demonstratively treat you like a less than bright 13-year old? I certainly can get over it.  For myself, however, will rather reserve other options in such a dialogue. 
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You want accurate? Then put dirt all over everyone,
Well, duh. Let's remember our classics, shall we? quote:
Riding a wagon along protected trading routes in a guarded merchant caravan doesn't make you an adventurer. Until you've hiked more than twenty miles a day, slept in a ditch, and eaten something that tried to kill you first, you're not an adventurer. Anyone who isn't an adventurer is a greengrocer.
- Alias
Not that there was something badwrong with playing greengrocers, of course. If done right, it may be even fun.
So... what the horror? Characters and vehicles after being put through a day of forced march and then an ambush won't look spotlessly sterile like plastic mannequins in a storefront?
I don't see why "as dirty as a rat from a ditch", "awesome" and "beautiful" can't fit into one picture - given both need and ability. Example: here.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
and lose some teeth (and draw the few remaining yellow and nasty), and rust on metal, and draw some broken buckles, and dents & tears, etc... and finish the whole thing off with some squiggly 'stink lines' emanating from the characters, because adventurers don't bath!!!
Wait, we're about adventurers or beggars? 
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You want realistic, then take away all the 'shiny' too!
I want "believable", as per Rich Baker's mission statement in PO:C&T. I also quite vividly remember that "realistic" in a xD&D newsgroup more often than not means "shoot a squirrel in the eye with a longbow" or something unspeakably worse. I don't get the latter half of your statement, other than vague hypotheses about maybe some strange local law prohibiting any use of metal objects not covered with paint or something like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
With barbarians, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell the males from the females, with all the grime and layers of animal skins.
Oh, it's a variaton of that anecdote about a little boy on the beach, right? I know it!
edit: gah! my eyes! code doesn't work well |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
Edited by - TBeholder on 22 Apr 2012 08:48:31 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 22:08:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
You like it when the publishers demonstratively treat you like a less than bright 13-year old? I certainly can get over it. For myself, however, will rather reserve other options in such a dialogue.
I might* indeed choose to vote with my wallet if I feel that I am far from the target audience for a given product and, as a result, feel that it does not meet my needs or cater to my interests. However, I must never forget that a corollary of the very voluntary model of mutually agreeable exchange* inherent in the free market that gives me the right to vote with my wallet is that the publisher has a corresponding right, namely the absolute moral right to choose to whom he markets his products.
It is a fact that most toys and games, no matter what medium, are marketed to children. Roleplaying games are marketed to tweens and up to adults, but some very large and successful companies have determined that the most profitable segment of the market is also the youngest.
As a result, Wizard of the Coast is primarily marketing its products toward new gamers and young teenagers. This doesn't mean that they are not interested in making money of anyone else, but it does mean that artwork, advertising and even content will be geared toward 11-15 olds who play MMORPGs, have short attention spans and are drawn toward visually striking artwork with bright colours and deliberate exaggeration of characteristics meant to be central to the image conveyed.
Look at the character models for any MMORPG or, indeed, almost any popular computer game. These are the biggest markets.
While it is no doubt possible to legitimately discuss whether corporations ought to be allowed to choose to whom they market their products, it is not a discussion that I consider on topic for this scroll, or, indeed, likely to hold much interest for me. I therefore merely point out that the 'offending' artwork is neither a politial statement nor is it primarily artistic expression. It consists of images commissioned for advertising, marketing or product-appeal purposes, i.e. to sell the books it appears in.
As such, we might usefully state our subjective opinions on artwork and whether or not it influences our decisions as to what products we buy or even from whom, but political diatribes about what 'should' be done, what 'message' is being sent or so forth or even that something ought not to be allowed is rather pointless. Companies will market to whatever segment they feel works best for them. If their executives did not do so, they would be defrauding their investors or at the very least damaging their interests.
Anyone who wants to have his government decide who can sell what to whom or what sentiments may be publicly expressed is invited to contact his local representative and ask him to change the law***. Random strangers on the Internet a) can't actually do anything about it and b) will be very confused when the title of a scroll is one thing and the discussion in it about something entirely different.
*And do. As WotC has re-targeted their products to younger gamers, I have moved away from them.
**Where there is a legitimate meeting of the minds as both parties make an uncoerced choice to trade a service, good or the equivalent in legal tender for something offered by the other party.
***Until such laws pass, perhaps the representative can arrange for someone to come to the houses of those interested and change channels when something objectionable appears. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fantasy Armor
