Drow cleric of Corellon?
J.D. Spangler
I was pitching out random ideas for my next FR character today to a friend,
and one of the ones I came up with taking the elven cleric I already had
wrote up and making him a drow.
My friend thought I was crazy... but the more I think about it, the more
interesting it seems. Personally, I can see Corellon accepting one of the
"prodigals" back, and possibly even using it as a coup of sorts in divine
politics.
Said character, as with all drow, would have a hell of a time getting accepted
by surface people, and would also be given *special* attention by any priestesses
of Lloth. I think it'd be fun to play out, though, and coming up with the
background will take some work... how would one be converted? Probably have
to be a wizard or fighter multiclass to represent his beginnings.
I don't care much for Drizzt either, but I don't have a problem with drow
as some people seem to. But I'm curious to see what others think... am I
committing some kind of DnD blasphemy or is this just an off-the-wall but
workable idea?
Regards,
--
Regards,
J.D. Spangler
If I want email I'll ask for it.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
sNOm...@sonic.net
: I was pitching out random ideas for my next FR character today to a
: friend, and one of the ones I came up with taking the elven cleric
: I already had wrote up and making him a drow.
: My friend thought I was crazy... but the more I think about it, the
: more interesting it seems. Personally, I can see Corellon accepting
: one of the "prodigals" back, and possibly even using it as a coup of
: sorts in divine politics.
Speaking as a GM: it works for me (presuming that +ECL races aren't
generally banned (nor drow in particular) in your campaign). But I'm
not speaking as *your* GM, so...
: would be given *special* attention by any priestesses of Lloth.
By any and all drow, I'd think:
"Look, there's one of Corellon's! Kill HIM firs... whaa...?"
"OK, -DON'T- kill him, we're gonna have some FUN with him first!"
Granted, any priestess of Lloth present will want to "take the lead"
on such fun&games. But IMHO any drow will want to pay that *special*
attention to your character!
: I think it'd be fun to play out, though, and coming up with the
: background will take some work... how would one be converted? Probably
: have to be a wizard or fighter multiclass to represent his beginnings.
I have a similar concept, that never saw play (or even char-gen, as I
had no appropriate campaign). In my concept, a Drow who had some captive/
slave/etc was "moved" (touched by Corellon? "called" even?) by some act
of bravery/nobility/self-sacrifice/etc. After this epiphany, he hid his
changed feelings until he could go on a raid close to the surface, at
which point he made a break for freedom.
Another notion... a small band of exploring Drow get "cut off" by a cave-
in (which coincidentally(?) kills any priestess of Lloth), & the infamous
"evil" nature of the drow becomes a bit less... "avid" in the absence of
the priesthood. Your character is the extreme expression of that change.
: am I committing some kind of DnD blasphemy or is this just an
: off-the-wall but workable idea?
It's fine by me, but MY opinion doesn't matter to your campaign... :-)
--
Steve Saunders
to de-spam me, de-capitalize me
Covenant_Unbeliever
even give him perks as being raised by the temple. Or... possibly even the
Champion of an Elven Temple waging war against the Drow. I would pick
Correlon's wife as a most suitable Goddess to worship. Let into the fold by
virtue of 'his wife said so'.
Eliminate the drow magic on the surface with the possibility of your DM
letting him [drow] have full use of it while in the deep underdark.
-FatherDonz
I enjoy drow.
DM: "Anelius, an arrow flies out of the darkness and embeds, fletching deep,
into your throat."
Player: "Was that a called shot?!" "Nevermind.....Anelius tries to gurgle
the party awake."
J.D. Spangler
says...
>
>
>Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, J.D. Spangler wrote:
>
>: I was pitching out random ideas for my next FR character today to a
>: friend, and one of the ones I came up with taking the elven cleric
>: I already had wrote up and making him a drow.
>
>: My friend thought I was crazy... but the more I think about it, the
>: more interesting it seems. Personally, I can see Corellon accepting
>: one of the "prodigals" back, and possibly even using it as a coup of
>: sorts in divine politics.
>
>Speaking as a GM: it works for me (presuming that +ECL races aren't
>generally banned (nor drow in particular) in your campaign). But I'm
>not speaking as *your* GM, so...
No, +ECL races aren't banned (except Feyrie from Monsters of Faerun), and
the DM has a long-running drow from an old game he played, so he's comfy
with drow in general.
>: would be given *special* attention by any priestesses of Lloth.
>
>By any and all drow, I'd think:
> "Look, there's one of Corellon's! Kill HIM firs... whaa...?"
> "OK, -DON'T- kill him, we're gonna have some FUN with him first!"
>Granted, any priestess of Lloth present will want to "take the lead"
>on such fun&games. But IMHO any drow will want to pay that *special*
>attention to your character!
True enough... this would be interesting if I play him, since the next game
is going to be the City of the Spiderqueen or whatever the new adventure
out is :^)
>
>
>: I think it'd be fun to play out, though, and coming up with the
>: background will take some work... how would one be converted? Probably
>: have to be a wizard or fighter multiclass to represent his beginnings.
>
>I have a similar concept, that never saw play (or even char-gen, as I
>had no appropriate campaign). In my concept, a Drow who had some captive/
>slave/etc was "moved" (touched by Corellon? "called" even?) by some act
>of bravery/nobility/self-sacrifice/etc. After this epiphany, he hid his
>changed feelings until he could go on a raid close to the surface, at
>which point he made a break for freedom.
The captive idea is about what I was thinking initially... "converted" by a
surface elf slave.
>Another notion... a small band of exploring Drow get "cut off" by a cave-
>in (which coincidentally(?) kills any priestess of Lloth), & the infamous
>"evil" nature of the drow becomes a bit less... "avid" in the absence of
>the priesthood. Your character is the extreme expression of that change.
That's an interesting idea, I might borrow that depending on how I have to
integrate the character. Thanks!
>
>
>: am I committing some kind of DnD blasphemy or is this just an
>: off-the-wall but workable idea?
>
>It's fine by me, but MY opinion doesn't matter to your campaign... :-)
I wasn't concerned about my DM's yay or nay (it's just a game), just trying
to find out general opinion on whether or not this was a crackpot idea. :^)
--
Regards,
J.D. Spangler
If I want email I'll ask for it.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ayrsayle/
Tim Fitzmaurice
>
> I was pitching out random ideas for my next FR character today to a friend,
> and one of the ones I came up with taking the elven cleric I already had
> wrote up and making him a drow.
>
> My friend thought I was crazy... but the more I think about it, the more
> interesting it seems. Personally, I can see Corellon accepting one of the
> "prodigals" back, and possibly even using it as a coup of sorts in divine
> politics.
Hmm, well the deity i\n question has really been adverse to letting even
rogue drow back so far as I have read any 'official' sources - but even
that slightly breached with Elves of Evermeet clearly making the statement
that a drow ambassador got welcomed on the island where no drow shall ever
set foot....so the possiblity is there.
OTOH if he is a bit oleery about it have the drow start off venerating
Corellon, and then move over to acceptance by roleplay - eg a bit of
manifestation and the drow becomkes a wandering paladin, the church
recognise this and eventually becomes a cleric when the hierarchy accept
the issue....makes good roleplaying
Tim
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> On 20 Sep 2002, J.D. Spangler wrote:
> >
> > My friend thought I was crazy... but the more I think about it, the more
> > interesting it seems. Personally, I can see Corellon accepting one of the
> > "prodigals" back, and possibly even using it as a coup of sorts in divine
> > politics.
Have you considered Eilistraee, goddess of the good Drow? As for
Corellon (her father) acceptong Drow I would think that could only
though Eilistraee's sponsorship. While not the best of friends (that
happens when tricked into trying to kill your father) she accepted
banishment as oposed to being banished (as her mother and brother were)
so the trick was discovered. The writeups I have seen (have not seen
any official 3rd yet) does reguire the cleric to be female, but I would
think it easy for DM to accept male if desired.
>
> Hmm, well the deity i\n question has really been adverse to letting even
> rogue drow back so far as I have read any 'official' sources - but even
> that slightly breached with Elves of Evermeet clearly making the statement
> that a drow ambassador got welcomed on the island where no drow shall ever
> set foot....so the possiblity is there.
Yes she was a priestess of Eilistraee (Karsel'lyn Lylyl-Lytherraias ).
In her write up the gold elves opose any Drow being allowed to reteat to
Evermeet. The Gold elves appear to be the stronest believers in
Corellon as the supreme diety, it appears the Silver hold the view
Angharradh equal to Corellon. Add the two together it would appear
Corellon would accept a Drow cleric, he might accept followers.
--
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
Mornir
>so the trick was discovered. The writeups I have seen (have not seen
>any official 3rd yet) does reguire the cleric to be female, but I would
>think it easy for DM to accept male if desired.
As I recall, the writeups of Ellistraee's clerics in 3E don't
list a female requirement. Which does make sense, she's not Lloth,
and other drow deities aren't female-only, either. Just Lloth.
--
<Mornir - mor...@despammed.com - http://www.livejournal.com/~booklog/>
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 09:37:05 -0400, ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
> >so the trick was discovered. The writeups I have seen (have not seen
> >any official 3rd yet) does reguire the cleric to be female, but I would
> >think it easy for DM to accept male if desired.
>
> As I recall, the writeups of Ellistraee's clerics in 3E don't
> list a female requirement. Which does make sense, she's not Lloth,
> and other drow deities aren't female-only, either. Just Lloth.
Well I have been doing some searches and have come up with official
write up for her
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=fr/fx20020503ex1
It does not say female is required here, it does say "Clerics of
Eilistraee wear their hair long and dress practically for whatever they
are currently doing. For rituals, they wear as little as possible.
Otherwise, they tend to wear soft leathers for hunting, aprons while
cooking, and—rarely—armor when battle is expected. When relaxing, they
favor silvery, diaphanous gowns. Most clerics prefer holy symbols of
silver, typically worn as pins or hung around the neck on slender silver
or mithral chains."
Yes you are also correct that other Drow gods do not have female only,
Eilistraee however did have that requirement in 2nd as well.
The perferred dress appears to me as a human to have a very strong
female aspect, though a Drow male certainly can have long hair, run
around near or fully naked and wear gowns and jewery.
Mornir
>It does not say female is required here, it does say "Clerics of
>Eilistraee wear their hair long and dress practically for whatever they
>are currently doing. For rituals, they wear as little as possible.
>Otherwise, they tend to wear soft leathers for hunting, aprons while
>cooking, and—rarely—armor when battle is expected. When relaxing, they
>favor silvery, diaphanous gowns. Most clerics prefer holy symbols of
>silver, typically worn as pins or hung around the neck on slender silver
>or mithral chains."
>Yes you are also correct that other Drow gods do not have female only,
>Eilistraee however did have that requirement in 2nd as well.
Well, usually, the Pre-reqs are listed in the top section.
Race: Dwarf, or Gender: Female, or what have you. I'm not sure, but
that /looks/ like a direct quote from Drow of the Underdark. They
might've just cut and pasted. I should dig through my old 2E stuff
and see.
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> Well, usually, the Pre-reqs are listed in the top section.
> Race: Dwarf, or Gender: Female, or what have you. I'm not sure, but
> that /looks/ like a direct quote from Drow of the Underdark. They
> might've just cut and pasted. I should dig through my old 2E stuff
> and see.
Worshipers: Good-aligned drow, hunters, surface-dwelling elves
Cleric Alignments: CG, CN, NG
No rstiction indicated as to sex. As for copy and paste, it does appear
that has occured a few times. Retiring Cleric of the few that live to
old age dance and "Her hair begins to glow with the same radiance as the
Dark Maiden’s, and then she becomes slowly translucent, fading away as
the dance goes on. In the end, only a silvery radiance is seen, with two
voices—the deity and her cleric—raised together in melancholy, tender
song. Eilistraee’s clerics often multiclass as fighters, bards, rangers,
or sword dancers (see Chapter 4)." The her might be an indication of
sex required (however the SRD always used female pronouns), from what I
have found unofficial only females can become sword dancers. Perhaps
somebody could look in Chapter 4 for us.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
Jasin Zujovic
> > Well, usually, the Pre-reqs are listed in the top section.
> > Race: Dwarf, or Gender: Female, or what have you. I'm not sure, but
> > that /looks/ like a direct quote from Drow of the Underdark. They
> > might've just cut and pasted. I should dig through my old 2E stuff
> > and see.
>
> Worshipers: Good-aligned drow, hunters, surface-dwelling elves
> Cleric Alignments: CG, CN, NG
>
> No rstiction indicated as to sex. As for copy and paste, it does appear
> that has occured a few times. Retiring Cleric of the few that live to
> old age dance and "Her hair begins to glow with the same radiance as the
> Dark Maiden’s, and then she becomes slowly translucent, fading away as
> the dance goes on. In the end, only a silvery radiance is seen, with two
> voices—the deity and her cleric—raised together in melancholy, tender
> song. Eilistraee’s clerics often multiclass as fighters, bards, rangers,
> or sword dancers (see Chapter 4)." The her might be an indication of
> sex required (however the SRD always used female pronouns), from what I
> have found unofficial only females can become sword dancers. Perhaps
> somebody could look in Chapter 4 for us.
True, only elven or half-elven (I'd expect this includes drow) females
can be sword dancers. But as far as I understand, anyone can be a cleric
of Eilistraee (subject to usual alignment restrictions &c.)
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
HADSIL
my cleric die and I don't wish to play him anymore via gettign raised or
resurrected, I can play an undead revenant paladin of St Cuthbert.
A drow cleric of Corellon? Splendid idea. I wouldn't play one only because I
loathe elves with a passion, but I think the concept is terrific. It's one of
those out of the box ideas.
Gerald Katz
I Love New York!
Tim Fitzmaurice
> so the trick was discovered. The writeups I have seen (have not seen
> any official 3rd yet) does reguire the cleric to be female, but I would
> think it easy for DM to accept male if desired.
The writeups from 2E required spec priests to be female and the two big
bits of detail about drow really supported female priestesses in this way
(thats the undermountain supplments and other data dealing with the
Promenade plus the various fiction bits involving that drow
priestess/rasheman beserker).....though Im 90% certain that there are
mention of male clerics being allowed - with the loss of spec
priests/cleric differential in 3E Im not sure how it stands now...
> Yes she was a priestess of Eilistraee (Karsel'lyn Lylyl-Lytherraias ).
I wont believe you if you tell me you did that without the book in front
of you :)
Sir Bob
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.102092...@virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk...
We have people here who can write out the inscription on the One Ring - in
the original Elvish script - from memory, and you're going to quibble over a
drow goddess? =P
- Sir Bob.
sNOm...@sonic.net
: It does not say female is required here, it does say "Clerics of
: Eilistraee wear their hair long and dress practically for whatever they
: are currently doing. For rituals, they wear as little as possible.
: Otherwise, they tend to wear soft leathers for hunting, aprons while
: cooking, and (rarely) armor when battle is expected. When relaxing, they
: favor silvery, diaphanous gowns. Most clerics prefer holy symbols of
: silver, typically worn as pins or hung around the neck on slender silver
: or mithral chains."
Gaaaaahhh.
Bard, I want to thank you: you have reminded me of one of the things I
hate most about the D&D product-line -- the female characters appear to
be wank-material for poorly-socialized guys who can't handle women.
Sea Wasp
Which is not much different from 99% of the other RPGs out there.
Why the above paragraph brings that to mind, I don't know. Unless, of
course, you're such a SEXIST PIG that you assume the clerics listed
above MUST be female. (The quoted paragraph does not mention the
gender of the clerics)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Sir Bob
news:3D8FB8...@wizvax.net...
> sNOm...@sonic.net wrote:
> >
> > Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
> >
> > : It does not say female is required here, it does say "Clerics of
> > : Eilistraee wear their hair long and dress practically for whatever
they
> > : are currently doing. For rituals, they wear as little as possible.
> > : Otherwise, they tend to wear soft leathers for hunting, aprons while
> > : cooking, and (rarely) armor when battle is expected. When relaxing,
they
> > : favor silvery, diaphanous gowns. Most clerics prefer holy symbols of
> > : silver, typically worn as pins or hung around the neck on slender
silver
> > : or mithral chains."
> >
> > Gaaaaahhh.
> >
> > Bard, I want to thank you: you have reminded me of one of the things I
> > hate most about the D&D product-line -- the female characters appear to
> > be wank-material for poorly-socialized guys who can't handle women.
>
> Which is not much different from 99% of the other RPGs out there.
<snip>
Except for the ones that bill themselves as "REAL ROLEPLAYING", which have
extensive sections tailor-made to pander to angsty teenage fangirls, too. ;)
- Sir bob.
Mornir
wrote:
>Except for the ones that bill themselves as "REAL ROLEPLAYING", which have
>extensive sections tailor-made to pander to angsty teenage fangirls, too. ;)
Of course they do. Look through any White Wolf product.
Aside the usual T&A shot (which they'll insist is 'artistic'), there's
the usual gamut of bishbois for the girls to swoon over too. There's
nothing *wrong* with this, in my opinion, except in their portraying
them as 'above' such things. :)
D.J.
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
] Why the above paragraph brings that to mind, I don't know. Unless, of
] above MUST be female. (The quoted paragraph does not mention the
] gender of the clerics)
Just for that... I wont let you look at my copy of 'Macho Women with
Guns' rpg book. :-)
JimP.
--
Disclaimer: Standard.
Updated: September 12, 2002 my 1E AD&D game world.
Over 200 maps and pages of info.
http://blue7green.crosswinds.net/crestar/index.html
Douglas Berry
sNOm...@sonic.net warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>Bard, I want to thank you: you have reminded me of one of the things I
>hate most about the D&D product-line -- the female characters appear to
>be wank-material for poorly-socialized guys who can't handle women.
Considering that of the current players in my game, I'm married to
one, and two others are my secondary partners, (both female) I'd have
to say that this might be a little off.
From what I can see, fantasy in general has always gone for extreme
sterotyping.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Certic
> >
> > Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
> >
> > : It does not say female is required here, it does say "Clerics of
> > : Eilistraee wear their hair long and dress practically for whatever
they
> > : are currently doing. For rituals, they wear as little as possible.
> > : Otherwise, they tend to wear soft leathers for hunting, aprons while
> > : cooking, and (rarely) armor when battle is expected. When relaxing,
they
> > : favor silvery, diaphanous gowns. Most clerics prefer holy symbols of
> > : silver, typically worn as pins or hung around the neck on slender
silver
> > : or mithral chains."
> >
> > Gaaaaahhh.
> >
> > Bard, I want to thank you: you have reminded me of one of the things I
> > hate most about the D&D product-line -- the female characters appear to
> > be wank-material for poorly-socialized guys who can't handle women.
>
> Which is not much different from 99% of the other RPGs out there.
That's like saying "99% of evil dictators have people summarily shot - so
I'm no worse than they are"... the problem is with the genre altogether, and
it's made worse because 3rd ed. brought *back* the cheescake that had
largely gone away in 2nd ed. art. Look at Complete Fighter - not a chainmail
bikini in sight.
--
You are Not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
"No-one ever suddenly became depraved"
- Juvenal, Satires
--
R. Scott Rogers
> I was pitching out random ideas for my next FR character today to a friend,
> and one of the ones I came up with taking the elven cleric I already had
> wrote up and making him a drow.
>
> My friend thought I was crazy... but the more I think about it, the more
> interesting it seems. Personally, I can see Corellon accepting one of the
> "prodigals" back, and possibly even using it as a coup of sorts in divine
> politics.
Just for the record, I am stealing this idea for myself. Although I'll
probably either go the slaveholding Drow who developed a conscience route
suggested later in the thread or the Drow orphan raised in a monastery
route.
It'll be a good backup in case my knight of Silverymoon goes to an early
grave.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
srogers at mindspring.com
Visit the General Taylor Inn:
http://srogers.home.mindspring.com/dnd/main.html
sNOm...@sonic.net
> > Bard, I want to thank you: you have reminded me of one of the things
> > I hate most about the D&D product-line -- the female characters appear
> > to be wank-material for poorly-socialized guys who can't handle women.
>
> Considering that of the current players in my game, I'm married to
> one, and two others are my secondary partners, (both female) I'd have
> to say that this might be a little off.
Please don't mistake me: I'm not saying that D&D is only *played* by
"poorly-socialized ...&c", just griping about how the books look.
But...
<shrug>
I'm married to a gamer too -- met her at a RPG session. Have you ever
asked the women you cite what THEY think of 3e's images of F characters?
I'll offer you a counter-example: since 3e has come out, I've introduced
close to two dozen people to the game, both genders. *EVERY* single female,
from 9 years old to 40something, has remarked on the "look" they see in
F. characters in the PHB.
One woman decided to play a rogue because it looked to her like the only
class that got "reasonable" clothes (I explained otherwise, of course).
Here's an exercise for the reader: start at the beginning of the PHB, and
go through the pages. Make a list of M & F images. Note, for each one, if
there's anything "sexy" about the image -- showing more skin (cleavage, legs,
midriff, etc) than need be, clothing "skin-tight" when looser would be more
practical, wearing make-up, etc. Maybe make a 1-10 scale, with 1 being
"fully dungeon-ready" and 10 being "fully harem-ready" Compare M vs F.
If you don't see a problem... good for you (but we probably don't have any
common basis for conversation at that point, because I see nothing but this
problem -- F. images in the PHB are almost all "objectionable" IME).
While I admit I titled the post to provoke comments, I stand by my basic
position: D&D3e (particularly the PHB) portrays women in ways that bear
more resemblance to PG-rated adolescent near-porn, than to what the average
woman (especially one new to gaming) might be comfortable with.
I.e. "female characters appear to be wank-material for poorly-socialized
guys who can't handle women".
--
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> Here's an exercise for the reader: start at the beginning of the PHB, and
> go through the pages. Make a list of M & F images.
I don't do images.
>
> If you don't see a problem... good for you (but we probably don't have any
> common basis for conversation at that point, because I see nothing but this
> problem -- F. images in the PHB are almost all "objectionable" IME).
Based on some of the text indeed there can be raised a concern. The
bloody company wants to sell books, mostly to males. Things happen.
Worring about whu other play/buy only takes time from your own play. It
should not matter that much to you and certainly does not matter much to
me. I can play the Priestess without clothes without any concern about
immorality or improper conduct.
R. Scott Rogers
> While I admit I titled the post to provoke comments, I stand by my basic
> position: D&D3e (particularly the PHB) portrays women in ways that bear
> more resemblance to PG-rated adolescent near-porn, than to what the average
> woman (especially one new to gaming) might be comfortable with.
>
> I.e. "female characters appear to be wank-material for poorly-socialized
> guys who can't handle women".
I'd basically agree with you -- after all, DND in general appeals to many of
the same people as comic books, and both suffer from the Fanboy Syndrome* --
but I would argue that 3E suffers from this and other gender problems to a
lesser degree than previous editions of the game. Or, at least it seems that
3E's authors realize the problem and have at least tried to ameliorate it.
*Few are the comic book stores that are LESS filled with undersexed
overtestosteroned young men of basically virginal and adolescent social
maladjustment than your typical porn shop. I've been to many of the
country's best comic shops, and a lot of its not-so-good ones, and all but a
very few feature a majority of male customers or staff capable of
interacting with adult women. It's bad enough that even clueless me can
sense the phenomenon without prompting from my comic-book reading wife. DND,
in my experience, is less badly afflicted by the Fanboy Syndrome, but it is
there. Then again, the Fanboy Syndrome isn't exclusively about
gender-relations issues; some of the worst fanboys I've met have been women
who were, sadly, incapable of normal social relations with anybody.
Sir Bob
news:Vd5k9.29910$Ik.6...@typhoon.sonic.net...
<snip>
Two obvious biases here:
1) Your scale assumes that skin is by default "sexy" on a female character,
and by default "not sexy" on male character - i.e. it would see "sexy" in a
chainmail chick, but not in a typical thong-loinclothed male barbarian.
2) Even highly sexualized male figures generally don't wear obvious make-up,
yet you've included it as a universal standard for "sexy".
(Oh, and you're not taking into account both sides of the issue - for
example, most male gamers I know think Devis is just an ugly dork with a
buckle-fetish and not sexy in the least, while a significant number of
female gamers think he's prime jill-off material. ;) )
- Sir Bob.
Bill Silvey
My *god* you people need to get out more.
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
Me: "What you have to understand, dear, is that the internet is a global
community...a village!"
My Wife: "And you're the village idiot, right?"
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> ] Why the above paragraph brings that to mind, I don't know. Unless, of
> ] course, you're such a SEXIST PIG that you assume the clerics listed
> ] above MUST be female. (The quoted paragraph does not mention the
> ] gender of the clerics)
>
> Just for that... I wont let you look at my copy of 'Macho Women with
> Guns' rpg book. :-)
Why would I want to look at YOUR copy?
Sea Wasp
> > >
> > > Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
> > >
> > > : It does not say female is required here, it does say "Clerics of
> > > : Eilistraee wear their hair long and dress practically for whatever
> they
> > > : are currently doing. For rituals, they wear as little as possible.
> > > : Otherwise, they tend to wear soft leathers for hunting, aprons while
> > > : cooking, and (rarely) armor when battle is expected. When relaxing,
> they
> > > : favor silvery, diaphanous gowns. Most clerics prefer holy symbols of
> > > : silver, typically worn as pins or hung around the neck on slender
> silver
> > > : or mithral chains."
> > >
> > > Gaaaaahhh.
> > >
> > > Bard, I want to thank you: you have reminded me of one of the things I
> > > hate most about the D&D product-line -- the female characters appear to
> > > be wank-material for poorly-socialized guys who can't handle women.
> >
> > Which is not much different from 99% of the other RPGs out there.
> --------
> That's like saying "99% of evil dictators have people summarily shot - so
> I'm no worse than they are"... the problem is with the genre altogether, and
> it's made worse because 3rd ed. brought *back* the cheescake that had
> largely gone away in 2nd ed. art.
Bah. The earlier stuff had far more cheesecake. In general more badly
drawn cheesecake, but all us poorly-socialized geeks used to spend
more-than-appropriate time looking at the cover of Eldritch Wizardry
(and the pic of the succubus inside)...
Look at Complete Fighter - not a chainmail
> bikini in sight.
And made money doing it.
MORE CHAINMAIL BIKINIS! MORE SKIN!
(If there's a half-naked babe on the cover of my book, I won't
complain, even though I can't think of a single scene in the book
where you could reasonably find an appropriate situation; if marketing
thinks it will sell more books, I'm all for it.)
Douglas Berry
sNOm...@sonic.net warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>I'm married to a gamer too -- met her at a RPG session. Have you ever
>asked the women you cite what THEY think of 3e's images of F characters?
>I'll offer you a counter-example: since 3e has come out, I've introduced
>close to two dozen people to the game, both genders. *EVERY* single female,
>from 9 years old to 40something, has remarked on the "look" they see in
>F. characters in the PHB.
Well, the sample might not be the best.. all the women are bi. They
like the cheesecake.
>Here's an exercise for the reader: start at the beginning of the PHB, and
>go through the pages. Make a list of M & F images. Note, for each one, if
>there's anything "sexy" about the image -- showing more skin (cleavage, legs,
>midriff, etc) than need be, clothing "skin-tight" when looser would be more
>practical, wearing make-up, etc. Maybe make a 1-10 scale, with 1 being
>"fully dungeon-ready" and 10 being "fully harem-ready" Compare M vs F.
I do have issues with the art.. for example many of the critters in
the MM look skeletal.
But looking at the PH, starting with the first drawings of females in
the races chapter, and going through, I fail to see much to complain
about. Take for example the Classes chapter:
Barbarian: Krusk. Can anyone really find a half-orc sexy? Bare arms
and legs, and something's ho;ding up that leather apron! 5
Bard: Devis has one bare arm, and is showing about as much chest as
the Paladin. 3
Cleric: Jozan is well armored with almost no skin showing. 1
Druid: Vadania is completely covered from neck to toe, with her arms
showing from just below the shoulders to her elbows. One breast is
visible, but that's from the pose. Considering her class restrictions,
2
Fighter: Tordek is completely outfitted for war. 1
Monk: Ember wears pants, and a sort of halter. no nipples, and the
pose is not at all what I'd call sexy. Even with her class
restrictions, this one is a little off. 7
Paladin: Alhandra. Fully covered by armor or clothing except for one
portion of her chest on the right. From the drawing, she's pretty
flat chested. The armor is a bit funky, so 3
Ranger: Soveliss has a nice set of studded leather armor, with one arm
left strangely uncovered. 4
Rogue: Lidda is wearing a set of garments that cover her fully. 2
Sorcerer: Hennet appears to be dressed for adventuring, as long as it
involves safe words and someone named Mistress Midnight. 9
Wizard: Miralee does wear a rather revealing garment, but I wouldn't
call it sexy. 7
Rest of the book. 2 Almost nothing that could be seen as upsetting in
my eyes.
Looking through the rest of the book I find nothing overly insulting..
You see more skin in comic books.
>If you don't see a problem... good for you (but we probably don't have any
>common basis for conversation at that point, because I see nothing but this
>problem -- F. images in the PHB are almost all "objectionable" IME).
Specifics? I'm really curious. What about the Druid class
illustration is bothersome?
>While I admit I titled the post to provoke comments, I stand by my basic
>position: D&D3e (particularly the PHB) portrays women in ways that bear
>more resemblance to PG-rated adolescent near-porn, than to what the average
>woman (especially one new to gaming) might be comfortable with.
Sorry, but I don't see this at all
>I.e. "female characters appear to be wank-material for poorly-socialized
>guys who can't handle women".
right.
Aaron F. Bourque
>Psychosexual analasys of FRPG artwork.
>
>My *god* you people need to get out more.
You've hit upon the crux of the problem, I think.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
Women supposedly mature at a faster rate than men
If that is true, how come they live so much longer then . . ?
Nothing says maturity than like transforming robot toys for ten-year-olds
http://members.aol.com/aaronbourque/cryotekwarning.jpg
Sir Bob
news:3d90f902$1...@news3.accesscomm.ca...
<snip>
> (Oh, and you're not taking into account both sides of the issue - for
> example, most male gamers I know think Devis is just an ugly dork with a
> buckle-fetish and not sexy in the least, while a significant number of
> female gamers think he's prime jill-off material. ;) )
Gah - I meant *Hennet*, not Devis. Sorry - Devis is the *bard*. Hennet's
the buckly nipple-flashing sorcerer.
... right? O_o;
- Sir Bob.
Ben Sisson
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>Certic wrote:
>>
>> --------
>> That's like saying "99% of evil dictators have people summarily shot - so
>> I'm no worse than they are"... the problem is with the genre altogether, and
>> it's made worse because 3rd ed. brought *back* the cheescake that had
>> largely gone away in 2nd ed. art.
>
> Bah. The earlier stuff had far more cheesecake. In general more badly
>drawn cheesecake
Hold on.
Are you saying the earlier stuff was 'more badly drawn'? Than the
stuff in 3ed PHB, DMG, and MM?
Is that actually physically possible?
--
Ben Sisson
"Yes, Captain. I am a lying, boneless, toady dweeb
but I am YOUR lying, boneless, toady dweeb!"
-The Dnyarri, Star Control 2
Heli Kaarina Kinnunen
Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Sorcerer: Hennet appears to be dressed for adventuring, as long as it
>involves safe words and someone named Mistress Midnight. 9
*reads, chokes to Pepsi, falls down from the chair, and dies laughing.*
I have just found new sig material...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
*snort*
*choke*
..air...
--
E-mail: dar...@co.jyu.fi
Current webpage: http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~darkelf/
My miniatures webpage: http://www.iti.fi/darkelf/miniatures.html
Nockermensch
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:12:25 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> (if
> that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>
> >Certic wrote:
> >>
> >> --------
> >> That's like saying "99% of evil dictators have people summarily shot - so
> >> I'm no worse than they are"... the problem is with the genre altogether, and
> >> it's made worse because 3rd ed. brought *back* the cheescake that had
> >> largely gone away in 2nd ed. art.
> >
> > Bah. The earlier stuff had far more cheesecake. In general more badly
> >drawn cheesecake
>
> Hold on.
>
> Are you saying the earlier stuff was 'more badly drawn'? Than the
> stuff in 3ed PHB, DMG, and MM?
>
> Is that actually physically possible?
I'd like to point to a 1st edition drawing of a mind flayer casting
some kind of bad SF ray over a king. That's not even fantasy
illustration, that's a cartoon - and a bad cartoon while we're on
subject. 1st edition art actually pushes the definition of amateurish.
2E is Elmore (aka. busty, high cheekbone, female warriors with Tina
Turner hair) and Easley (a Boris Valejo wannabe). Also, each other
magey character is Gandalf with slightly different colors. 3E wins.
3E art is great, with some sad exceptions (ie. elves are ugly, despite
the correctly drawn deedlit ears).
@ @ Nockermensch, if you still don't believe me, watch more Marilyn
Manson videos.
Sea Wasp
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:12:25 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> (if
> that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>
> >Certic wrote:
> >>
> >> --------
> >> That's like saying "99% of evil dictators have people summarily shot - so
> >> I'm no worse than they are"... the problem is with the genre altogether, and
> >> it's made worse because 3rd ed. brought *back* the cheescake that had
> >> largely gone away in 2nd ed. art.
> >
> > Bah. The earlier stuff had far more cheesecake. In general more badly
> >drawn cheesecake
>
> Hold on.
>
> Are you saying the earlier stuff was 'more badly drawn'? Than the
> stuff in 3ed PHB, DMG, and MM?
>
> Is that actually physically possible?
My wife is an artist. She agrees with my assessment: most original ed
art was abysmal, drawn by some friend of the original writer because
they couldn't afford better. 1e art was, in general, slightly better
but still pretty amateurish. 2e was better overall, but the cliche's
controlled the roost. 3e is far superior -- it experiments with
different styles and uses different approaches.
D.J.
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
] D.J. wrote:
] > Just for that... I wont let you look at my copy of 'Macho Women with
] > Guns' rpg book. :-)
]
] Why would I want to look at YOUR copy?
Ah, true, I should have realized you had a copy as well.
Hmmm. Someone told me a few years ago there are other 'books' oin
the series. Are there ?
Mad Hamish
<blue7...@cheesenocrosswinds.net> wrote:
>
>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>] D.J. wrote:
>] > Just for that... I wont let you look at my copy of 'Macho Women with
>] > Guns' rpg book. :-)
>]
>] Why would I want to look at YOUR copy?
>
>Ah, true, I should have realized you had a copy as well.
>
>Hmmm. Someone told me a few years ago there are other 'books' oin
>the series. Are there ?
>
1st ed Macho Women With Guns had the books Renegade Nuns on Wheels and
Batwinged Bimbos from Hell.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@bigpond.com
Certic
> that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>
> >Certic wrote:
> >>
> >> --------
> >> That's like saying "99% of evil dictators have people summarily shot -
so
> >> I'm no worse than they are"... the problem is with the genre
altogether, and
> >> it's made worse because 3rd ed. brought *back* the cheescake that had
> >> largely gone away in 2nd ed. art.
> >
> > Bah. The earlier stuff had far more cheesecake. In general more badly
> >drawn cheesecake
>
> Hold on.
>
> Are you saying the earlier stuff was 'more badly drawn'? Than the
> stuff in 3ed PHB, DMG, and MM?
>
> Is that actually physically possible?
It's not so much "badly drawn" as immensely fixated on giant shoulder pads
and spiky bits fitted to every conceivable kind of armour.
Certic
Experiment my left foot. I don't know if this is actually not visible from
outside the UK, where Games Workshop (not GDW but the people who did
Warhammer) dominated much of the late 80s gaming scene, but this
spikes'n'shoulder pads is hardly experimental; for several years, en route
to becoming a miniatures for munchkins manufacturer, GW gave us little else
in their product lines. Making all the monsters look like insects isn't bold
and avant-garde, either. Seen it all before; it's a re-hash.
Certic
--------
Sometimes it makes me reluctant to buy a product for fear of being labelled
as one of the aforementioned. I don't so much mind the label 'geek' as the
"poorly socialised" bit. Does it actually sell more books? Have they done
surveys or is it just a preconceived idea?
Nockermensch
It's sad but true. But I'd rather to see illustrations relevant to the
theme of the book. Besides, chain mail bikinis are a bad idea, just a
notch less silly than Conan in his loincloth. I don't like these
stereotypes.
@ @ Nockermensch, not that I dislike quasinaked gals, but at least
characterize them as rogues, sorceresses or other classes who don't
need armor, damn it!
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Mad Hamish <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:23:31 -0500, D.J.
><blue7...@cheesenocrosswinds.net> wrote:
>
>>Hmmm. Someone told me a few years ago there are other 'books' oin
>>the series. Are there ?
>>
>1st ed Macho Women With Guns had the books Renegade Nuns on Wheels and
>Batwinged Bimbos from Hell.
Also "Macho Women With Guns, the Final Chapter (Part One)".
The most recent edition collected much of the good stuff from the previous
editons into the core book and then had a supplement called "More Excuses
to Kill Things" (as if we *needed* any excuses).
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
D.J.
lei...@pvv.ntnu.no (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) wrote:
] In article <3d91d04a...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,] >1st ed Macho Women With Guns had the books Renegade Nuns on Wheels and
] >Batwinged Bimbos from Hell.
]
] Also "Macho Women With Guns, the Final Chapter (Part One)".
]
] The most recent edition collected much of the good stuff from the previous
] editons into the core book and then had a supplement called "More Excuses
] to Kill Things" (as if we *needed* any excuses).
Thanks for the info !
sNOm...@sonic.net
: Worring about whu other play/buy only takes time from your own play. It
: should not matter that much to you and certainly does not matter much to
: me. I can play the Priestess without clothes without any concern about
: immorality or improper conduct.
It matters to me because I play D&D with my family (including kids),
and it matters to me because I introduce newbies (both genders, all
ages) to the game, I don't just play it with a small group of cronies
who can "shrug & move on" readily.
sNOm...@sonic.net
: Two obvious biases here:
All I can say about this is, the women I've talked to have all (without my
soliciting comment on the topic) remarked that the PHB's pictures are more
than slightly "dubious." Without exception, EVERY woman... if I have a bias,
it's not unique to me.
: 1) Your scale assumes that skin is by default "sexy" on a female character,
: and by default "not sexy" on male character - i.e. it would see "sexy" in a
: chainmail chick, but not in a typical thong-loinclothed male barbarian.
<shrug> OK, let's -just- look at skin -- the Bbn (the only REALLY skin-heavy
male PC) is Krusk. And frankly, Krusk just *isn't* sexy, YMM*not*V! ;-)
Compare the skin among the women.
Look at the images of the races in the PHB, M on one side, F on the other;
count the bellybuttons, the midriffs, count how many deep-cut cleavages,
look at how much clothing is skin-tight vs loose/draped.
: 2) Even highly sexualized male figures generally don't wear obvious make-up,
: yet you've included it as a universal standard for "sexy".
I didn't mean to imply that every figure should all be measured by the same
standards. I just note that it's one of the features added to several
figures, for no obvious reason but "sex appeal" and with GOOD reasons NOT
to show 'em that way. Where I see things like that, I count it as one of
the "inappropriately sexy" images.
: (Oh, and you're not taking into account both sides of the issue - for
: example, most male gamers I know think Devis is just an ugly dork with a
: buckle-fetish and not sexy in the least, while a significant number of
: female gamers think he's prime jill-off material. ;) )
Fine, you can point to "Devis". I'll even grant you that one! I don't much
swing that way myself, but I've seen enough of the general culture to see
that Devis fits quite a few of those images.
That's one.
Now, find me a few F. characters that *aren't* routinely shown in "unduely"
sexy imagery...
sNOm...@sonic.net
Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Douglas Berry wrote:
: Well, the sample might not be the best.. all the women are bi.
Hm. 50/50 bi, or "bi leaning..." one way or the other? And (much more
relevant to the thread) how do they generally react to stereotypically
"sexy" M/F images?
: They like the cheesecake.
So, ask 'em to rank the "cheescake" vs "beefcake" factors -- not personal
appeal so much as what they see if they imagine showing the book to friends
who are "conventional" -- both straight (orientation) & mundane (non-gamer).
: But looking at the PH, starting with the first drawings of females in
: the races chapter, and going through, I fail to see much to complain
: about.
[SNIP Douglas Berry's ranked analysis, even (reluctantly)
his remarks about Hennet... ;-) ]
: Specifics? I'm really curious. What about the Druid class
: illustration is bothersome? Sorry, but I don't see this at all
Well, given that you just went down the same set of images, in detail,
that I (and others I know) have problems with, I'm not sure I *can*
explain it in a meaningful way; I'll try, but I don't have the PHB to
hand at the moment. I also don't have my home computer available at
the moment, and can't quite see flipping through the PHB at work...
I'll try to produce a list like yours, outlining the problems I see.
Sea Wasp
> > MORE CHAINMAIL BIKINIS! MORE SKIN!
> >
> > (If there's a half-naked babe on the cover of my book, I won't
> > complain, even though I can't think of a single scene in the book
> > where you could reasonably find an appropriate situation; if marketing
> > thinks it will sell more books, I'm all for it.)
> --------
> Sometimes it makes me reluctant to buy a product for fear of being labelled
> as one of the aforementioned. I don't so much mind the label 'geek' as the
> "poorly socialised" bit.
I've never minded any label someone put on me as long as it wasn't a
criminal one. (i.e., "pedophile" would carry some legal complications.
"Poorly socialized" is a stupid buzzword, and I'll show 'em some poor
socialization if they give me trouble about it!)
Does it actually sell more books? Have they done
> surveys or is it just a preconceived idea?
There's a fair amount of work out there showing that the flashy, in
your face covers do tend to sell more books. Even if they're in
utterly bad taste and have nothing to do with the contents, as long as
they carry the general cues for their subgenre (i.e., dragons and
chainmail bikinis for fantasy, exploding spaceships for SF).
Basically, if your book isn't NOTICED, it won't be picked up. Getting
it noticed apparently amounts to an extremely important jump in sales,
even if from most people's PoV it appears to be being noticed due to
extreme bad taste.
Sea Wasp
> Experiment my left foot. I don't know if this is actually not visible from
> outside the UK, where Games Workshop (not GDW but the people who did
> Warhammer) dominated much of the late 80s gaming scene, but this
> spikes'n'shoulder pads is hardly experimental; for several years, en route
> to becoming a miniatures for munchkins manufacturer, GW gave us little else
> in their product lines. Making all the monsters look like insects isn't bold
> and avant-garde, either. Seen it all before; it's a re-hash.
Well, I've never seen it outside of anime, myself, and so to see it
in D&D was a change. It was definitely an experiment when compared to
the prior work. This edition allows multiple possible looks.
Adam Alexander
"Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:pl81pu843h3vcunjd...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:20:47 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> >hate most about the D&D product-line -- the female characters appear to
> >be wank-material for poorly-socialized guys who can't handle women.
>
> one, and two others are my secondary partners, (both female) I'd have
> to say that this might be a little off.
>
You really are greedy!
> From what I can see, fantasy in general has always gone for extreme
> sterotyping.
Sir Bob
news:HYsk9.30556$Ik.6...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Sir Bob wrote:
>
> : Two obvious biases here:
>
> All I can say about this is, the women I've talked to have all (without my
> soliciting comment on the topic) remarked that the PHB's pictures are more
> than slightly "dubious." Without exception, EVERY woman... if I have a
bias,
> it's not unique to me.
That hasn't been my experience, I'm afraid - but let's not argue anecdotes,
eh? ;)
> : 1) Your scale assumes that skin is by default "sexy" on a female
character,
> : and by default "not sexy" on male character - i.e. it would see "sexy"
in a
> : chainmail chick, but not in a typical thong-loinclothed male barbarian.
>
> <shrug> OK, let's -just- look at skin -- the Bbn (the only REALLY
skin-heavy
> male PC) is Krusk. And frankly, Krusk just *isn't* sexy, YMM*not*V! ;-)
> Compare the skin among the women.
>
> Look at the images of the races in the PHB, M on one side, F on the other;
> count the bellybuttons, the midriffs, count how many deep-cut cleavages,
> look at how much clothing is skin-tight vs loose/draped.
<snip>
The failure still exists in assuming that exposed female skin is
*intrinsically* sexual. For example, consider Ember, the iconic Female
monk. Sure, she's depicted in a halter-top, but her poses and expressions
are not sexualized - and that make-up looks more like war-paint than
hooker-glitz, if you ask me. Besides, male "fighting monks" are
*invariably* depicted as bare from the waist up - she's just wearing a
female-adapted version of the classic garb. ;)
- Sir Bob.
sNOm...@sonic.net
: The failure still exists in assuming that exposed female skin is
: *intrinsically* sexual.
Not always, but often.
: For example, consider Ember, the iconic Female monk.
OK, let's. I'm working from memory, but...
: Sure, she's depicted in a halter-top, but
It's a "twist" top -- usually these don't "fit" (nor stay on) as well as
normally-tailored clothes, and represent a "look at me!" esthetic. Not a
monk trait, IMHO.
Now let's talk about the cleavage cutout... that's there because...? Oh,
right: it enhances cooling-off, when she sweats in a fight </sarcasm>
That garment has *nothing* to do with practicality, everything to do with
looks.
Try this: find something comparable in a fashion spread. I'll lay odds
any close matches don't appear with "exercise" or "sports" clothes, but
closer to the "fashion" clothes and even "lingerie".
: her poses and expressions are not sexualized - and
: that make-up looks more like war-paint than hooker-glitz, if you ask me.
Agreed on these (though what a monk is doing in "war-paint," I'm not sure;
at least these aren't specifically sexual.)
(But let's look at the top-knot issue: most fighters would look at this &
say, "ooo... a handle!" What's wrong with a "bob" haircut here, or even
a general "short" (about 1" all over) haircut? I've got to admit that the
genre does portray women "monks" with long hair and topknots, often; but
it's never struck me as "realistic").
: Besides, male "fighting monks" are *invariably* depicted as bare from
: the waist up
<blink>
I usually think of monks as either wearing a "gi" kind of top (the standard
judo/karate style, or a variation on that), or else a religious garment,
a robe or similar, as varied per the religion &/or the region.
I'll grant you that the genre tropes usually involve the top getting ripped
off, once he gets into a fight; but the monk usually *STARTS* fully-clothed;
"bare from the waist up" is a mark of the violence of the fight/foe. And
the genre *invariably* depicts female "monk" types as fully-clothed (the
racy ones get their tops ripped up, and usually play the embarassment-factor
for humor).
Bradd W. Szonye
> Here's an exercise for the reader: start at the beginning of the PHB,
> and go through the pages. Make a list of M & F images. Note, for
> each one, if there's anything "sexy" about the image -- showing more
> skin (cleavage, legs, midriff, etc) than need be, clothing
> "skin-tight" when looser would be more practical, wearing make-up,
> etc. Maybe make a 1-10 scale, with 1 being "fully dungeon-ready" and
> 10 being "fully harem-ready" Compare M vs F.
OK. I'll need to change the scale, though, because some of the images
aren't supposed to be "dungeon ready." I'll make it a scale from
0 = totally asexual to 10 = sexalicious.
p. 7: Standard male anatomical drawing. Naked, but who cares? Unless you
have a fetish about that sort of thing, it's a 1.
p. 11: Sketches of male faces. 0.
p. 12: Sketches of males from several races. All of them wear peasant
laborer clothing. The half-orc is bare-chested, and the elf is handsome,
but no provocative clothing. 1.
p. 13: Sketches of females from several races. They're all dressed
provocatively. All of them are also ugly, except for the human. The
halfling isn't too bad if you like saggy breasts, and the gnome has nice
legs. Looks like they were aiming for an 8, but it's really a 5.
pps. 14-19: More head sketches. No sex. 0.
p. 25: Krusk. He's pretty well-covered for a barbarian, but they
actually tried to make him kinda not-too-ugly in this picture. 2.
p. 28: Devis. Interesting outfit, a kind of mix between sleaze and
grunge. I'll give it a 6, but, y'know, it's a bard. He's supposed to
look like that.
p. 30: Jozan. Yeah, right. 0, unless you have a fetish for large boots.
p. 34: Vadania. In my opinion, she's very attractive, but she's also
covered head to toe. I don't see how you could possibly call this one
objectionable. Yeah, you can see a boob. Women have boobs, you know.
Vadania's is fully clothed without even a hint of a nipple. Lots of
jewelry, fancy hair, and possibly make-up. Whatever. 2, maybe 3.
p. 36: Tordek. Heh. More fodder for the boot fetishists, but for the
rest of us he's a 0.
p. 39: Ember. That halter top doesn't look very practical, so it counts
against her. Then again, Ember does a really, really good job of looking
androgynous. Is Grace Jones sexy? If you think so, then Ember gets a 7.
I'd call it a 3.
p. 41: Alhandra. Shows a little bit chest. But there's not even a hint
of an actual breast under there. No cleavage either. And her pants are
baggy. A little bit of eyeshadow. 1.
p. 44: Soveliss. Fully clothed and armored except for one bare elbow. 1.
p. 47: Lidda. Some folks might find her outfit sexy, but it's pretty
damn conservative compared to the catsuits you'll see in a spy movie.
Plus, she's obviously dressed for work, not for show. 1.
p. 50: Hennet. OK, finally some serious cheesecake. 10.
p. 52: Mialee. Her outfit looks like it's trying to be exploitive, but
it suffers from the same problem as the female race sketches. There are
a couple of pictures of Mialee where she looks kinda cute or where she
flashes a little boob. I'd give those a 9, but this one gets a 2. She
just looks athletic, not sexy.
p. 53: Nebin. Yeah, right. (Nice boots, though.) 0.
p. 64: Jozan and Krusk. Comical. 0.
p. 75: Lidda. Comical. 0. (Unless you want to make a cigar joke.)
pps. 80-81: Lidda and an evil cleric who looks more like a zombie. 0.
p. 84: Mialee. Nope, this isn't one of the sexy ones. Heck, this one is
less sexy than the first one. 1.
p. 88: Regdar. Not sexy. Normal boots. 0.
p. 89: Naull. Baggy pants. Yes, she has boobs. No, they're not on
display. Ruddy cheeks and nose, more likely a sign of alcoholism than of
cosmetics. 0.
p. 90: Eberk. Heavily robed male cleric. Just a little hint of a boot
sticking out for the fetishists. 0.
p. 94: Kerwyn. This guy is sharp-looking. No sexy clothes, but the guy
has an aura of confidence and charisma. Bad haircut, though. 6.
Well, that's almost half the book, and most of the people in it. I have
no idea what you could *possibly* object to in 90% of the pictures.
There are more well-dressed women than scantily-clad ones, and the few
girls who show some skin just aren't sexy. They're athletic. Maybe you
get a stiffy from looking at a girl's bulging biceps (Ember) or six-pack
abdomen (Mialee), but I don't. They're about as far as you can get from
the soft-focus, voluptuous cheesecake you find, say, on the cover of an
Avalanche Press supplement.
> If you don't see a problem... good for you (but we probably don't have
> any common basis for conversation at that point, because I see nothing
> but this problem -- F. images in the PHB are almost all
> "objectionable" IME).
Vadania and Alhandra are both fully-dressed and -armored. Lidda and
especially Naull dress very conservatively. Hennet shows more chest than
all of the female characters combined. I can only think of three things
you could possibly complain about:
1. Vadania, Naull, and Ember show signs of actually having breasts.
2. Ember has bare shoulders and a skimpy top. Then again, I'm not sure
that she actually has breasts -- those look more like pectoral
muscles to me. Give her a crew cut and a bulge in her pants, and
you'd mistake her for a man.
3. The female race sketches show a lot of breasts. Saggy breasts.
I suppose that you could also complain about the fact that some of the
female characters appear to wear make-up. Because we all know that
cosmetics are evil. Hmm... does Vadania handle the animal testing?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Jim Davies
>It's sad but true. But I'd rather to see illustrations relevant to the
>theme of the book. Besides, chain mail bikinis are a bad idea, just a
>notch less silly than Conan in his loincloth. I don't like these
>stereotypes.
>
>@ @ Nockermensch, not that I dislike quasinaked gals, but at least
>characterize them as rogues, sorceresses or other classes who don't
>need armor, damn it!
In 3e, it's a chain shirt. If the babe in question has 18 dexterity,
she's better off in that than in anything heavier.
-
Jim Davies
----------
Mind your manners, son! I've got a tall pointy hat!
David Sulger
What difference does it make? They're BOTH ugly dorks....
sNOm...@sonic.net
Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
: OK. I'll need to change the scale, though, because some of the images
: aren't supposed to be "dungeon ready." I'll make it a scale from
: 0 = totally asexual to 10 = sexalicious.
: p. 13: Sketches of females from several races. They're all dressed
: provocatively.
Particularly as a facing-page to the male images, this one is more than
slightly offensive. Your own words:
"They're all dressed provocatively."
All.
: All of them are also ugly,
IMHO, this element is irrelevant; more an indictor of your personal taste
and/or the ability of the artist(s?). Dressing *all* the females in
"provocative" clothes is a serious problem, and it gets MUCH worse in the
"line-up and compare" context. I can't make it more clear than that.
: except for the human. The
: halfling isn't too bad if you like saggy breasts, and the gnome has nice
: legs. Looks like they were aiming for an 8, but it's really a 5.
I count this pic an 8, myself. Even if the you don't find them "to your
taste" the _intent_ is clear. And, as I've been griping, that clear intent
has bothered several of the mundanes I've introduced to gaming.
11 year-old girls do NOT need yet another display of "interesting" characters
where the female roles are "all dressed provocatively." Their 35 year-old
moms are also rather put-off by these (yes, I introduced both of 'em to D&D;
yes, each of them said (in different words) that they found the pics to be
a problem).
: p. 34: Vadania.
I don't recall this one clearly enough (damn, I wish I had my PHB to
hand). But I recall thinking that her outfit looked more "skin-tight"
in non-functional ways, than I thought was realistic.
: p. 39: Ember. That halter top doesn't look very practical, so it counts
: against her. Then again, Ember does a really, really good job of looking
: androgynous. Is Grace Jones sexy? If you think so, then Ember gets a 7.
: I'd call it a 3.
Again, you're picking out the "personal appeal" factor. *YOU* may not find
Grace Jones sexy, and *I* may not, but *MANY* people do. That top just
screams "look at me, I'm sexy!" (and I've seen more than one woman point to
Ember's top & remark in annoyed tones, "WHAT is THAT!?")
: p. 41: Alhandra. Shows a little bit chest. But there's not even a hint
: of an actual breast under there. No cleavage either. And her pants are
: baggy. A little bit of eyeshadow. 1.
Her pants are baggy as compared to... stretch-denim? painted-on latex?
A quick walk past people sitting near me finds that *ALL* of them have
baggier pants. As I recall, they looked tauter than most trousers, and
certainly more than any "medievalesque" clothes.
And just the *fact* that so much of those pants are visible... compare
the cleric. I know that clerics are a "combat" class, but putting the
Paladin & Cleric next to one another, I would expect the paladin to be
more heavily-armored, comparable to the Fighter.
Eyeshadow? At (as I recall) a campsite in the *wilderness*??? Eyeshadow
is a pure "glamour" element (try doing a web-search on "glamour" if you're
in any doubt what I mean by the word).
I mark this one 7 or so.
: p. 50: Hennet. OK, finally some serious cheesecake. 10.
:-)
Doing the "personal preference" thing again, Bradd? Hennet's strutting his
stuff all right, but I can't see this as an all-out "sexalicious" image.
: p. 52: Mialee. Her outfit looks like it's trying to be exploitive, but
: it suffers from the same problem as the female race sketches.
Again, I point out that whether you *personally* find it "appealing" doesn't
actually have bearing on whether or not the image is offensive. She's in a
cheesy lingerie-version of a *harem-girl* outfit!
Wearing wispy silks to go adventuring?
This is pure 10 (even if badly done).
: p. 75: Lidda. Comical. 0. (Unless you want to make a cigar joke.)
:-) I thought that pic *WAS* a cigar joke!
(While I can't quite say it has *no* sexual connotations, I freely grant
that's not the *main* impression, and I have no problem with it in that
way (though IMHO it looks too "computer-generated" & so has an "off" feel;
but that's another "personal taste" issue)).
: 2. Ember has bare shoulders and a skimpy top. Then again, I'm not sure
: that she actually has breasts -- those look more like pectoral
: muscles to me.
Actually, I thought she looked like she'd had silicone enhancements...
: 3. The female race sketches show a lot of breasts. Saggy breasts.
Aside from how much the "saggy breasts" seem to bother you, I'l point to
the lace-up elements, the midriff/bellybuttons, the "V"ed waistband (and
for more details I'll have to wait 'til I get my hands on my PHB again.
Grrr).
Hunter
>
>Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>
>: p. 41: Alhandra. Shows a little bit chest. But there's not even a hint
>: of an actual breast under there. No cleavage either. And her pants are
>: baggy. A little bit of eyeshadow. 1.
>
>Her pants are baggy as compared to... stretch-denim? painted-on latex?
>A quick walk past people sitting near me finds that *ALL* of them have
>baggier pants. As I recall, they looked tauter than most trousers, and
>certainly more than any "medievalesque" clothes.
They are actually qute loose looking, at least as loose as a properly
fitted pair of BDU's. Too baggy and they become a hazard to movement.
>And just the *fact* that so much of those pants are visible... compare
>the cleric. I know that clerics are a "combat" class, but putting the
>Paladin & Cleric next to one another, I would expect the paladin to be
>more heavily-armored, comparable to the Fighter.
And the picture is probably trying to break the pre-conception that a
Paladin must be a tank.
>Eyeshadow? At (as I recall) a campsite in the *wilderness*??? Eyeshadow
>is a pure "glamour" element (try doing a web-search on "glamour" if you're
>in any doubt what I mean by the word).
>
>I mark this one 7 or so.
>
>
>
>: p. 50: Hennet. OK, finally some serious cheesecake. 10.
>
>:-)
>Doing the "personal preference" thing again, Bradd? Hennet's strutting his
>stuff all right, but I can't see this as an all-out "sexalicious" image.
>
>
It's looks like that you are doing personal preferance. That outfit has
less practicality than Ember's or any of the other females you are
complaining about.
>: p. 52: Mialee. Her outfit looks like it's trying to be exploitive, but
>: it suffers from the same problem as the female race sketches.
>
>Again, I point out that whether you *personally* find it "appealing" doesn't
>actually have bearing on whether or not the image is offensive. She's in a
>cheesy lingerie-version of a *harem-girl* outfit!
BULL. That outfit is made out of leather. It is also cut alot
different than lingerie.
>Wearing wispy silks to go adventuring?
What silk, that is tough leather she is wearing. It's just not cut
to be protective.
>This is pure 10 (even if badly done).
The better comparison would be to compare each to their iconic male
counterparts. Like Miallee to other pictures of Wizards. Or even the
sorcerors. And Hennet is showing as much fashion sense as her.
Certic
Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
news:55i4pu0in12q0u3q8...@4ax.com...
> nocker...@hotmail.com (Nockermensch) typed:
>
> >It's sad but true. But I'd rather to see illustrations relevant to the
> >theme of the book. Besides, chain mail bikinis are a bad idea, just a
> >notch less silly than Conan in his loincloth. I don't like these
> >stereotypes.
> >
> >@ @ Nockermensch, not that I dislike quasinaked gals, but at least
> >characterize them as rogues, sorceresses or other classes who don't
> >need armor, damn it!
>
> In 3e, it's a chain shirt. If the babe in question has 18 dexterity,
> she's better off in that than in anything heavier.
Nyambe has rules for increasing your armour class without armour, also.
However, it's not fallen into the chainmail bikini trap. You could borrow
the feat in question for a PC or NPC to be scantily dressed if you so
wished, I s'pose.
sNOm...@sonic.net
: They are actually qute loose looking, at least as loose as a properly
: fitted pair of BDU's.
I'm willing to argue with you... but not from pure memory.
Haven't got the PHB to hand. Does anyone know if WotC has
web-ified the iconic images of the PC classes, from the PHB?
: And the picture is probably trying to break the pre-conception that a
: Paladin must be a tank.
No. It's pure sophistry to suggest that the PHB would try
to "break pre-conception" -- it should be establishing the
archetype, and the paladinical archetype is knightly,
including best-armor-available.
I've got no problems with varying from the basic idea, but
the "first impression" isn't the place to do that -- and I
am confident that WotC didn't.
:>: p. 50: Hennet. OK, finally some serious cheesecake. 10.
:
: That outfit has less practicality than Ember's or any of the other
: females you are complaining about.
I clearly need the images at hand before I talk about them further.
:>: p. 52: Mialee. Her outfit looks like it's trying to be exploitive, but
:>: it suffers from the same problem as the female race sketches.
:>
:>She's in a cheesy lingerie-version of a *harem-girl* outfit!
:>Wearing wispy silks to go adventuring?
: BULL. That outfit is made out of leather. It is also cut alot
: different than lingerie.
Hmm. I thought my memory of this was clear, but I could be wrong. Yet
again, I'll wait further remarks until I have the images to look at.
Hunter
>Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Hunter wrote:
>
>: They are actually qute loose looking, at least as loose as a properly
>: fitted pair of BDU's.
>
>I'm willing to argue with you... but not from pure memory.
>Haven't got the PHB to hand. Does anyone know if WotC has
>web-ified the iconic images of the PC classes, from the PHB?
That would be useful.
>: And the picture is probably trying to break the pre-conception that a
>: Paladin must be a tank.
>
>No. It's pure sophistry to suggest that the PHB would try
>to "break pre-conception" -- it should be establishing the
>archetype, and the paladinical archetype is knightly,
>including best-armor-available.
I disagree about the last. But I would need to see the stats on her to
tell if the armor is inappropriate or not*.
Or even less appropriate than most of the armor shown on other
characters.
>I've got no problems with varying from the basic idea, but
>the "first impression" isn't the place to do that -- and I
>am confident that WotC didn't.
Armor now has trade-offs, so it might not be beneficial for her to wear
heavy armor.
Fair enough about needing to see the images before making further
comments. I need to use the book myself.
Sir Bob
news:3ac4908.02092...@posting.google.com...
Says *you*. ;)
- Sir Bob.
sNOm...@sonic.net
: But I would need to see the stats on her to
: tell if the armor is inappropriate or not*.
: Armor now has trade-offs, so it might not be
: beneficial for her to wear heavy armor.
You're referring to a high-DEX character? I'll note,
FWIW, that Paladin's typically have enough other
important characteristics (Str, Con, Cha) that to
have a high enough Dex on her would seem very atypical.
Not what WotC wants in the "generic" standard!
AFAIK, the iconic PC's are all presumed to use a fairly
"standard" stats-block, i.e. they're not "ubermensch."
Hunter
>Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Hunter wrote:
>
>: But I would need to see the stats on her to
>: tell if the armor is inappropriate or not*.
>
>: Armor now has trade-offs, so it might not be
>: beneficial for her to wear heavy armor.
>
>You're referring to a high-DEX character? I'll note,
>FWIW, that Paladin's typically have enough other
>important characteristics (Str, Con, Cha) that to
>have a high enough Dex on her would seem very atypical.
Correct, but she could have replaced Str with Dex.
>Not what WotC wants in the "generic" standard!
>
>AFAIK, the iconic PC's are all presumed to use a fairly
>"standard" stats-block, i.e. they're not "ubermensch."
Where are their stats listed?
Bradd W. Szonye
>> OK. I'll need to change the scale, though, because some of the images
>> aren't supposed to be "dungeon ready." I'll make it a scale from
>> 0 = totally asexual to 10 = sexalicious.
>>
>> p. 13: Sketches of females from several races. They're all dressed
>> provocatively.
sNOm...@sonic.net <sNOm...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Particularly as a facing-page to the male images, this one is more
> than slightly offensive. Your own words: "They're all dressed
> provocatively." All.
On a second look, I realized that all of the "race perspective" sketches
are wearing the fantasy equivalent of a sports bra and tights. I think
the intent is to show the anatomy as accurately as possible without
actually putting naked characters in the book.
Is a gymnast "provocatively dressed" because she wears a leotard? No.
>> p. 34: Vadania.
> I don't recall this one clearly enough (damn, I wish I had my PHB to
> hand). But I recall thinking that her outfit looked more "skin-tight"
> in non-functional ways, than I thought was realistic.
This says more about you than it does about the picture. Not *one* bit
of Vadania's outfit is skin-tight. The clothing under the armor is very
loose-fitting, with many folds and wrinkles. The armor is smooth, but
that's because it's thick leather, not because it's skin-tight.
>> p. 39: Ember. That halter top doesn't look very practical, so it
>> counts against her. Then again, Ember does a really, really good job
>> of looking androgynous. Is Grace Jones sexy? If you think so, then
>> Ember gets a 7. I'd call it a 3.
> Again, you're picking out the "personal appeal" factor. *YOU* may not
> find Grace Jones sexy, and *I* may not, but *MANY* people do.
Who? People with a thing for androgynous black women? Her whole schtick
is that she's shockingly unattractive and unappealing!
>> p. 41: Alhandra. Shows a little bit chest. But there's not even a
>> hint of an actual breast under there. No cleavage either. And her
>> pants are baggy. A little bit of eyeshadow. 1.
> Her pants are baggy as compared to... stretch-denim? painted-on
> latex? A quick walk past people sitting near me finds that *ALL* of
> them have baggier pants. As I recall, they looked tauter than most
> trousers, and certainly more than any "medievalesque" clothes.
I don't know which picture you're talking about, but it's not Alhandra.
Her trousers are baggier than my wife's jeans, and my wife does *not*
wear skin-tight jeans. As Hunter said, they're obviously soldier dress.
> And just the *fact* that so much of those pants are visible... compare
> the cleric. I know that clerics are a "combat" class, but putting the
> Paladin & Cleric next to one another, I would expect the paladin to be
> more heavily-armored, comparable to the Fighter.
The Alhandra picture is offensively sexist because she isn't wearing
full plate armor? You're not making sense.
> Eyeshadow? At (as I recall) a campsite in the *wilderness*???
> Eyeshadow is a pure "glamour" element (try doing a web-search on
> "glamour" if you're in any doubt what I mean by the word).
Yeah, so what? I think you're being seriously kooky here.
> I mark this one 7 or so.
Again, this says a lot more about your obsession with this issue than it
says anything about reality. Especially when:
>> p. 50: Hennet. OK, finally some serious cheesecake. 10.
> Doing the "personal preference" thing again, Bradd? Hennet's
> strutting his stuff all right, but I can't see this as an all-out
> "sexalicious" image.
You call Alhandra a 7, but you don't think Hennet is a 10?
>> p. 52: Mialee. Her outfit looks like it's trying to be exploitive,
>> but it suffers from the same problem as the female race sketches.
> Again, I point out that whether you *personally* find it "appealing"
> doesn't actually have bearing on whether or not the image is
> offensive. She's in a cheesy lingerie-version of a *harem-girl*
> outfit!
>
> Wearing wispy silks to go adventuring?
Uh, I don't see any silks, wispy or otherwise, in the Mialee pics.
> This is pure 10 (even if badly done).
Three comments:
1. When's the last time you saw a magician who didn't wear outlandish
clothing? Real-life magicians *always* wear tuxedoes, capes, big
shoulder pads, poofy dresses, stuff like that.
2. Take a closer look at the outfits that real-world magicians wear. For
all the frills and showiness, their clothes provide a lot of
flexibility. Female magicians, in particular, show off their legs for
two very practical reasons: It allows them maximum mobility for
physical illusions, and it distracts the audience the same way that
patter does.
3. The fact that you "remember" the picture as having "wispy silks"
illustrates that the "problem" has more to do with your expectations
than reality.
>> 2. Ember has bare shoulders and a skimpy top. Then again, I'm not sure
>> that she actually has breasts -- those look more like pectoral
>> muscles to me.
> Actually, I thought she looked like she'd had silicone enhancements...
Yeah, right. And Mialee wears "wispy silks." And Vadania's hide armor is
skin-tight. And Alhandra's trousers are painted on.
Except that they're not. Almost every complaint you've made is based on
your false memories, not the illustrations. It sounds like you're the
one with the obsession, not the publisher.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> But I would need to see the stats on [Alhandra] to tell if the armor
>>> is inappropriate or not*. Armor now has trade-offs, so it might not
>>> be beneficial for her to wear heavy armor.
> sNOm...@sonic.net wrote:
>> You're referring to a high-DEX character? I'll note, FWIW, that
>> Paladin's typically have enough other important characteristics (Str,
>> Con, Cha) that to have a high enough Dex on her would seem very
>> atypical.
> Correct, but she could have replaced Str with Dex.
She didn't, though. Alhandra's Dex is only 8. At 5th level, she wears
full plate armor, but she obviously can't afford it at 1st level.
>> AFAIK, the iconic PC's are all presumed to use a fairly
>> "standard" stats-block, i.e. they're not "ubermensch."
> Where are their stats listed?
Enemies & Allies. Many have stats in the Adventure Path modules too.
Mornir
wrote:
>On a second look, I realized that all of the "race perspective" sketches
>are wearing the fantasy equivalent of a sports bra and tights. I think
>the intent is to show the anatomy as accurately as possible without
>actually putting naked characters in the book.
Stepping into this, I have to agree here. The outfits aren't
normal, 'modern' clothing, but that's the Impression I got...they were
trying to show things in a 'Health Book' manner. *shrug*
>This says more about you than it does about the picture. Not *one* bit
>of Vadania's outfit is skin-tight. The clothing under the armor is very
>loose-fitting, with many folds and wrinkles. The armor is smooth, but
>that's because it's thick leather, not because it's skin-tight.
It doesn't look skin-tight to me. Not extremely loose, but
there are some wrinkles in there. Again, it looks to me like
something that would work in the woods without getting caught, like he
said.
>Who? People with a thing for androgynous black women? Her whole schtick
>is that she's shockingly unattractive and unappealing!
This, I actually could see a problem with. The outfit *is*
rather unusual for someone who wants to move around effectively.
>I don't know which picture you're talking about, but it's not Alhandra.
>Her trousers are baggier than my wife's jeans, and my wife does *not*
>wear skin-tight jeans. As Hunter said, they're obviously soldier dress.
Look at her left (from your side) leg, and yes. If you just
glance at the picture, it almost looks like she has none, so yes, I
could see someone who didn't look closely say 'painted on'. They
rather look, to me, like hose, which was used often in some countries.
>You call Alhandra a 7, but you don't think Hennet is a 10?
Again, I agree. If there's something wrong with Alhandra,
then something is *definitely* wrong with Hennet. The only way he'd
be more designed to appeal to young girls is if he was a bish instead
of buff and scraggly.
>Uh, I don't see any silks, wispy or otherwise, in the Mialee pics.
No silks. I agree, she's a bit too showy, but then again, it
happens. Ah well.
>Yeah, right. And Mialee wears "wispy silks." And Vadania's hide armor is
>skin-tight. And Alhandra's trousers are painted on.
I have to agree, in essence. There are some that I think
*COULD* be construed as off, but really, it's not any worse than the
men. I think the main problem is it's more likely for any sign of
women in such a way to be attacked as sexist, when men in such ways
are simply accepted. *shrug* People *LOOK* for women to be
exploited, but blow off men. It's a fact of American life.
--
<Mornir - mor...@despammed.com - http://www.livejournal.com/~booklog/>
Bradd W. Szonye
>> On a second look, I realized that all of the "race perspective"
>> sketches are wearing the fantasy equivalent of a sports bra and
>> tights. I think the intent is to show the anatomy as accurately as
>> possible without actually putting naked characters in the book.
Mornir <mor...@despammed.com> wrote:
> Stepping into this, I have to agree here. The outfits aren't normal,
> 'modern' clothing, but that's the Impression I got...they were trying
> to show things in a 'Health Book' manner. *shrug*
Yeah. I think the only reason I considered them "provocative," even
momentarily, is because I was looking for it. If you're looking for
commies, it's easy to find them even where they don't exist.
In other words, it's a lot like looking in a medical book on obstetrics
and saying, "This objectifies women! Look, they're all naked and
pregnant!"
>> Who [finds Grace Jones sexy]? People with a thing for androgynous
>> black women? Her whole schtick is that she's shockingly unattractive
>> and unappealing!
> This, I actually could see a problem with. The outfit *is* rather
> unusual for someone who wants to move around effectively.
However, I think the goal was to depict her as exotic, not sexy.
>> Uh, I don't see any silks, wispy or otherwise, in the Mialee pics.
> No silks. I agree, she's a bit too showy, but then again, it happens.
> Ah well.
Look at all the other pictures of female elves, though. Most of them
have similar wardrobes. Mialee's is at the extreme end of revealing, but
then I must return to my other argument: She's dressed like most
real-world female magicians.
In other words, Mialee, Devis, and Hennet might be dressed to look
"sexy" and "revealing," but I think that says more about their jobs than
the author's allegedly-sexist attitudes. They're dressed appropriately
for their nature.
Jeff Heikkinen
foretold that on Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:09:30 GMT, sNOm...@sonic.net
would say...
> No. It's pure sophistry to suggest that the PHB would try
> to "break pre-conception" -- it should be establishing the
> archetype, and the paladinical archetype is knightly,
> including best-armor-available.
>
what the designers did in fact *SAY* it was designed to do?
Peter Seebach
Bradd W. Szonye <bra...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In other words, it's a lot like looking in a medical book on obstetrics
>and saying, "This objectifies women! Look, they're all naked and
>pregnant!"
If only it were a book of recipes for food to use in a holistic obstetrics
practice, you could even have "they're all naked, pregnant, and in the
kitchen!".
-s
--
Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Hunter
wrote:
>Hunter <cypher...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>> But I would need to see the stats on [Alhandra] to tell if the armor
>>>> is inappropriate or not*. Armor now has trade-offs, so it might not
>>>> be beneficial for her to wear heavy armor.
>
>> sNOm...@sonic.net wrote:
>>> You're referring to a high-DEX character? I'll note, FWIW, that
>>> Paladin's typically have enough other important characteristics (Str,
>>> Con, Cha) that to have a high enough Dex on her would seem very
>>> atypical.
>
>> Correct, but she could have replaced Str with Dex.
>
>She didn't, though. Alhandra's Dex is only 8. At 5th level, she wears
>full plate armor, but she obviously can't afford it at 1st level.
That would be it, since the armor is definately not full plate.
>>> AFAIK, the iconic PC's are all presumed to use a fairly
>>> "standard" stats-block, i.e. they're not "ubermensch."
>
>> Where are their stats listed?
>
>Enemies & Allies. Many have stats in the Adventure Path modules too.
Don't have those.
daci...@earthlink.net
> Looking through the rest of the book I find nothing overly insulting..
> You see more skin in comic books.
Examples:
p. 89: Naull: 2, if that. She's as completely clothed as is possible
without a mask and gloves, and not in a sexual pose at all.
p. 115: Chapter heading has a male with half his body armored, and the
other half completely naked, with nothing but a sword, a scar, and a
tattoo: 8, at least. He's clothed less than any other picture in the
book barring the succubus.
p. 145: Lidda looking through a chest. Completely clothed. 2, if that.
p. 181: Soveliss, I think, in the blur spell. Loincloth, possibly
pants, no visible upper clothing, and if there is upper clothing, it's
skin-tight. 6 or so, accounting for the blur effect.
p. 208: Female sorceress, wearing an outfit roughly equivalent to a
female version of Hennet's, in terms of sexiness. 7-8, since she's not
showing any nipple. :D However, she's not in any kind of provocative
pose (No one in the book, IMO, is, at any point).
p. 214: Succubus. 9-ish... Except that she's a -succubus-. She's
-supposed- to be that way.
p. 229: Same sorceress as 208, same outfit, but more concealing than the
previous, while being simultaneously lower-cut at the waist. 9-10ish.
This is pretty much the only picture I might even consider concealing
from a child/mother/prude.
People have talked about the races pictures, but I don't see any real
problem there, either. They show each gender of each race in very
simple clothing, to display body-shape/size differences. Not one male
has sleeves, for instance, and the half-orc male is topless, with the
human, halfling and elf males showing a moderate amount of chest... The
females aren't dressed out of order, except for the gnome's unreliable
top. The pants are roughly equivalent on the tightness order... Mialee
is dressed the way you'd expect, given her Wizard outfit.
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:58:13 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> sNOm...@sonic.net warmed at our fire and told this tale:
> >If you don't see a problem... good for you (but we probably don't have any
> >common basis for conversation at that point, because I see nothing but this
> >problem -- F. images in the PHB are almost all "objectionable" IME).
>
> Specifics? I'm really curious. What about the Druid class
> illustration is bothersome?
Agreed. Vadania, Lidda, and to an only slightly-lesser degree,
Alhandra, are all well-clothed.
> >While I admit I titled the post to provoke comments, I stand by my basic
> >position: D&D3e (particularly the PHB) portrays women in ways that bear
> >more resemblance to PG-rated adolescent near-porn, than to what the average
> >woman (especially one new to gaming) might be comfortable with.
>
> Sorry, but I don't see this at all
I agree, given the examples above and the ones you posted.
One picture, in the entire book, would be what I would consider
"inappropriate". Good job, I'd say, for a game that's had Elmore's
"two-extra-vertebrae-and-painted-on-clothing" females since 2nd Ed...
And some much, much racier pictures in the 1st Ed MM and PH/DMG (IIRC).
-- Nik ( Dacileva )
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will
seriously cramp his style." - Traditional, House of the Jhereg
Bradd W. Szonye
> p. 115: Chapter heading has a male with half his body armored, and the
> other half completely naked, with nothing but a sword, a scar, and a
> tattoo: 8, at least. He's clothed less than any other picture in the
> book barring the succubus.
Why did you give this diagram a high "sex content" rating? Like the
naked male earlier in the book, it's a simple anatomical drawing. If you
think it appeals to prurient interests, I've got a stack of National
Geographic magazines to sell you.
ka...@ecn.ab.ca
>: p. 50: Hennet. OK, finally some serious cheesecake. 10.
>
>:-)
>Doing the "personal preference" thing again, Bradd? Hennet's strutting his
>stuff all right, but I can't see this as an all-out "sexalicious" image.
Then you're either an idiot, or doing your own 'personal preference'
thing. Hennet's wearing classic bondage gear; in fact, last time I
saw an outfit that outrageous was the fetish fashion show at the last
Convergence I was at.
--
No, I don't care what Monte says.
Sea Wasp
>
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:26:29 GMT, sNOm...@sonic.net wrote:
>
> >: p. 50: Hennet. OK, finally some serious cheesecake. 10.
> >
> >:-)
> >Doing the "personal preference" thing again, Bradd? Hennet's strutting his
> >stuff all right, but I can't see this as an all-out "sexalicious" image.
>
> Then you're either an idiot, or doing your own 'personal preference'
> thing.
Agreed, though I wouldn't give it a 10 -- that's reserved for images
that show stuff that you can't show, so to speak. But Hennet's outfit
is definitely not one I'd ever imagine someone wearing for adventuring
outside of the bedroom.
Hong Ooi
>On 28 Sep 2002 18:20:34 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net>
>wrote:
[bla bla bla etc]
*Ahem*
I don't suppose it would be inappropriate at this point to plug issue 7 of
Asgard, the swimsuit edition:
http://www.d20reviews.com/Natural20/asgard.html
Hong "also featuring some hack work by some H.O. d00d" Ooi
--
Hong Ooi | "I think it is time I started
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | getting some decent sleep."
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- CMB
Sydney, Australia |
E. Pluribus Unum
daci...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > >While I admit I titled the post to provoke comments, I stand by my basic
> > >position: D&D3e (particularly the PHB) portrays women in ways that bear
> > >more resemblance to PG-rated adolescent near-porn, than to what the average
> > >woman (especially one new to gaming) might be comfortable with.
> >
> > Sorry, but I don't see this at all
>
> I agree, given the examples above and the ones you posted.
Yes, sNOmSPAMs's "basic position" is quite unsupported by
the evidence, IMO.
-EPU
Talen
<P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>--------
>That's like saying "99% of evil dictators have people summarily shot - so
>I'm no worse than they are"... the problem is with the genre altogether, and
>it's made worse because 3rd ed. brought *back* the cheescake that had
>largely gone away in 2nd ed. art. Look at Complete Fighter - not a chainmail
>bikini in sight.
3e Cheesecake...
Thinking...
Thinking...
Sorry, but I can't think of any. And I usually have a rat-trap mind
for this stuff.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Feel the backhand of justice!"
- Minsc
The Gurus love you
Talen
wrote:
>sNOm...@sonic.net wrote:
>>
>> Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
>>
>> : It does not say female is required here, it does say "Clerics of
>> : Eilistraee wear their hair long and dress practically for whatever they
>> : are currently doing. For rituals, they wear as little as possible.
>> : Otherwise, they tend to wear soft leathers for hunting, aprons while
>> : cooking, and (rarely) armor when battle is expected. When relaxing, they
>> : favor silvery, diaphanous gowns. Most clerics prefer holy symbols of
>> : silver, typically worn as pins or hung around the neck on slender silver
>> : or mithral chains."
>>
>> Gaaaaahhh.
>>
>> Bard, I want to thank you: you have reminded me of one of the things I
>> hate most about the D&D product-line -- the female characters appear to
>> be wank-material for poorly-socialized guys who can't handle women.
>
> Which is not much different from 99% of the other RPGs out there.
>
> Why the above paragraph brings that to mind, I don't know. Unless, of
>course, you're such a SEXIST PIG that you assume the clerics listed
>above MUST be female. (The quoted paragraph does not mention the
>gender of the clerics)
<nods> Precisely. Hell, I've played male characters who would rarely
wear armour, and wear as little as possible for rituals.
Admittedly, the author in question is probably not _thinking_ in this
light, but still - it doesn't mean you _have_ to assume female.
Talen
(Nockermensch) wrote:
>> MORE CHAINMAIL BIKINIS! MORE SKIN!
>>
>> (If there's a half-naked babe on the cover of my book, I won't
>> complain, even though I can't think of a single scene in the book
>> where you could reasonably find an appropriate situation; if marketing
>> thinks it will sell more books, I'm all for it.)
>
>It's sad but true. But I'd rather to see illustrations relevant to the
>theme of the book. Besides, chain mail bikinis are a bad idea, just a
>notch less silly than Conan in his loincloth. I don't like these
>stereotypes.
>
>@ @ Nockermensch, not that I dislike quasinaked gals, but at least
>characterize them as rogues, sorceresses or other classes who don't
>need armor, damn it!
This is why two of the hottest women in 3e are Ma'Vrakith and the
female Metacreative. Vadania comes third.
While I'm on the subject, what's the *point* of Hide Armour? Am I
wrong in seeing it as providing no advantage over Studded Leather?
Karkadinn
>While I'm on the subject, what's the *point* of Hide Armour? Am I
>wrong in seeing it as providing no advantage over Studded Leather?
Druids can't wear studded leather.
::grumbleoverstupidrelicsof2ndeditionrules::
Besides, haven't you ever killed a really nasty monster and wanted to
commemorate the event by wearing its skin? Or maybe that's just me.
Talen
wrote:
>Talen said:
>
>>While I'm on the subject, what's the *point* of Hide Armour? Am I
>>wrong in seeing it as providing no advantage over Studded Leather?
>
>Druids can't wear studded leather.
>::grumbleoverstupidrelicsof2ndeditionrules::
Eh.
Leather then.
>Besides, haven't you ever killed a really nasty monster and wanted to
>commemorate the event by wearing its skin? Or maybe that's just me.
In all fairness, no; but that's because I have a bad history when it
comes to killing things in D&D. I'm glad the current game I'm in
features a strong focus on things which are _inherently_ evil (the DM
is using the rules for this), and I'm playing a chaotic good
character.
(My halfling monk has killed a total of two things - a Dretch and a
demon-possessed Barbarian... everything else, he's subdued and sent on
its way with its equipment... it's an utter nightmare for the GM, who
wants to bring everyone up to budget...)
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"If I ever got whomped by a Pidgeot toter, I'd commit suicide
promptly after. and I'd advise others under the same
circumstances to do the same."
- Pornbot
The Gurus love you
Karkadinn
>>Druids can't wear studded leather.
>>::grumbleoverstupidrelicsof2ndeditionrules::
>
>Eh.
>
>Leather then.
That's like saying there shouldn't be any full plate because the fighters can
make do with half plate instead. ;)
>In all fairness, no; but that's because I have a bad history when it
>comes to killing things in D&D. I'm glad the current game I'm in
>features a strong focus on things which are _inherently_ evil (the DM
>is using the rules for this), and I'm playing a chaotic good
>character.
>
>(My halfling monk has killed a total of two things - a Dretch and a
>demon-possessed Barbarian... everything else, he's subdued and sent on
>its way with its equipment... it's an utter nightmare for the GM, who
>wants to bring everyone up to budget...)
Good grief. I take it your GM isn't sending in any of the less
intelligent/fearless/stupid monsters, beasts, et cetera? If the only things
you get to have chances to slay regularly are npcs, I can see where it'd be a
moral dilemma of truly irritating proportions. Where's the wargs, the otyughs,
the griffins and chimeras? Heck, where's the undead? Not only do you not have
to feel guilty about killing those suckers, it's a good deed that gets you
treasure to boot.
Eric Tolle
I'd say a cross between bondage gear and Vash the Stampede.
In any case, it's _still_ a improvement over earlier editions.
Does anyone else remember the "Wizards vs.the Robots" cover of
Dragon magazine? The one with the mage wearing the vinyl Fredrick's
of Hollywood outfit? That one just stuck in my memory as the height
of bad 2E fashion sense.
And this really is a relative issue anyway- DnD isn't even close to
the level of say, Maxim and Stuff, or even MTV. If we are going to
orient the game to people who have problems with say, MTV rave
clothing, then we can dress everyone head-to-toe in loose clothing,
with bhurkas for the female characters. That should stop all
complaints, except for the obvious one that the game is obviously
inspired by SATAN!!! ;')
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual
certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life - so I
became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can
meet girls. -Matt Cartmill, anthropology professor and author
Rupert Boleyn
into the wilderness:
[snip]
>Her pants are baggy as compared to... stretch-denim? painted-on latex?
>A quick walk past people sitting near me finds that *ALL* of them have
>baggier pants. As I recall, they looked tauter than most trousers, and
>certainly more than any "medievalesque" clothes.
[snip]
>Aside from how much the "saggy breasts" seem to bother you, I'l point to
>the lace-up elements, the midriff/bellybuttons, the "V"ed waistband (and
>for more details I'll have to wait 'til I get my hands on my PHB again.
>Grrr).
This is a bit inconsistent. On one hand you want "medievalesque"
clothing, and on the the find "lace-up elements" to be gratuitious.
Medieval clothing didn't use buttons until fialry late in the period
(by which time they were also wearing tight hose, etc.). Depending on
period medieval clothes were quite tightly fitted about the torso for
wealthy women, and often had low neck-lines - far more so than any of
the D&D art barring Ember's halter-top.
Eric Tolle
> Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
> : OK. I'll need to change the scale, though, because some of the images
> : aren't supposed to be "dungeon ready." I'll make it a scale from
> : 0 = totally asexual to 10 = sexalicious.
My fiance and I had a look through the pictures listed. She's an
artist, so has a somewhat different perspective- I'll give Sandy's
comments in a bit.
> : p. 13: Sketches of females from several races. They're all dressed
> : provocatively.
>
> Particularly as a facing-page to the male images, this one is more than
> slightly offensive. Your own words:
> "They're all dressed provocatively."
> All.
I hate to disturb the sensibilities of the Puritans among the group,
but with the possible exception of the Elf and Half-Orc, the line-up
isn't that different from what I've seen on the UC Santa Barbara
campus this summer. Maybe it's a different matter for people from
places like say, Utah, but for a Californian, those outfits in the
line-up simply don't count as provocative. Put a jacket on 'em, and
they're ready to interview at a bank. ;')
For my part, I think this any case for provacativeness is a pretty
minor one, compared to what I've seen in earlier versions of the
game, what's considered standard clothing today, and _ESPECIALLY_
compared to the standards are for fantasy art. Remember, fantasy is
a genre where Boris Vallejo can have his near-nudes show up on the
covers of mass-publication books, so what we're seeing here is rather
tame. Equally importantly, the postures and the attitudes of the
female characters aren't really provocative, again compared to what
one usually sees on fantasy book covers. Now, if we had Mialee on
her knees clutching at Jozen's leg with a frightened/turned on
expression a la' Conan or Army of Darkness...
> 11 year-old girls do NOT need yet another display of "interesting" characters
> where the female roles are "all dressed provocatively." Their 35 year-old
Burqas, man. that'll take care of the problem right there. Of
course we _also_ need to keep those impressionable youngsters away
from watching the Olympics as well. Who knows what the sight of
women in skintight running suits and swimsuits might do. Not to
mention the ice skaters. ;')
> : p. 34: Vadania.
>
> I don't recall this one clearly enough (damn, I wish I had my PHB to
> hand). But I recall thinking that her outfit looked more "skin-tight"
> in non-functional ways, than I thought was realistic.
It looks _smooth_, where there's armor, and there's some really weird
things going on with the anatomy that bug me, but it's still less
"provocative" than real-life riding leathers. Should there also be a
problem with motorcyclists being depicted in a game?
> : p. 50: Hennet. OK, finally some serious cheesecake. 10.
> Doing the "personal preference" thing again, Bradd? Hennet's strutting his
> stuff all right, but I can't see this as an all-out "sexalicious" image.
Well duh. You're a guy.
> : p. 52: Mialee. Her outfit looks like it's trying to be exploitive, but
> : it suffers from the same problem as the female race sketches.
> Wearing wispy silks to go adventuring?
>
> This is pure 10 (even if badly done).
Actually I thought the artist was very deliberately conveying the
idea that if you put a shaved ferret in a skimpy outfit, you still
get something that looks like a shaved ferret. Besides, it looks
more impractical then provocative to me, something that could be said
for most of the outfits in the game.
Now as for Sandy's POV
Speaking as a woman who's not looking for female cheesecake or trying
to decide what's best for children, here's my take on the female
outfits. On the whole, I was pretty impressed with what I've seen
in the book. The female figures are actually dressed for the most
part, which is a substantial improvement on previous books. In
particular I like the ranger's outfit, Nuall's (whatever she is,
though I hate her hairstyle), and Lidda's-- they seem pretty
workable. Also, don't forget-- armor is HEAVY and HOT. I wouldn't
wear it around all day on a cross-country hike unless I was damn sure
I needed it.
The races page, where they're all wearing tight or revealing
clothes... well, that makes a lot of sense-- if you want to show bone
and muscle structure and physical difference, you really should have
your model wearing as little as possible. The tight clothes is a
concession to stricter mores, I guess, since a really technical
anatomical drawing would have them in underwear or naked. I don't
think it's exploitative, but then, I do figure studies and it does
help to have the model avoid heavy clothing. In fact, it's best to
have them avoid clothing ;) (P.S.: I think the the female half-orc's
"Hell-LO Sailor" pose is hilarious. You go, orc.)
Bad Stuff: Mialee's outfit is freaking _weird_... like someone tried
to make a sexy leather fishing vest. Ember looks like she had a
fight with a first aid kit and lost. Mommy let her dress herself
today. And, unfortunately, the paladin needs to send in one more
boxtop to get the rest of her armor. Not overly sexy, but kind of a
dumb place to leave bare.
But I don't think that anything in the book would turn women away from
gaming-- it's a HUGE improvement on the way women were portayed in the
first two editions. Any woman who's repelled by the way the women
look in this book is either really uptight or looking for an excuse to
rag on her guy for his nerdy hobbies.
PS: Hennet is not sexalicious. If I or any of the other gals I hang
out with saw this weird little ouchie-Goth walk in a room, we'd laugh
till we nosed our Vanilla Cokes.
Talen
wrote:
>Talen said:
>
>>>Druids can't wear studded leather.
>>>::grumbleoverstupidrelicsof2ndeditionrules::
>>
>>Eh.
>>
>>Leather then.
>
>That's like saying there shouldn't be any full plate because the fighters can
>make do with half plate instead. ;)
Not really... With Hide vs Studded Leather, it's an extra 10 feet of
movement, about ten gold pieces cheaper, better dex bonus, and lower
ACP, vs _1_ point of AC.
>>(My halfling monk has killed a total of two things - a Dretch and a
>>demon-possessed Barbarian... everything else, he's subdued and sent on
>>its way with its equipment... it's an utter nightmare for the GM, who
>>wants to bring everyone up to budget...)
>
>Good grief. I take it your GM isn't sending in any of the less
>intelligent/fearless/stupid monsters, beasts, et cetera?
Oh, hells no.
>If the only things
>you get to have chances to slay regularly are npcs, I can see where it'd be a
>moral dilemma of truly irritating proportions. Where's the wargs, the otyughs,
>the griffins and chimeras? Heck, where's the undead? Not only do you not have
>to feel guilty about killing those suckers, it's a good deed that gets you
>treasure to boot.
Well, against Undead I'm in trouble. No stunning, or coup de grace.
So... And our GM doesn't give rewards for averting fights. <grumbles>
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
yeah, Machamp would be a worry in mai team, but thats why
Umbreon has Doubleteam, and Crosschop has Unreliable accuracy.
And when ever you miss I'll juss moonlight and then Botan-pass
to the scizor and Fireblast has bad accuracy, so-shut up.
- Blazinsaiyan, strategic genius.
The Gurus love you
ka...@ecn.ab.ca
wrote:
>Mornir <mor...@despammed.com> wrote:
(On Ember's outfit)
>> This, I actually could see a problem with. The outfit *is* rather
>> unusual for someone who wants to move around effectively.
>
>However, I think the goal was to depict her as exotic, not sexy.
I've worn similar outfits myself, so I can make a few comments about
it's utility.
It's as good as being naked for heat disipation. There's no hindrance
on the arm or torso movement whatsoever, and there's lots of support
provided. Pants are obviously baggy. Well suited for a character who
is not only supposed to be athletic, but is actively following a
'perfection of the body' path.
>In other words, Mialee, Devis, and Hennet might be dressed to look
>"sexy" and "revealing," but I think that says more about their jobs than
>the author's allegedly-sexist attitudes. They're dressed appropriately
>for their nature.
Aye. And then there's the counterpoint: the idea that women must
*never* be sexy is as false as the one claiming they must always be
so. We all like to be attractive, even those of us who realize
appearance is superficial.
ka...@ecn.ab.ca
wrote:
>> I mark this one 7 or so.
>
>Again, this says a lot more about your obsession with this issue than it
>says anything about reality. Especially when:
>
>>> p. 50: Hennet. OK, finally some serious cheesecake. 10.
>
>> Doing the "personal preference" thing again, Bradd? Hennet's
>> strutting his stuff all right, but I can't see this as an all-out
>> "sexalicious" image.
>
>You call Alhandra a 7, but you don't think Hennet is a 10?
If Alhandra's a 7, Hennet's a 12.
14 after accounting for personal taste >:-)
Karkadinn
>Not really... With Hide vs Studded Leather, it's an extra 10 feet of
>movement, about ten gold pieces cheaper, better dex bonus, and lower
>ACP, vs _1_ point of AC.
>
But druids don't get studded leather. ;P Besides, it's a flavor thing.
Y'know, Hercules and the lion skin.
>>Good grief. I take it your GM isn't sending in any of the less
>>intelligent/fearless/stupid monsters, beasts, et cetera?
>
>Oh, hells no.
Hmm. Have you asked him why not? Those categories of enemies, the "pure
monsters", as I like to think of them, make up a huge part of the game, after
all. I'd say they make up at least half of the entire enemy selection, with pc
and npc-ish races making up the other half.
>Well, against Undead I'm in trouble. No stunning, or coup de grace.
>So... And our GM doesn't give rewards for averting fights. <grumbles>
Hmmmmm. I'd tell him to start, or quit that campaign, in your position.
Peacemaking is just as much roleplaying as killing stuff, and should get you a
fair amount of xp. I mean, the DM is basically penalizing you for being too
NICE to people. Psh.
Reminds me of the Exile 3 system of granting xp... whatever character killed a
critter got the xp for its death, and this xp was not shared amongst the party
members. Consequently, you ended up with mages a few levels behind the
fighters (except in the really big "boss" battles, where their big boom spells
got back the difference in levels all at once), and priests lagged behind maybe
four or five levels since you needed them to heal and bless you. It really
sucked, and I'm rather glad they changed it to something more sensible for the
remake in Avernum 3.
Nockermensch
> Talen said:
>
> >>Druids can't wear studded leather.
> >>::grumbleoverstupidrelicsof2ndeditionrules::
> >
> >Eh.
> >
> >Leather then.
>
> That's like saying there shouldn't be any full plate because the fighters can
> make do with half plate instead. ;)
mithral full plate, geomancers(TM) best friend.
@ @ Nockermensch, making only short posts.
Hong Ooi
>
>It's a "twist" top -- usually these don't "fit" (nor stay on) as well as
>normally-tailored clothes, and represent a "look at me!" esthetic. Not a
>monk trait, IMHO.
>
>Now let's talk about the cleavage cutout... that's there because...? Oh,
>right: it enhances cooling-off, when she sweats in a fight </sarcasm>
>
[...]
D00d, you are starting to sound like you're reading the PHB one-handed.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Hong Ooi
>Now as for Sandy's POV
>Speaking as a woman who's not looking for female cheesecake or trying
>to decide what's best for children, here's my take on the female
>outfits. On the whole, I was pretty impressed with what I've seen
>in the book. The female figures are actually dressed for the most
>part, which is a substantial improvement on previous books. In
>particular I like the ranger's outfit,
Actually, I think Sovelliss is male.
Hong "it's an understandable mistake" Ooi
Nockermensch
<snip talk about Ember, a gal who does a wonderful job depicting her cha 8>
> Agreed on these (though what a monk is doing in "war-paint," I'm not sure;
> at least these aren't specifically sexual.)
>
> (But let's look at the top-knot issue: most fighters would look at this &
> say, "ooo... a handle!"
IYKWIM AITYD!
@ @ Nockermensch, ...
Wayne Shaw
>Reminds me of the Exile 3 system of granting xp... whatever character killed a
>critter got the xp for its death, and this xp was not shared amongst the party
Bushido had this system for the combatant classes (which was to say
the non-spellcasters); the big problem there was someone who did 95%
of the damage got nada while the killing blow striker got everything.
To say this could lead to some major intraparty stress is an
understatement...
Hunter
I've seen this used in RM as well. Then again the group also didn't
believe in party treasure, "if you found it, it was yours, if you
killed it, all it's loot was yours". Didn't play with them long.
James Robinson
cypher...@netscape.net (Hunter) wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2002 18:22:16 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Hunter <cypher...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>>> But I would need to see the stats on [Alhandra] to tell if the armor
> >>>> is inappropriate or not*. Armor now has trade-offs, so it might not
> >>>> be beneficial for her to wear heavy armor.
> >
> >> sNOm...@sonic.net wrote:
> >>> You're referring to a high-DEX character? I'll note, FWIW, that
> >>> Paladin's typically have enough other important characteristics (Str,
> >>> Con, Cha) that to have a high enough Dex on her would seem very
> >>> atypical.
> >
> >> Correct, but she could have replaced Str with Dex.
> >
> >She didn't, though. Alhandra's Dex is only 8. At 5th level, she wears
> >full plate armor, but she obviously can't afford it at 1st level.
>
> That would be it, since the armor is definately not full plate.
On the other hand, I had to go looking when someone mentioned she had
some of her chest exposed, and I have to disagree. That picture is so
saturated in yellows that it's hard to make hues out, but the patch it
looks like people are referring to is greyer and glossier than her skin.
I've always assumed it was, if not a breastplate, then something akin to
it.
--
James
Hunter
wrote:
That goes with the Rapier as a bad drawing.
Mark K Styles
"Hunter" wrote...
> James Robinson wrote:
> >I've always assumed it was, if not a breastplate, then something akin to
> >it.
> That goes with the Rapier as a bad drawing.
And the chainmail close-up (shudder). You'd think the illustrator would
have at least looked at a piece of chainmail before trying to draw it.
And it does actually look like a flesh-coloured breastplate, probably
intended to look like flesh on first glance.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
iirc Rolemaster has individual xp for maneuvers, spells cast,
criticals inflicted (and received), hits inflicted (and received) as
well as group rewards.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@bigpond.com
Hunter
>On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:07:54 GMT, cypher...@netscape.net (Hunter)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:46:24 -0700, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 30 Sep 2002 06:23:41 GMT, kark...@aol.com (Karkadinn) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Reminds me of the Exile 3 system of granting xp... whatever character killed a
>>>>critter got the xp for its death, and this xp was not shared amongst the party
>>>
>>>Bushido had this system for the combatant classes (which was to say
>>>the non-spellcasters); the big problem there was someone who did 95%
>>>of the damage got nada while the killing blow striker got everything.
>>>To say this could lead to some major intraparty stress is an
>>>understatement...
>>
>>I've seen this used in RM as well. Then again the group also didn't
>>believe in party treasure, "if you found it, it was yours, if you
>>killed it, all it's loot was yours". Didn't play with them long.
>
>iirc Rolemaster has individual xp for maneuvers, spells cast,
>criticals inflicted (and received), hits inflicted (and received) as
>well as group rewards.
That's supposed to happen but most of those depends on circumstances.
And were less xp than most monsters would earn.
I didn't say that the players were following the rules. Most of them
would've been characterised as munchkins.