RuneQuest II art

[SnowDog]

It has nothing to do with being offended by nudity. It has everything to do with treating the women as sex objects rather then real people.

I don't object to nudity or sexy attire when appropriate, but randomly making the sorcerer wear almost no clothes because she's a woman is what I find objectionable.

The picture with the arrows was nice but the sorceress and the "cotton" rune pictures were a bit much.

Although there is the possibility that I'll be pleasantly surprised and all the spell casters, male or female will be clad in similar attire and it's just the style for spell caster art in MRQ2 I don't see that scenario as too likely.

Okay, I got your point now. I don't know why but I don't (especially drawn) pictures like making women sex objects. After all, there has been a lot of naked women (as well as men) in historical art and those pieces are considered classical art, too.

While I like my eye candy I like it to be in context, too. Maybe the sorceress with the dragon belongs to a cult that encourages such garment or she lives in a place that is pretty hot etc. (like Barsoonians, who were pretty much naked apart from utility harnesses).

I don't see a way that every spell caster in RQII will be almost naked because there was already a picture of a thief in a tree and I think that he had that "invisibility" spell on (probably at the pretty low magnitude).

 

[Jotenbjorn]

Do you have the same problem with shirtless barbarian men in game art? Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[SnowDog]

Umm... I suppose you haven't read the RuneQuest II preview 2 thread from where I took this. If you read carefully, you can see where I stand on this topic. As suggested by Vile, I created a new thread where this could be discussed if someone wanted.

All I was saying was that I was trying to find a reasoning for such a clothing in the picture because it would make it much more relevant to context beside being pleasant to eye

So, Jotenbjorn pay attention before writing and see who wrote what, eh?

 

[AxeMurder]

Amusingly enough the Conan slave girl art doesn't bother me since I expect something Conan themed to objectify women and treat them as sex objects.

Neither does the scantily clad Elf Quest art bother me (there, both the male and female characters wear very revealing outfits)

What bothers me is that in the 1980s AH Runequest there is a nice gender balance in the art between male/female characters while in the artwork provided for us so far for MRQ2 we've seen (with my commentary added):

Preview 1:
Armor (Nice picture, no people)

"Cotton" Rune (Runes!... here's a picture of some breasts so you'll associate Runes with sex)

Preview 2:
Lock Picking (Neat picture, person from behind of unidentified gender, has fairly long hair though)

Drowning Warrior (Remember, not only do men get to be big and tough, but they are also bigger then sharks)

Arrow Dodging (Nice combat action shot of a woman wearing a reasonable amount of armor. Unfortunately a rare find)

Bandit (Not much to say here, reminds me of Robbin Hood)

Spell Casting Thong Woman (High heels, thongs, collars and leather bras make one effective at spell casting and combat right?)

Broo (All Broo are male by definition, I pictured them with less mange but nothing wrong here)


That turned into a much longer post then I initially intended but nevertheless 2/3s of the clearly female characters we've seen seem to be wearing very little for no reason other then they are female

 

[SnowDog]

Amusingly enough the Conan slave girl art doesn't bother me since I expect something Conan themed to objectify women and treat them as sex objects.

True

"Cotton" Rune (Runes!... here's a picture of some breasts so you'll associate Runes with sex)

Where do people get this idea about "cotton rune"? :shock:

To me she looks like a spell using "exotic dancer", that's all. I don't know which one of us is more twisted, you or me. You for making the connection between Runes and sex or for me not seeing the connection :lol:

Preview 2:
Lock Picking (Neat picture, person from behind of unidentified gender, has fairly long hair though)

I thought that the thief was a male, somehow...

Drowning Warrior (Remember, not only do men get to be big and tough, but they are also bigger then sharks)

Remember the perspective. Maybe the sharks are at the distance that they just look smaller. Hmm... I suppose you were just sarcastic

Arrow Dodging (Nice combat action shot of a woman wearing a reasonable amount of armor. Unfortunately a rare find)

Also, by far the weakest drawing in the previews, IMHO. Not a bad drawing but as evocative as the others. The lock picker is by far better, IMHO and still a sort of neutral.

Bandit (Not much to say here, reminds me of Robbin Hood)

I really like it. There is something ominous about the bandit...

Spell Casting Thong Woman (High heels, thongs, collars and leather bras make one effective at spell casting and combat right?)

True, but it still looks nice

Broo (All Broo are male by definition, I pictured them with less mange but nothing wrong here)

I have never played in Glorantha but I have understood that Broo can breed with (almost?) any other species so maybe there is no such a thing as "female" Broo? After all those things are of Chaos...

 

[Mikko Leho]

MRQ2 aims to be generic rulebook and there is no (much) background attached. So you can attach what ever meaning or reasoning to illustrations found within. While gender equality might be desired from the game background point of view, generic rules can be used in the most depraved campaign. Also fantasy is about imagining the impossible so well-armored warrior amazons are just as "real" as the less covered babes of battle.

 

[Tal]

"Cotton" Rune (Runes!... here's a picture of some breasts so you'll associate Runes with sex)

Where do people get this idea about "cotton rune"? :shock:

The "Cotton Rune" came in from Loz in one of his posts. I percieved his reply as a joke. It looks like it has since stuck to that image. look at the first preveiw thread to see the context.

 

[Loz]

I percieved his reply as a joke.

It was. It still is.

 

[SnowDog]

Ah, okay

Thanks!

 

[Tal]

I percieved his reply as a joke.

It was. It still is.

That wasn't a comment on you. Just some people seem touchy on the internet so I was siding with caution. I actually thought it funny and can't wait to see what the opposed rune is! :shock:

The only thing I will say now on the art until I see the full book is that ,so far, overall the artists seem more technically skilled in their execution than the previous edition, except for the picture of the bandit in the tree with the scued perspective on the carriage. The shark picture actually looks like it has decent perspective with a point of view looking up at the man who is closer to you and the sharks circling above and behind some distance away.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I actually thought it funny and can't wait to see what the opposed rune is! :shock:

Velcro? :wink:

 

[soltakss]

Since artwork's main purpose seems to be to fill up space that would otherwise be taken up with useful text, I'd just scrap the artwork entirely.

Problem solved.

 

[TrippyHippy]

What about some photos of Angelina Jolie or Naomi Watts?

I'll get my coat.....

 

[Trifletraxor]

With a cotton sex rune in the 2nd edition, maybe Mongoose will want to use our infamous "Got milk?" illustration for the new Glorantha book? :twisted:

SGL.

 

[Tal]

Do you have the same problem with shirtless barbarian men in game art? Yeah, didn't think so.

There was a picture of a shirtless man in the MRII signs & portents article. There was what looked like a muscular pirate in just a vest and pants. I hate it when they objectify men that way :wink:

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Exploiting others for mere entertainment is always wrong.

Of course, when I do it to myself it's hilariously funny.