Reply: Aeolis:: General:: Re: New art work

by Irrevenant

spanna wrote:

I mentioned on another thread - Gloom of Kilforth showed how subtle changes can be made to make a less sexualised version. I hope they end up adopting a similar approach, because it will not be good to have minis that don't reflect the artwork - making the gme more confusing for players is not good.

e.g. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9PjlKqIYzno/XJlES_KRijI/AAAAAAAAv...

and

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zzdkWtwnscw/XJlESx-74CI/AAAAAAAAv...

I reckon both of these would be feasible to paint a mini to either version with even basic painting / modelling skills

I agree with the general point, but I'd point out that nudity and sexualisation aren't always the same thing. Changing the outfit on Tobacco Pipe doesn't change that the character is making bedroom eyes at the camera for no good reason. Conversely, a character can be half or fully naked without the pose being sexualised.

Consider the following two pictures of Red Sonja wearing the exact same outfit: One, Two. One is sexualised and one isn't.

There are also cases where sexualisation is in character. For example, Catwoman dresses and acts sexy as a deliberate, in-character manipulation tactic so cheesecake poses make sense on her.

Personally I'm pretty cool with nudity where it makes sense. For example the naked slave makes sense because it emphasises that a slave has and is nothing. Similarly it makes sense for nature spirits to wear nothing because nudity is a natural state. To me putting tgem in cheesecake poses for no reason is much more egregious than justified nudity.