While not a bikini armor issue, this is a very important one which relates to the same core problem – complete disrespect for a group of people’s humanity.
In this case it is a case of Monte Cook Games (probably the most influential independent studio in pen-and-paper roleplaying) refusing to respect Native Americans and treat them as people rather than as a racist fantasy trope. In summary:
Monte Cook Games have been asked to remove from publication a small part of one of their settings, literally just a few very non-essential pages among hundreds on a project that went well over goal on Kickstarter.
Monte Cook Games is an independent yet hugely influential publisher – Monte Cook himself was a major voice in creating Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition and was almost involved in the most recent edition too. A large part of a generation of role players look to him as a hero and his team includes other industry giants.
It’s appalling that a studio with this much autonomy and influence would choose to perpetuate these dehumanizing tropes and stereotypes then further belittle the people who suffer for it.
As such starshineexx has created the linked petition and we encourage everyone to help out by lending their voices to this cause and let an influential studio know that this just is not acceptable.
While not a bikini armor issue, this is a very important one which relates to the same core problem – complete disrespect for a group of people’s humanity.
In this case it is a case of Monte Cook Games (probably the most influential independent studio in pen-and-paper roleplaying) refusing to respect Native Americans and treat them as people rather than as a racist fantasy trope. In summary:
Monte Cook Games have been asked to remove from publication a small part of one of their settings, literally just a few very non-essential pages among hundreds on a project that went well over goal on Kickstarter.
Monte Cook Games is an independent yet hugely influential publisher – Monte Cook himself was a major voice in creating Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition and was almost involved in the most recent edition too. A large part of a generation of role players look to him as a hero and his team includes other industry giants.
It’s appalling that a studio with this much autonomy and influence would choose to perpetuate these dehumanizing tropes and stereotypes then further belittle the people who suffer for it.
As such starshineexx has created the linked petition and we encourage everyone to help out by lending their voices to this cause and let an influential studio know that this just is not acceptable.
We’ve been noted by several watchers that Blizzard, in response to Overwatch female character designs criticism, added a new heroine to the game’s roster, Zarya.
i noticed this wasn’t submitted yet. i could totally be wrong. but Blizzard’s new game Overwatch just released a new character and i think she looks fairly decent. the boob/sleeveless shirt is a bit meh? but hey its probably supposed to be form fitting/Underarmour type shirt so maybe its supposed to look like that http://us.battle.net/overwatch/en/heroes/zarya/
Sas Alexander submitted:
So, I have seen Overwatch mentioned here before, and I just found Blizzard added 2 new characters to the game. One of them is Zarya, a muscular, Russian woman in a pretty cool armor. And why? Because the fans asked for diversity! She still have a booblate, but it’s at least a progression.
I’m curious if any of you have seen the new female character announced for Overwatch. Her name is Zarya. She isn’t perfect, but I think it’s a step in the right direction. Thoughts?
Gotta admit, she looks glorious. Not as glory-ous as Joe Keatinge/Sophie Campbell Glory, but close, and we sincerely hope she’s a start for more genuine body diversity among Blizzard’s heroines.
With Blizzard’s less-than-stellar track record, Zarya is merely a baby step. A step in the right direction, but nonetheless a baby step.
~Ozzie
In isolation, I have to admit those guns alone make her pretty awesome despite the boobplate. However, much like with another “band aid” female character, Bellona – I can’t help but see a lot of issues with this:
Maybe it’s just the haircut, way they’ve stylized her features and the gorget… but I can’t help but think she reminds me of a certain man and if he was a visual inspiration it’s all kinds of problematic.
Blizzard have a history of saying they recognize a problem, they’re going to fix it, making a token effort to look like improving and then going back to their old ways.
If someone promises to do something, delivers trash and then says they’ll fix it – it’s kind of nice if they bring you a little gift… but only if they actually fix what they promised. Blizzard hasn’t done that, they’ve just done a rush job that’s broken them out of “all women are skinny” mold.
They haven’t gone and fixed the original designs, they haven’t admitted they made some major design mistakes or fixed anything in the line up aside from add a new female character.
I mean don’t get me wrong… I’m thrilled that they decided to make a female heavy weapons expert and I hope that this helps every studio get over their fear of creating female characters that don’t look like Barbie – but it doesn’t fix any of the other problems, or show any willingness to.
edit: Changed Sophie Campbell’s name accordingly in my comment. Thanks to starryeyeddowner for the heads up! edit 2: fixed the link to above artist’s Glory gallery
I assume you’re referring to this blather where Matt Cavotta tried to explain that he didn’t want to be responsible for his decisions are Creative Lead and basically didn’t want to do his job (which is probably why he isn’t the creative lead anywhere anymore). He also admits (Myth #5) that he doesn’t speak for Wizards of the Coast (WotC), just himself.
If you actually read it though, there’s a few very damning points here and a lot of strawmanning and standard issue rhetoric while throwing his fellow artists under the bus. See how he keeps referencing the style guide and saying “Well they’re not doing anything they’re not allowed to… creative freedom!”
Avoid making things look high-tech or sci-fi. Magic stretches the definition of “fantasy,” but there are limits.
Don’t use real-world letters or symbols. This includes religious symbols such as crosses and ankhs.
Keep gore at a PG-13 level.
Because we sell Magic cards in China, please avoid prominently representing human skulls or full skeletons.
And of course:
Make an effort to illustrate a variety of races, genders, ages, and body types.
Feel free to paint beautiful women, as long as they’re shown kicking ass. No damsels in distress. No ridiculously exaggerated breasts. No nudity.
Despite all the do’s and don’ts, we want you to have fun! If you want to experiment or bend a rule, just run your idea by the art director.
See, art directors and their bosses are supposed to supplement guides and provide guidance to artists so that the artist creates the best possible product for the company and the artist themselves. It helps to fix mistakes and smooth out issues, this one was an issue in 2005 when Matt made his statement and it’s continued tobe one.
Now, there are several things that WotC can and should have done before 2005 to fix this. By could I mean both as part of being a responsible company and in terms of trying to maintain brand image and profits:
Amend the standard style guide to be more specific about the depictions of women
Tell the art directors, creative leads and other creative staff to be vigilant about this issue and to pro-actively provide guidance to the contracted artists
Include a separate document in the artist package stating their concerns and expectations specifically depictions of female characters
WotC easily had the infrastructure to do this by 2000 – I know this because I worked for WotC in the early 2000s (up until July 2005 in fact) as an online chat room moderator and even in this minor role I had to sign an NDA, memorize pages of regulations and undergo supervised training. When I left, they were not slowing down on that in the slightest.
This has nothing to do with Wizards of the Coast wanting to be a cool relaxed company, or offer artist freedom or being somehow unable to make decisions on what they do and don’t publish – it’s that they simply haven’t cared to properly address this issue and set high standards for things other than being viable to sell in China and Walmart.
They publish things, they are responsible for the what they publish. It’s that simple. They have more power than the artists over what gets published because they have the ability to refuse, crop or edit submitted artwork – artists, on the other hand, can only get published if they meet the publisher’s expectations… and then it might get cropped or edited.
– wincenworks
Also, themystisk, even if the nonsense you wrote somehow WAS true, it would still prove our point:
It would mean that Wizards of the Coast is completely irresponsible with how they conduct art commissions (because apparently they don’t care at all about what artwork is produced with their money). Such a sound business practice!
It would also mean that fantasy artists are by default all pervy and whenever asked to draw anything remotely female, they deliver “the sexy”, even when not asked for sexyness specifically.
Either way, it’s part of a larger problem with media’s and society’s expectations towards women. Blaming random bad artists for it is just a disingenuous, oversimplified answer and offers no solutions to the issue.
I would just like to point out that WotC have addressed the state of dress that characters in the art for their cards are in, and for all of their other merchandise for that matter. They simply commission an artist to draw, say “Elf rogue in cityscape”, that the artist then hands them a female in skimpy leather armor, isn’t their fault. Essentially, they give the artists pretty free reins, and if they manage to fit the description given, it usually goes through. So blame the artists, not WotC.
I assume you’re referring to this blather where Matt Cavotta tried to explain that he didn’t want to be responsible for his decisions are Creative Lead and basically didn’t want to do his job (which is probably why he isn’t the creative lead anywhere anymore). He also admits (Myth #5) that he doesn’t speak for Wizards of the Coast (WotC), just himself.
If you actually read it though, there’s a few very damning points here and a lot of strawmanning and standard issue rhetoric while throwing his fellow artists under the bus. See how he keeps referencing the style guide and saying “Well they’re not doing anything they’re not allowed to… creative freedom!”
Avoid making things look high-tech or sci-fi. Magic stretches the definition of “fantasy,” but there are limits.
Don’t use real-world letters or symbols. This includes religious symbols such as crosses and ankhs.
Keep gore at a PG-13 level.
Because we sell Magic cards in China, please avoid prominently representing human skulls or full skeletons.
And of course:
Make an effort to illustrate a variety of races, genders, ages, and body types.
Feel free to paint beautiful women, as long as they’re shown kicking ass. No damsels in distress. No ridiculously exaggerated breasts. No nudity.
Despite all the do’s and don’ts, we want you to have fun! If you want to experiment or bend a rule, just run your idea by the art director.
See, art directors and their bosses are supposed to supplement guides and provide guidance to artists so that the artist creates the best possible product for the company and the artist themselves. It helps to fix mistakes and smooth out issues, this one was an issue in 2005 when Matt made his statement and it’s continued tobe one.
Now, there are several things that WotC can and should have done before 2005 to fix this. By could I mean both as part of being a responsible company and in terms of trying to maintain brand image and profits:
Amend the standard style guide to be more specific about the depictions of women
Tell the art directors, creative leads and other creative staff to be vigilant about this issue and to pro-actively provide guidance to the contracted artists
Include a separate document in the artist package stating their concerns and expectations specifically depictions of female characters
WotC easily had the infrastructure to do this by 2000 – I know this because I worked for WotC in the early 2000s (up until July 2005 in fact) as an online chat room moderator and even in this minor role I had to sign an NDA, memorize pages of regulations and undergo supervised training. When I left, they were not slowing down on that in the slightest.
This has nothing to do with Wizards of the Coast wanting to be a cool relaxed company, or offer artist freedom or being somehow unable to make decisions on what they do and don’t publish – it’s that they simply haven’t cared to properly address this issue and set high standards for things other than being viable to sell in China and Walmart.
They publish things, they are responsible for the what they publish. It’s that simple. They have more power than the artists over what gets published because they have the ability to refuse, crop or edit submitted artwork – artists, on the other hand, can only get published if they meet the publisher’s expectations… and then it might get cropped or edited.
– wincenworks
Also, themystisk, even if the nonsense you wrote somehow WAS true, it would still prove our point:
It would mean that Wizards of the Coast is completely irresponsible with how they conduct art commissions (because apparently they don’t care at all about what artwork is produced with their money). Such a sound business practice!
It would also mean that fantasy artists are by default all pervy and whenever asked to draw anything remotely female, they deliver “the sexy”, even when not asked for sexyness specifically.
Either way, it’s part of a larger problem with media’s and society’s expectations towards women. Blaming random bad artists for it is just a disingenuous, oversimplified answer and offers no solutions to the issue.
