Wednesday, January 11, 2012

An Open Letter to D&D Next’s Art Department

Everyone is talking about what features they want to see in the next version of Dungeons & Dragons. Personally, though, I understand that I will very likely not see my pet mechanics in the core of the game, or even in expansions, because I’m one of those crazy kids who grew up lurking on The Forge and has some pretty fucked up ideas about games, gaming, and game design. Also, I don’t think I have anything useful to add to the dialogue until I see the direction the design is going in. I can guess, and I can suggest a direction that I think would be beneficial to the game, but I can’t really improve a design I’ve never seen. I will be much more concerned with making D&DV the best it can be and much less concerned with pigeonholing it to fit whatever I think the essence of D&D is.

So instead, I’m going to talk to another very important part of the Dungeons & Dragons experience. I’m going to talk about art. Which is a pretty hefty step away from what I normally look at, because there are times when I write enormous posts (like this one) that don’t even have pictures. I’m very much a wall-of-text blogger, so it might seem a little unorthodox that I would be as worried about the direction of the art as I am. But I am very, very, deeply concerned about the direction of the art in this game, and I would like to invite the art department, particularly those in decision-making positions, to pay close attention to what I am about to say next:

Dungeons & Dragons is still seen as a sexist game, and you are the only people in the world who can fix that.

It’s not just sexist, though. It’s sexist, it’s racist, and it’s ableist in its artistic representation of people. Now, I’ve heard all the arguments against having people of color and women depicted in the art of a fantasy role-playing game, and I think they’re all hooey. And to be fair, there has been headway made. I have seen progress, especially from the chainmail bikini era of game art.

And I’m not accusing anyone of purposefully excluding people of color, the differently abled or women from their depictions of heroic figures. Anyone who is actively trying to exclude or belittle people from their game is a dickbag, and it is very likely that will come through in the game itself (Byron Hall, I’m looking at you). What is happening is primarily blindness to the issue. So I am going to make a request, and it is my sincere hope that you, the art department responsible for the look and feel of D&D Next will take it under advisement.

First:

Women make up 52% of the world’s population. They can make up 50% of the people in your game’s art. Moreover, the exact number of pictures in which a woman is standing in an Impossible Position is 0. For every piece of art submitted, have the artist attempt to pose him or herself in the positions of the people depicted. If either person’s position is painful, that pose is very likely held by a female character whose breasts and buttocks are pressed out to increase her sexiness.

Wizards of the Coast has very clearly established that sexiness is not something they believe Dungeons & Dragons needs. If there were room for sex in D&D, the Book of Erotic Fantasy would have been updated to Fourth Edition. You specifically precluded the possibility of that happening in your licensing for a reason. If sexiness is a factor in how D&D art is chosen, something has gone terribly wrong.

Second:

Human skin comes in a lot of colors from black to white to yellow to red to brown. Human features come in a huge range of styles and types. I understand that we’re playing in a fantasy world where the various skin tones in reality may not be as prevalent. But I also know that in said fantasy world all of the monks look Asian. Even the elves.

Have some fun drawing black dudes in mage robes or brown chicks in plate mail. Evenly distribute the skin tones across the whole of your books, and the problem of racism mostly disappears (except, y’know, the “Goblins are evil because they’re green,” issue). And this doesn’t just go for the humans, guys. Elves obviously have some skin tone variation going on (Oh, hey Drizzt.). Dwarves can go from chestnut brown to fair skinned. I love the idea of charcoal-skinned halflings and a range of skin-tones for half-orcs from phthalo green to honeydew. All this does is make the art more interesting, and add depth that might otherwise be missing from the depiction of the game world.

Third:

Ableism is a tough thing to address in a role-playing game. I get that. It’s tough to be a bad-ass knight if you can’t walk. Being an amputee isn’t cool… Wait a fucking minute, yeah it is! Ahab lost a leg to a whale and was a total badass. Bran Stark is paralyzed from the waist down and he’s one of the most interesting characters in A Song of Ice and Fire. Rick Grimes loses a hand and goes batfuck crazy, but he’s one of the toughest assholes to survive the zombie apocalypse.

Making the differently abled a part of your game world is easier than it sounds. Hell, one of my players built a character whose hand had been cut off and some asshole was out there wearing it around his neck. It didn’t come with any penalties or anything, it was just a flavor thing that made him a total badass, and it was all description. Characters that are Big Damn Heroes despite having challenges above and beyond the norm are awesome, and should be shown to be so in game art.

Fourth:

This is sort of a minor point, but it’s one I’d like to make anyway: having characters of various sizes and shapes is not at all unrealistic, nor does it reduce the heroic aspect of the fantasy. Look at any successful fantasy series ever, and you’re going to find a bunch of different body shapes, because different body shapes are something we understand, something we _get_. Moreover, it doesn’t hurt to reduce the impact of stereotypical, hyper-sexualized imagery in the media you’re creating. Give me some pudgy mages and some scrawny fighters, please.

All I’m looking for, what I’m really asking you for, is to look critically at the message your art sends to the people who will be looking at it. ALL of the people who will be looking at it. Ask yourself, if you were in the shoes of a feminist, what would you think of this illustration? If you lived in a wheelchair, how would you feel about seeing nothing but able-bodied folk?

And you can argue, if you like, that this is just the opinion of a privileged white guy. Because, y’know, it is. I’m not a woman, I’m not a minority, and my only disability is depression. But I’m just the voice for a silent riot, guys. There are others like me, and there are some who have made a great show of picking apart the inherent sexism, racism and ableism of your art. And we’re speaking for a much larger group of people you will never hear from, but who feel uncomfortable playing your game because it depicts women, minorities and the differently abled as something less than the able-bodied white dudes on page after page.

Sincerely,
Kristoffer Hansen
Games Manager
Warp One Comics and Games

Further Reading:
Go Make Me a Sandwich
Women Fighters in Reasonable Armor

36 comments:

Del Johnston said...

This is a really good post, and I almost feel bad for raging about any sort of mechanical stuff when there's important things like this. 4e at least gave us a typical male and female on every single race's page in PHB1/2/3, but you're absolutely right that this should be addressed.

Del Johnston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Draco said...

Well said, sir.

The links at the end of your post seem to be missing, though.

Jon Schindehette said...

Thanks for the post (and pointing it out to me on twitter @ArtOrder). Guess what? I hear ya.

Not only do I here you, but I invite you to come join me when I start writing articles on the D&D website. I'll be talking about a whole heap of issues that I know interest folks. How do I know? I've been asking.

So, if you want to be part of the discussion about art, art style, artists, logos, look and feel and a whole slew of other subjects - then come check it out.

Sure, I'll be doing some of the talking, but I'll also be asking lots of questions and listening to the answers. Come have a voice in YOUR D&D.

and in the mean time...come join us at ArtOrder for more talk on art in the world of SFF.

Kris Hansen said...

Draco: Links are fixed, and I threw in one to the Forge in the introduction for good measure.

Jon: I'm glad to help in any way I can.

Wayne Parker said...

Very good post. Although I love fantasy art for it's fantastic potential in imaginative worlds, wizards, trolls, elves and just Epic-ness, you've covered all the basics of what I've been thinking about the genre for a loooong time.

Margaret Organ-Kean said...

Hurrah! Hurrah!

Tallifer said...

Sorry, but I like my fantasy to be fantastic, exciting, titillating, unrealistic and dreamy. I want beautiful women and powerful champions and humourous little goblins. I completely disagree with your post and its intent. Although I do understand your point, I must reject it.

Matthew said...

If i only liked hot dogs, most people would not agree that steak sucked and should not be served - they would advise me to try and broaden my tastes.

If someone can't appreciate good art that includes strong women as well as men, a wide array of skin tones, body types, and abilities, that's a problem with them, not a problem with the art.

To imply that all art should be catered to one's own tastes is both unimaginative and selfish.

Brendan said...

I think the spirit behind your post is a good one, but I would like to nuance the argument a bit.

First, sexism and sexuality are not the same things. There has always been sexuality in fantasy literature, and a game about make-believe that tries to ignore this or paper it over will feel sterile and flat. Rather than only giving us sexualized females though, give us some sexualized males too! For every Ren Sonja in a chain mail bikini, give us a Conan.

Your point about ableism is more problematic for me. For example, one of the traditional elements of old school D&D is that people can carry two things. A pair of weapons, or a sword & shield, or a sword & torch, for example. Your example of a character with only one hand would be at a disadvantage in my game because of this. Of course, that character would also have an awesome backstory (even cooler if it happened during play). A character in a wheelchair would also be at a disadvantage in a dungeon crawl, as ramps are not likely to be helpfully installed everywhere. I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I would point out that this is not really different than one character being tougher than another (more HP, higher constitution) and in the games I play, there is no problem with this. Balance is not a primary concern. Playing a character with fewer HP is like playing a video game in hard mode, and just like in real life, it is often the people that start off challenged that rise the highest.

seaofstarsrpg said...

You have my support with this idea. A variety of heroes and heroines (and villains too) is always welcome in fantasy art especially for RPGs.

Anonymous said...

We don't need sexism in dnd and your proof is that 4e didnt get a book of erotic fantasy.

Thats some lame ass kind of retconing of the situation. Unlike a lot of literature, Dndism has two of three 'pulp' genres included. Things like conan, 50's men action adventure pulps, and noir all leave a pretty big influence and not to include them (somewhat) would be a big fucking boatload of revisionism on the design teams part. Like it or not, the chainmail bikini was part of our history and will continue to be part of our play.

I also find your talk about how to deal with cripes to be amuzing considering your 'growing up' on the forge. The forge if it was about one thing was about a certain amount of authenticity, the opposite of illusionism if you will. Where illusionism is literally making artistic choices that have NO influence on the game (something like Having a peg leg for giggles or missing a hand and not being penalized for it, or choosing to go left or right on your way to the next rigidly programed encounter). I'm glad you admitted that this is at least hard because what your suggesting (aint it cool disabilities) is more or less as bad as ignoring them. Galmorization, Fetiszation are the opposite side of the coin of not being normal or disappeared.

And this isn't me picking you on cause your a privledged white guy. This is me picking on you cause I don't think you really got the point behind those feminists / abelissts / anti racists / oppressive chick pamphlets you picked up. The idea is that they have real problems in the real world (ie a bunch of douchbag players that think that everyone in a wheelchair is retarded or that its okay to hit on the one girl in the group constantly or whatever) that needs addressing ,not that the
content of 4 privledged white dudes imaginary game is keeping them down.

Draco said...

I've written up my thoughts as a response in a guest post here: http://teamvalkyrieftw.tumblr.com/post/15730917981/a-response-to-an-open-letter-to-dnd-nexts-art

David Flor said...

"We don't need sexism in dnd and your proof is that 4e didnt get a book of erotic fantasy"

Let the record show that Wizards of the Coast themselves altered their licensing (both the d20 STL and the 4E GSL) by adding a "quality standards" provision.

I quote the GSL:

"6. Quality and Content Standards. The nature and quality of all Licensed Products will conform to the quality standards set by Wizards, as may be provided from time to time. At a minimum, the Licensed Products will conform to community standards of decency and appropriateness as determined by Wizards in its discretion."

So, simple answer: the BoEF doesn't exist for D&D 4E because it CAN'T.

Burke said...

Bravo, sir. Agreed 100%.

Sexy art involving females should be balanced with sexy art involving males.

There should be non-sexy females, and stereotype-flipping characters, as you said.

Basically, if you're creating a guide for players and DMs, don't just show them the same standard archetypes they're familiar with. Show them they CAN create the most colorful characters they can imagine.

It's up to the DM whether or not an injury counts as a numeric disadvantage, or just colorful description. Frankly I'd think any injury would only have an impact on rolls until the character had sufficient time or training to adapt. Adventurers SHOULD get injured! It's a dangerous job! So saying that D&D art shouldn't include the differently abled is a bit.. anti-adventurer, isn't it?

Callin said...

I despise political correctness.

Mitchell said...

Callin, this isn't about political correctness. This is about building a game world that is actually realistic and engaging, instead of flat and sterile.

Why, for instance, is almost everybody white when the world itself will likely have varying bands of radiation which DIRECTLY affect skin pigmentation, just like the Earth? Why wouldn't a halfling have melanin in his skin cells to protect him from the increased radiation of a desert?

Why are women always highly-sexualized and, dare I say, slutty? Would a female mage not feel the need to cover up in the middle of a goddamn snowstorm? I'm not asking them to cover up Barbarians or do away with sex outright, but I think the world becomes richer from having some badass women in fullplate now and again, or having women with varying bodytypes.

And what would be wrong with permanent disfigurements in D&D? You play somebody who is, realistically, being stabbed, set on fire, bludgeoned, and brutalized for a living. Expecting to see some handicapped or even mutilated people in the D&D world is not asking much.

The fact that this is all done based on rampant ethnocentrism inherent to the fantasy genre is almost an aside to the fact that these changes would be beneficial even without considering their political correctness. What's more, if we're playing this perfectly honest, saying you don't like this to be politically correct is like saying "I am a privileged asshole who advocates sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, and ableism, usually because I'm a white male who has never experienced the hardships of being a social minority." Of course, your case might be different--but I'd be willing to bet it is not. Asking for changes like the ones proposed here are simply requests to see people presented more fairly and accurately in order to prevent the continuation of long-term social stigma which plague minorities. If you oppose this positive change, it's like spitting on the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights Movement, and Disabled Movement in one moronic swoop. Good luck with that.

Kelly said...

Reminds me of how Ursula K Le Guin shat bricks every time someone adapted Tales of Earthsea - despite her fantasy realm being explicitly described as having a range of brown-skinned people, somehow every adaptation had a fully white cast.

From a nerd girl to you, Kris, thank you *so much* for this post. There are not enough people like you who can peel away the selfishness that privilege instills. Variety is not political correctness - appealing to *all* people is not destroying the fantasy for a group of people. Didn't we already have this discussion re: Dragon Age? Diversity = AWESOME!
People need to broaden their vision of a perfect fantasy world. Because if it's just rampant with beefy white fighters and rollicking betittied waifish white she-warriors, that sounds like a pretty boring ass game night.

Matthew, I really like your steak analogy, hahah. I don't understand why people get butthurt when games don't exclude others so that they can cater to a single group.

Anonymous said...

If you want permanent disfigurements, Rolemaster or Runequest might be more appropriate. You can correct me when your version of equal opportunity makes it mainstream in fantasy movies, anime, etc.

Mitchell said...

Nice appeal to popularity there, anonymous. Because nothing says "I'm right" like a logical fallacy.

Kevin Smith said...

Great post. You've articulated many points I've thought about in my years playing the game. You do however step-around one point in regard to the games "racist" dimensions - and understandably so, but I still think it bears mentioning.

Racism is a system of privilege based upon the color of one's skin. This system of privilege is then supported by certain, essentialist beliefs about the supposed biological differences of race (i.e. all black people this, all Asian people that, all white people this...)

By using "race" as a signifier of difference and ability (even in a fantasy RPG), D&D continues to operate within a discourse that has shaped a belief system of biological racial distinction. Race is a social construction, and is based on a set of assumptions regarding difference, but as scientists have proven since the 60's, there is as much DNA diversity between two white people as there are between a white person and black person. So, those levels of difference exist between all people and not solely between what are assumed to be biologically, racially distinctive groups.

What I'm saying, in a long-winded way (my apologies), is this: is it time to re-evaluate the game mechanic known as "race" in favor of something that no longer resembles the out-dated notion of race as a biological category?

Should we kill the "sacred cow" of race as a game mechanic so that it no longer resembles the discourse of real world race and biological essentialism?

Mage-Ou said...

Every once in a while you see some crazy stereotypes in D&D. Drow are the "ultimate evil race" who just happen to have dark skin and are ruled women. Huh?

I was inspired by An Open Letter.. to talk about a related problem: sex in D&D art. See the full discussion at http://5eworld.blogspot.com/.

Kris Hansen said...

I posted a note regarding sex in the text of D&D at http://giantsbridge.blogspot.com/2012/01/lets-talk-about-5-e-x.html. Just thought the folks taking a look at this one would like to know.

Anonymous said...

Michell, welcome to democracy. You may live in a bubble where everyone agrees with you, but when you write an open letter to the big wide world, the majority/mainstream opinion is just as important as yours.

Michael Thom Art said...

I agree with this, would be great to see some art representing all walks of life, different body structures and shapes, but the fantastic heroes are always cool to see, too! I would love to see some of the old school artists from early AD&D mixed in the rulebooks with the newer artists as well. Some Easley, Brom, Elmore, etc. Just my take;)

Anonymous said...

Brilliant. Your thoughts on the social woes of humankind would have been useful had they addressed the root of the problem and been sent to the UN rather than being centered on the decorative imagery of a game that reaches very few people compared to the planet's total population.

Let's test this shall we? Imagine if you will (I assume you can use your imagination, after all you play games that require said ability) that your copy of your 3rd or 4th Edition PH or whatever you own, has altered art, fit to suit your needs. Does this satisfy you? Maybe. Does it make the game any better. I don't think so. Does it solve the social problems you mentioned? Definitely not. Nor do the game's current depictions add any to the problem. Remember, just because you have infinite time to spend counting the rat species illustrated in a D&D book to see if any got cut short and heartbroken, doesn't mean the rest of the planet does.

While you are whining about racial bigotry supposedly expressed in the illustrative art of a game that clearly states all the time that you can choose any sex, any race, any color, someone out there is being whacked to death because he/she is black, or Muslim, or christian, or female, or gay or whatever. A bigot won't change due to D&D my friend. And if the illustrations were somehow arranged to accommodate what you propose, and one were a racist and wished to express that within the game also, there is nothing to say he can't. Even the rules are elastic in these games, a property I am always amazed to see being ignored by nit picking people like they're on a quest to make an all encompassing rule system.

Still, if they do this, will anyone notice? I wouldn't. Only if the art got worse as a consequence, which it probably will. But then, we'll have Asians complaining that one book had one illustration that showed more black and white flesh than yellow, Indians will want a say into it and pretty soon someone will want illustrations of barbarians breast feeding. At least when the green-grey Martians visit, they won't feel that D&D will be anti-Martian right?

Also, because I am a professional illustrator, you do not seem to understand either the purpose of the illustrations nor the difficulty it would bring to an artist to design a meaningful composition with a pink dwarf, teal elf and a bright glowing yellow orc, fighting a black and blue polka dot dragon. The purpose of these is to decorate the book, make it look epic, cool convey mystery, adventure, action and sell it! If someone thinks the game is racist because the hero has large arms and is white, while the female thief is crouching in an extreme and provocative manner and is black, that's his problem.

Maybe going out and actually seeing that 9 out of 10 women actually sell themselves as high class escorts anyway (and it's ok if it makes them happy and they get anything out of it) will let that person know that there is a reality that doesn't coincide with a 'perfect' sterile PC world. But then again maybe all those people play the sexist, racist and atheist (is the last one really a problem? Religion is a bane!) game of D&D.

Under these circumstances, I have a new proposition, one that will satisfy Obi-Wan here and his followers and that will help Wizards too. In Dungeons And Dragons:The Sequel to 4th Edition, I propose they don't illustrate the damn thing at all! No art. Not even any decorative framing to avoid making it look like it's Roman and not Gothic or Chinese so as to not insult anyone. The text is ambiguous and can be a little more, and anyone wanting any pink elephant fantasy art with a purple Maoi warrior wielding a nunchaku can commission the artists directly and pay the $500 for a small colored sketch. Artists make more, Wizards saves a buck, the world is safe and everyone's happy. Or you can get over it because it's just a F#(&king game!!!

Kris Hansen said...

My argument against the whole of your post boils down to this:

"Maybe going out and actually seeing that 9 out of 10 women actually sell themselves as high class escorts anyway."

You have mooted the entirety of your argument right here. This is a deeply sexist comment, and the fact that you're making it in response to a post regarding the importance of not being sexist in our media is both ironic and very, very sad.

Unknown said...

--Jason Sartin, Darren MacLennan, I’m looking at you--

We wrote the _review_ of FATAL, not FATAL itself. :)

-Darren MacLennan

Kris Hansen said...

I will be certain to edit that post haste. Silly half-minute Google research. ^_^

tanac isimor said...

My friend, what I wrote about women and their self-display as sex objects was a FACT, not my opinion. If there is anyone who's sad, it's you because, obviously, you live under a rock. You think sluts live in a fantasy world or something and that most women today are happy go free innocent sweethearts? Wake up! Or that other races are somehow unequal? How racist is "Black History Month"? How racist is the term "Gay bar"? Have you even seen a "Straight bar"?

To be accurate, I have no problem with the above. It's all cool. But it's the job of the group to speak for itself. Your job, is to treat them with respect. And if you wanna help, get your two-faced behind to Africa and help those poor people from dying of hunger and stop mining diamonds for a slice of bread a day, not preach from some pretty home with your designer jeans and butter-baby face that hasn't seen a hard day's work in your life, pretending that you care. But oh, then you'd have to stop playing D&D and looking at fantasy art, the stuff that got them there in the first place!

Back to the woman thing, I am not for women being treated as objects, but I do not have any delusions as to what the world is like and what insignificant influence fantasy art has on the world. Sex in the city could do more damage in a single episode than decades of fantasy art posing women as cheap. Have you been to a bar? Seen cleavage? High heels? Short skirts? See how they bend over the pool tables? They WANT to look like that! Even the UGLY ONES!!! It's DNA.

Besides, there have been huge developments in the equalization of the rights of women everywhere to the point where, they can get ahead a lot easier than you or I in some industries (not sex related) and faster. So, what's your boggle? What are you trying to be, their "protector"? As if they can't speak up and defend themselves? Now, isn't THAT sexist?

Making a point about fantasy art having more variety is one thing, but pretending to be this Holier-Than-Thou Politically Correct nice guy in defense of the "helpless masses" being represented in a game because of the belief that the opposite somehow spells the doom of humankind is not only stupid, it's pointless.

As I wrote before, it's just a game. So get the f#ck over it. You wanna save the world? Join Green Peace, the Red Cross, blow up a bank or kill a politician, and stop preaching from, as you put it, your privileged, Pillsbury, advantageous white guy podium.

And yea, I don't want to save the world. It's been through asteroids, comets, dinosaur ages, ice ages etc, a couple of million years of some carbon-based pretentious biped exterminating itself won't hurt the world a bit.

Jason said...

Whilst I agree with the points in the post, I struggle with the element of permanent injury or disfigurement in a fantasy setting where there is so much magical healing available.

Granted that these may have a cost element to them and might not be available to everyone, but a lot of adventurers would likely invest the time and money in having permanent injuries healed. Losing a hand is a big deal for a ranger using two weapons, for example, and should they choose to correct the matter then it's probably not too difficult for them to do so.

There will still be cases that exist for whatever reason. I love the idea of a character modelled on Ahab, after reading the post. Characters may have been born differently and see the idea of being "cured" as offensive. It would be nice to have artwork to reflect these choices, but I can't help but feel that from the in-game perspective it could be slightly less of an issue in the average D&D setting.

Kris Hansen said...

Well, like you said, many people probably couldn't afford to heal permanent injuries, and not every adventurer started as one. If we're going with the standard adventurer tropes, usually you start out with a simple commoner who comes into adventuring accidentally. I mean, it is a deeply dangerous pass time, and there is no guarantee that you'll make the money you need to heal your severed leg before you die a grim and horrible death at the hands of some disgusting monster with too many mouths.

Other possible fantasy answers: those born differently abled are viewed as blessed by the gods (as is true of people who could be diagnosed with schizophrenia in some cultures), the church refuses to meddle in such affairs ("You are as the gods have made you..."), returned limbs are always _wrong_ in some way making it preferable to learn to work around a new disability... The fact that we're playing in a fantasy setting does not mean we have to get with the hand-waving or carpet-sweeping.

I do love the idea of Ahab as a player character. Dude had moxie.

regirock said...

No one wants to open the player's handbook to Wizard and see an ugly fat black lesbian in a wheelchair. That's not heroic, that's not european, and that's not fantastic.

That's not D&D.

Joe Thomas said...

Speaking of links, don't forget the "Sexism in Games Bingo"
http://geekfeminism.org/2011/11/03/quick-hit-sexism-in-games-bingo/
How many of those have we hit now? We're not quite at Bingo, but we've got a good half dozen spread around the board, I think.

Also, I would add that one of the problems of women wearing sexualized clothing (chain-mail bikini being the most glaring example) in D&D art is just a simple gut reaction of "Wait, THAT doesn't make sense." Sure people in the D&D world (including the artistic representations thereof) can be sexy and sexualized, but that's not what they've got in mind when they get dressed to go fight orcs. If the piece of art is of a scene at a noble's court or ballroom, then sure, sexualized outfits make sense.

For the real-world comparison, I know plenty of young women who think about looking sexy (though usually avoiding whatever they consider to be across the line into "slutty") when going out to a bar or on a date. I don't know very many -- actually, none -- who try to look sexy when going to their office job. D&D characters are mostly portrayed in situations where sexiness is just not going to be a driving force in someone's decision-making.

Ron said...

@regirock :

Seriously, who would believe someone in wheelchair could be heroic!

Just ask this wuss:

http://www.just-marvel-x-men.com/image-files/marvel-encyclopedia-prof-x-1-50k.jpg

mordicai said...

Just directed here from a post I made on Tor.com. Really sir, you hit the nail on the head much better than I.