I would love to comment on Transhuman. When is it going to be availible for those of us who missed out on giving money in advance? Once it comes out in bookform me or my friend will get it but until then checking out the content would be awesome.

I'll try to keep this civil:

nick012000 wrote:

Firstly, if it had been a male character posed this way, would you have a problem with it? Because it's apparently a rather common pose for action shots- the dev's posted in this very thread that they were iffy about it until the artist showed them 10+ pictures of male superheroes posed the exact same way.

I would have a problem with it if a male character had been posed that way; the pose would still be awkward and ridiculous, even if a man held it. On the subject of the same pose in male superheroes, I'd like to cite a friend of mine who reads more superhero comics that I do on the subject: "Spider-Man's been posed like that a lot, but that's because Spider-Man's poses are specifically intended to show off his impossible flexibility and weird swinging/crawling poses. Although his ass certainly wouldn't have received such... emphasis. Comic book women tend to be posed like that a lot, which is a problem because they're not superhumanly flexible and have no particular reason to be doing whateverthefuck she's doing. If other, more muscular and static superheroes like Wolverine are posed like that, it's generally just because the artist is [i]terrible[/i]." And, furthermore, another friend of mine had this to say on the subject: "It's also disingenious to compare males poses to female poses, because [i]there is not a widespread pervasive culture of sexually objectifying imagery directed towards men[/i]. [M]en don't get anywhere [i]near[/i] the kind of sexual objectification that women get on a routine basis every single day from practically [...] everything from advertisements to something relevant beginning with the letter z that I can't be bothered to think of. In Spiderman's case, he's posed that way to show off his powers, not just to show off T&A. But in the case of women, apparently, sexual objectification [i]is[/i] a reason." The pose is ridiculously sexualizing and objectifying, which you wouldn't find in the pose of a male character, and among the superheroes who do pose like that, it's largely to show off their [i]inhuman[/i] physique. (I will preemptively note that her potential transhuman nature is an [i]ad hoc[/i] justification that doesn't alleviate any actual issues involved here.) The problem is that this kind of sexualization is something that women are disproportionately targeted by.

nick012000 wrote:

The "corset-on-latex" thing makes sense, given that this is Eclipse Phase, and body-hugging clothing is the norm rather than the exception (especially since the vast majority of spacesuits are pressure suits that operate by mechanical pressure, aka squeezing your body to replicate air pressure). The corset can be justified, since we can't see the front; it's entirely possible that it's a utility vest that's got a bunch of pouches to hold her gear. Additionally, from an artistic standpoint, the corset isn't there to look sexy, it's there to provide a stark visual contrast by providing a region of dark black on the white shininess of her suit.

That's an [i]ad hoc[/i] justification. It's not just that it's skin-hugging, it's also that it's shiny. We're not just talking something that's very obviously a corset, but also what "just happens" to be knee-high boots. It doesn't matter that it "could be" a utility vest with pouches, because it's very obviously intended to be or otherwise bring to mind a corset. The "artistic standpoint" you cite is also a red herring; yes, it does indeed provide contrast, but that doesn't change that it's still a corset supposed to invoke latex fetish outfits. Even if body-hugging outfits are the norm in the future, that doesn't change that anything remotely similar in appearance to the outfit she's wearing is something you'll almost exclusively only find in highly sexualized images or in fetish clubs - why isn't it, for example, designed to look like an actual Space Activity Suit rather than a latex catsuit? If her corset isn't actually a corset but a utility vest, why doesn't it look like an utility vest but a corset? The entire outfit is designed to sexualize and titillate, and the fact that it can be justified doesn't actually change that fact. That's what makes it classic T&A; it's a drawing of a woman in a sexualized outfit in a sexualized pose that serves mainly to titillate.

LatwPIAT wrote:

That's what makes it classic T&A; it's a drawing of a woman in a sexualized outfit in a sexualized pose that serves mainly to titillate.

Dude! You're making it sound as if you can't turn to page 82 without popping wood, and transhuman should be sold in a plain brown paper wrapper. That's an unfortunate opinion. Everyone is now aware of your unfortunate opinion. Can I suggest, please, that you remark on a different subject? I like my female friends to read this forum and none of them are comfortable when pictures depicting females are analyzed under a microscope for possibly sexual content. Thanks.

nick012000 wrote:

Also, I don't know what plane you're from if you think that boobs anatomically misplaced. It looks to me like it's just large and maybe drooping down a bit from gravity.

My first thought was that the image was a microgravity action shot. The body positions suggest to me momentum while moving at speed, which is probably not going to lead to very many dignified poses. My second thought was that the character in question was attempting a handspring while at speed, and probably going to dislocate the right shoulder upon impacct. Having done that before... ouch. That is a wound level waiting to happen. My third thought was that the synthmorph in the background reminded me a lot of [u]Tron Legacy[/u] in terms of lines and neon purple trim. Also, boom. Headshot. RMA. But what do I know? I am just a Perl script.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

On the topic of the neo-pig ... 1) I sent this the image to my dad, who is both a sci-fi geek going way back, and works in agriculture including inspecting livestock. He approved. 2) The breasts may in fact be smaller, however in microgravity, breasts naturally float outwards, making them look fuller and higher than normal. This effect has been observed in humans and has been noted favorably. It would certainly apply to neo-pigs as well.

Human breasts have a lot of fatty tissue, and it is the primary cause for its emphasized shape. Fatty tissue, like any similar soft solid, has its shape heavily affected by gravity. In a microgravity environment, said fatty tissue will expand in all directions rather than mostly downward, which would give it a larger look. But pigs have no fatty tissue within their udders. They only engorge when they fill with milk. Their "breasts" are literally a milk bag made of skin... one of the major reasons that human breasts hold significantly less milk than most mammalian udders. To that end, I highly doubt they would act the same as human breasts in microgravity. But the point is moot. The art exists, and we can just assume that freaky scum hedonists are gonna be freaky scum hedonists. I say we drop it and move on before we're all accused of latent closeted homosexual bestiality robo-necrophilia urges, or something to that effect.

LatwPIAT wrote:

I'll try to keep this civil:

nick012000 wrote:

Firstly, if it had been a male character posed this way, would you have a problem with it? Because it's apparently a rather common pose for action shots- the dev's posted in this very thread that they were iffy about it until the artist showed them 10+ pictures of male superheroes posed the exact same way.

I would have a problem with it if a male character had been posed that way; the pose would still be awkward and ridiculous, even if a man held it. On the subject of the same pose in male superheroes, I'd like to cite a friend of mine who reads more superhero comics that I do on the subject: "Spider-Man's been posed like that a lot, but that's because Spider-Man's poses are specifically intended to show off his impossible flexibility and weird swinging/crawling poses. Although his ass certainly wouldn't have received such... emphasis. Comic book women tend to be posed like that a lot, which is a problem because they're not superhumanly flexible and have no particular reason to be doing whateverthefuck she's doing. If other, more muscular and static superheroes like Wolverine are posed like that, it's generally just because the artist is [i]terrible[/i]." And, furthermore, another friend of mine had this to say on the subject: "It's also disingenious to compare males poses to female poses, because [i]there is not a widespread pervasive culture of sexually objectifying imagery directed towards men[/i]. [M]en don't get anywhere [i]near[/i] the kind of sexual objectification that women get on a routine basis every single day from practically [...] everything from advertisements to something relevant beginning with the letter z that I can't be bothered to think of. In Spiderman's case, he's posed that way to show off his powers, not just to show off T&A. But in the case of women, apparently, sexual objectification [i]is[/i] a reason." The pose is ridiculously sexualizing and objectifying, which you wouldn't find in the pose of a male character, and among the superheroes who do pose like that, it's largely to show off their [i]inhuman[/i] physique. (I will preemptively note that her potential transhuman nature is an [i]ad hoc[/i] justification that doesn't alleviate any actual issues involved here.) The problem is that this kind of sexualization is something that women are disproportionately targeted by.

nick012000 wrote:

The "corset-on-latex" thing makes sense, given that this is Eclipse Phase, and body-hugging clothing is the norm rather than the exception (especially since the vast majority of spacesuits are pressure suits that operate by mechanical pressure, aka squeezing your body to replicate air pressure). The corset can be justified, since we can't see the front; it's entirely possible that it's a utility vest that's got a bunch of pouches to hold her gear. Additionally, from an artistic standpoint, the corset isn't there to look sexy, it's there to provide a stark visual contrast by providing a region of dark black on the white shininess of her suit.

That's an [i]ad hoc[/i] justification. It's not just that it's skin-hugging, it's also that it's shiny. We're not just talking something that's very obviously a corset, but also what "just happens" to be knee-high boots. It doesn't matter that it "could be" a utility vest with pouches, because it's very obviously intended to be or otherwise bring to mind a corset. The "artistic standpoint" you cite is also a red herring; yes, it does indeed provide contrast, but that doesn't change that it's still a corset supposed to invoke latex fetish outfits. Even if body-hugging outfits are the norm in the future, that doesn't change that anything remotely similar in appearance to the outfit she's wearing is something you'll almost exclusively only find in highly sexualized images or in fetish clubs - why isn't it, for example, designed to look like an actual Space Activity Suit rather than a latex catsuit? If her corset isn't actually a corset but a utility vest, why doesn't it look like an utility vest but a corset? The entire outfit is designed to sexualize and titillate, and the fact that it can be justified doesn't actually change that fact. That's what makes it classic T&A; it's a drawing of a woman in a sexualized outfit in a sexualized pose that serves mainly to titillate.

I am all about all the things said here, and totally agree. Sci fi and fantasy artists tend to put that extra UMPH into skintight outfits on lady-looking things (sometimes even when lady-looking things shouldn't have that UMPH, like when D&D artists plop mammalian breats on a reptile/amphibian creature female, or two breasts on a cat-beast or what have you), and while I can concede to other posters on this thread that EP/Posthuman tends to be much better about this kind of thing, it's in large part that they [b]are[/b] better than this that it sticks out like a sore thumb when an artist they hire sexifies up the place with female asses. I, for one, blame the hyper-corps.

Is rob going to update his blogpost? http://robboyle.wordpress.com/eclipse-phase-pdfs/

Decivre wrote:

But pigs have no fatty tissue within their udders. They only engorge when they fill with milk. Their "breasts" are literally a milk bag made of skin... one of the major reasons that human breasts hold significantly less milk than most mammalian udders. To that end, I highly doubt they would act the same as human breasts in microgravity.

Let us not forget that the human attraction to big breasts is in itself strange. Most species are not turned on by large breasts - it signifies that they have suckling babies and are thus unlikely to be ready for mating. So what are the proposed explanations for why humans are attracted to big breasts, and could it apply to uplifts too? One of the theories is that when our ancestors walked on all fours, males were attracted to full butts. Once we started walking upright and looking females in the eye, the male attraction to that butt shape remained, and that created a sexual selection for big breasts which over time bred in substantial amounts of fat in the female breast. Now, I don't know what turns a pig on - but if they're into full behinds, then even if their animal attractions remained, they too could be attracted to breasts that looks like full butt cheeks. Obviously neopigs didn't have time for any evolutionary pressure to change anything, and I doubt the uplift designers cared - but body modification is cheap and fast. Human full breasts, peacock tails, eye-stalk flies, and numerous other examples tell us that biology is about more than just function. If you only look at function, you're going to share Darwin's initial frustration with the peacock tail - it didn't fit back when he only understood natural selection. You have to factor in sexual preferences.

This thread is hilarious! The Scum Barge Chemist Neo-pig will forever be in my heart and mind. I hope that Momo von Satan and The Cock makes an interview with her some time...

jackgraham wrote:

Armoured wrote:

If the image was of some male character shooting bad guys while dressed in assless chaps and a leather thong while thrusting his crotch out forward, people would similarly comment on it being problematic.

Rob's not finished the art notes for the Morph Reco Guide yet. Don't put ideas in our heads. ;)

I think we need to see an interior shot of a strip club on a scum barge where some exhuman-level mods adorn the freakish forms of the male(??) strippers, with a bunch of hootin' and hollerin' lady scum up-votin' @-rep on floating AR overlay in front of them, as a party of PCs wander through the foreground, a remade dudely soldierman pointing with jaw agape while the battered AGI clank, uplift neo-octopus and androgynous neuter ruster keep walking, uninterested.

davethebrave wrote:

jackgraham wrote:

Armoured wrote:

If the image was of some male character shooting bad guys while dressed in assless chaps and a leather thong while thrusting his crotch out forward, people would similarly comment on it being problematic.

Rob's not finished the art notes for the Morph Reco Guide yet. Don't put ideas in our heads. ;)

I think we need to see an interior shot of a strip club on a scum barge where some exhuman-level mods adorn the freakish forms of the male(??) strippers, with a bunch of hootin' and hollerin' lady scum up-votin' @-rep on floating AR overlay in front of them, as a party of PCs wander through the foreground, a remade dudely soldierman pointing with jaw agape while the battered AGI clank, uplift neo-octopus and androgynous neuter ruster keep walking, uninterested.

... I'll be in my bunk. In all seriousness - EP art on the average does have some very pretty appeal for the girl-eye. Which is to say, loading Rob up with ideas sounds good to me. ;)

davethebrave wrote:

jackgraham wrote:

Armoured wrote:

If the image was of some male character shooting bad guys while dressed in assless chaps and a leather thong while thrusting his crotch out forward, people would similarly comment on it being problematic.

Rob's not finished the art notes for the Morph Reco Guide yet. Don't put ideas in our heads. ;)

I think we need to see an interior shot of a strip club on a scum barge where some exhuman-level mods adorn the freakish forms of the male(??) strippers, with a bunch of hootin' and hollerin' lady scum up-votin' @-rep on floating AR overlay in front of them, as a party of PCs wander through the foreground, a remade dudely soldierman pointing with jaw agape while the battered AGI clank, uplift neo-octopus and androgynous neuter ruster keep walking, uninterested.

You just described a high-tech version of the people I camp with at our regional Burning Man event. (Before any one asks: no, I, personally, have never taken a turn on the stripper pole. I'd probably kill myself).

davethebrave wrote:

Maybe there should be an art ideas thread? Things people on the forums want to see depicted in the books are going to be some awesome things, I have no doubt. The most epic/devious/horrifying moments from on-going campaigns, crystallized as a single image, would make for good reading, much less good art ideas!

This would be interesting -- aside from sometimes running dry on ideas, it would just be interesting to see what kind of pics people want to see in the books.

Clunker wrote:

Quick question: Within the new "Backgrounds" section, there area several new "Infolife" options: Machine Infolife, Humanities Infolife, and the Research Infolife. Do these new Backgrounds have the same "Benefit" as the "Original Infolife"? IE: do they get to purchase 'Mesh-Related' Skills at half, but then must purchase any 'Social-Related' skills at double?

So far as I can tell, no. But if you really want that option, our group mathed it out and the game assumes that ability is the equivalent of a 30-point trait. So you can just make a homebrew trait called "Digital Savant" worth that much.

Decivre wrote:

Clunker wrote:

Quick question: Within the new "Backgrounds" section, there area several new "Infolife" options: Machine Infolife, Humanities Infolife, and the Research Infolife. Do these new Backgrounds have the same "Benefit" as the "Original Infolife"? IE: do they get to purchase 'Mesh-Related' Skills at half, but then must purchase any 'Social-Related' skills at double?

So far as I can tell, no. But if you really want that option, our group mathed it out and the game assumes that ability is the equivalent of a 30-point trait. So you can just make a homebrew trait called "Digital Savant" worth that much.

Thanks to you and your crew for mathin' out that trait! I was actually wondering this myself!

Lorsa wrote:

That would make it the most awesome trait ever. But you are right, if you compare the average +/- on the various backgrounds, that's what it would be. But then why wouldn't there be a "social savant" or a "physical savant", making it the must-have trait for all characters. In my group (although small) we changed the infolife background to offer flat + instead, like the other backgrounds.

As did we. The price reductions opened the way far too much for abuse, and it was hard for players not to exploit it if they wanted to be some sort of hacker/soldier. Digital Savant is a nice way to just make the exploit universally accessible.

In my opinion, cost influencing traits are a Bad Idea. They tend to be used to make overspecialised characters and are blowing holes in game balance. Besides, they complicate character creation and are next to impossible to integrate with Transhuman character creation systems. Flat bonuses, linked with Real World Naiveté and social stigmas, as done with new backgrounds (I see the old Infolife background was kept unchanged, though) is far better approach and I find it good this solution was used here.

Smokeskin wrote:

davethebrave wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:

I'll try to keep this civil: [...] "It's also disingenious to compare males poses to female poses, because [i]there is not a widespread pervasive culture of sexually objectifying imagery directed towards men[/i]. [...] The problem is that this kind of sexualization is something that women are disproportionately targeted by.

It's not keeping it civil just because you don't curse. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing your bigotred commentary about the sexuality of people like myself and my girlfriend. What you're saying is EXACTLY the same as when right wing pundits make a problem out of MTV's "gay agenda" or some such stigmatizing nonsense. If you can't dial down the hetero hate, then maybe not post?

That's a false equivalency. Standard fallacy, look it up. Heterosexuality is in the majority, "hetero hate" and referring to critiques of the dominant sexuality as "bigotry" is like saying "misandry" and thinking it applies like misogyny does. False equivalency.

I really dont' see why it stops being hate speech just because it is directed at the majority. So no, it is not a false equivalency. Do you think you get a free pass on bigotry in other areas too? So racism against caucasians is ok? Hindus oppressing christians, perfectly fine?

http://callingoutbigotry.tumblr.com/post/51288105158/why-reverse-racism-...

davethebrave wrote:

http://callingoutbigotry.tumblr.com/post/51288105158/why-reverse-racism-...

To sum this up, you have the old "evolution is just a theory" debate, but with the word "racism" instead. Two people arguing over a word while using two different definitions.

Smokeskin wrote:

Yeah, it is a common tactic when you're not on stable ground. But just like creationist redifinition won't change that in science a theory is incredibly strong, strong feminists can't justify their bigotry with a lack of power.

It depends on how it is used. Creationists make the argument out of ignorance about what evolution is. In this case, neither you nor davethebrave is inherently ignorant of issues regarding sex or race. In both cases, neither group is necessarily using different definitions on purpose, you just have different definitions. No, seriously. I've talked to creationists. They honestly don't realize that there is a different definition for the term "theory" in the world of science. In this case, you both might know of each other's definitions, you just happened to be using the opposite definition while arguing between one another. Hanlon's Razor, Smokeskin. You can presume he was doing it with malice, or you can presume he did not realize it. Which one is more likely?

OneTrikPony wrote:

That's an unfortunate opinion. Everyone is now aware of your unfortunate opinion. Can I suggest, please, that you remark on a different subject? I like my female friends to read this forum and none of them are comfortable when [b]pictures depicting females are analyzed under a microscope for possibly sexual content.[/b]

I'm bewildered as to how you can call what I've done so far "analyzing under a microscope for possibly sexual content"; I've mainly concerned myself with the picture on p. 82, and noted the many, many [i]blatant[/i] features that makes it objectifying and problematic. It's not like I'm seriously trying to claim that the Encladean Body Stylist is sexually objectifying because, if you look really closely, you can see cleavage. Saying that something supposed to resemble a latex catsuit wrapped in a corset is objectifying and sexualizing is [i]not[/i] "analyzing under a microscope for possibly sexual content". (Also, the female friends [i]I[/i] want to play this game don't like it when the sourcebooks contain objectifying depictions of women.)

Smokeskin wrote:

But no matter what we call it, when someone makes derogatory remarks about my sexuality, I'm going to call them out on it.

The "derogatory remarks" I've made about your "sexuality" has, as far as I'm aware, been that I don't think that some certain things that are made to titillate you belong in an RPG, on the basis that it is objectifying and demeaning to women. That's hardly a "derogatory remark", and I'm curious as to in what way you think it is.

Smokeskin wrote:

I'm getting pretty tired of hearing your bigotred commentary about the sexuality of people like myself and my girlfriend. What you're saying is EXACTLY the same as when right wing pundits make a problem out of MTV's "gay agenda" or some such stigmatizing nonsense. If you can't dial down the hetero hate, then maybe not post?

As I understand it, "bigoted commentary" is commentary that furthers hatred, contempt or intolerance of other people. The only way I could possibly parse what I've been saying as one "bigotry" is in the sense that I don't tolerate heavily sexualized and objectifying images of women in an RPG sourcebook purely for the purposes of titillation, or comments that support the inclusion of heavily sexualized and objectifying images of women in an RPG sourcebook purely for the purposes of titillation. In that sense, yes, I am in fact making bigoted statements about your sexuality; I don't approve and will not permit that you exercise your sexuality by supporting the inclusion of heavily sexualized and objectifying images of women in an RPG sourcebook for the purposes of your own titillation. But that's hardly "hereto hate" or the feminist equivalent of complaining about the "gay agenda"; I do not hold or express hatred towards you because you are heterosexual, and I'm not trying to suppress your right to have, express or even enjoy your sexuality as a normal part of society. What I am saying is that [i]things that serve to titillate you have no place in an RPG sourcebook if they are dependent upon the objectification and fetishistic sexualization of women[/i] - which is an opinion I hold pretty much independent of your sexuality. I don't think things, irrespective of whether they titillate, belong in an RPG sourcebook [i]if they are dependent upon the objectification and fetishistic sexualization of women [b]or men[/b][/i]. This has nothing to do with your heterosexuality or your enjoyment of fetishized depictions of women. My problem is with the fact that you're demanding that this [i]not[/i] be treated as inappropriate for an RPG sourcebook, thereby perpetuating discrimination against women by portraying sexism as a normal part of society.

As for sexism in sourcebooks, in the 70's things like the monster guide of D&D had, as far as I know, succubi with bare breasts and the like. It wasn't until the 80's "morality wave" that depictions in RPG books that could be assosciated with sex or strong violence was taken out. Personally I don't, and never will, see a problem with drawings that show naked human forms. Too many people are making too much of a big deal out of nudity and a drawing can impossibly objectify a person. It's a DRAWING, it's not a living breathing thing with a soul. Nude art has been around since ancient times (and were much more prominent then) because we humans like to enjoy looking at naked bodies (of all sexes). Why should we deny ourselves this pleasure? Of course, what will always be important is RELEVANCE. A naked succubi feels natural (pun not intended) because they're supposed to be incarnations of illicit sex. A naked picture of a scientist in a lab feels less relevant and just stupid. Unless it's a scum scientest, then anything goes.

To believe in resleeving biomorphs you have to believe that it's possible to brain wipe the morph between ego's; essentially like writing 0's over a hardrive. It's kind of a sketchy take on a speculative technology but it serves the setting, so there you have it. My personal feeling is that the amount of nano-hardware it would require to dis/reconnect, dis/rearrange all synapses between occupants would essentially make the neurons themselves redundant but there's really no other way to have biological brains and resleeving. So, yes, writing an async into a biomorph brain infects that brain with the Watts-MacLeod virus. (I think)