|
Post by geoffrey on May 5, 2015 21:29:06 GMT -6
I think your explanation of sucubii being monsters/"not children of Adam and Eve" is interesting. I think a child might be just as likely to walk away thinking "naked=evil" than anything! Here's how some in my church (the Eastern Orthodox Church) have explained it: Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were clothed in God's Uncreated Light. When they fell, they lost this Light and became naked. They covered themselves with dead materials--clothing made of leaves or dead animal skins. (Our clothing is thus a sign of mankind's Fall rather than of his goodness.) Christ, in His baptism, placed our garments of Uncreated Light in the baptismal waters. Thus, when a person (traditionally naked) is baptized, he goes into the waters naked, and comes up clothed in God's Uncreated Light. I would include all that in any explanations to my daughter. All of the above can definitely go into a D&D game. This post isn't to proselytize, but rather to help give one possible in-game explanation for why so many of the monsters are naked. (The giants and humanoids and demi-humans are typically clothed, of course. One can go with the author of Beowulf on this and assume that such monsters wear clothes because they are descended from Adam through his murderous son, Cain. Goliath was a giant.)
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on May 6, 2015 14:46:09 GMT -6
I know I'm in a minority with this thinking, but I don't see nudity as inherently sexual into itself as the situation or presentation needs to present the nudity in a sexual way, and the person needs not to be fully (or partially) naked to do so. I see Red Sonja's iconic "chainmail/metal-bikini" as a sexual thing, as it was made only for fan-service and looks more like a belly-dancer outfit (where coins are used as decoration) than practical armor. The only way I can rationalize her chose of outfit is to see her as a nudist who likes to put her wealth on display. Much of what stripping is less about the actual nudity, and more the tease of taking the cloths off. A fan-dance show (where women wear next to nothing, but shield themselves with a pare of large feathered fans) can go on without showing anything, but the teasing and misdirection makes it more alluring than a woman just walking out on stage in the buff, or strip shows where they do take everything off. A runway model who struts around in revealing and alluring outfits are not sexual in nature, as they are just props to display someone's clothing designs. Something with people who pose nude for artists; they are just props for the artists. Nudists are just people with a lifestyle preference. Streakers, flashers and exhibitionists being tactless attention-sleepers trying to get reactions from people and are not sexual in nature, while sleazy guys who whip it out with a lot of undo expectation on the first date is sexual in the worst kind of way. To me, its all about context. I see casual nudity through the context of: innocence and naivete; vulnerability or unpreparedness; boldness and transparent; and a primitive state of being or a connection to nature. With the first, I see it as someone who is ignorant to social norms, but only with children (most cultures don't make a big deal of it like western cultures do) or anyone who was kept isolated from other civilized people. With the second, I see it as an otherwise civilized person put into a situation were they have no control of their current situation, like getting captured or enslaved. This can also include situations were a camp that gets attacked by ambush in the night, and the defenders are forced to fightback with nothing more than whats at hand. The third is for civilized people who don't give a d**n about social norms, and strut around naked with no regard to who sees them. Much like an unabashed hedonist or a warrior who proves his bravado by fighting naked the battlefield. And the last one is more about whats called "National Geographic nudity." This is about cultures who are comfortable with their own bodies, as well as the bodies of everyone else, and sees nudity as a normal way of life; form a stone-age tribe, to a curtain race of technologically-advanced red skin aliens. This include anyone who falls in the "Feral Child" archetype (Tarzan, Mowgli, et al.), sylvan creatures (nymphs and fairies), beastly humanoid creatures (trolls, minotaurs, etc.) who are savage in nature, and another creature with no sense of shame. For my outlook with nudity in role-playing games. Well, first off, I don't see misogyny as an issue, as I'm comparable with seeing male and female nudity, and I'm for tasteful nudity over shameless displays of sexual eroticism. I see the human body as a beautiful thing. It is a dynamic form with lot of complex comparisons. I like the use of nudity when used to convey different meaning and situations. Partial nudity is good for displaying a particular form of fashion within a fictional setting, often in contrast to what we are use to in our modern world. I see the inclusion of tasteful nudity — along with controversial topics like slavery, drug-use, prostitution, occult imagery, human sacrifice, etc. — as a bold statement by publishers that they do not cave to special interests groups. Mind you, this only goes to a point, as something done right gets you Carcosa and LotFP, while something that goes horribly wrong gets you F.A.T.A.L. There are some issues I do have with how nudity is depicted in fantasy art. Like the way some works tries to display nudity, but throw in some tacky elements to hide it. An example of this is "Godiva hair", where long hair is used to cover the breasts. This is a minor issue, as long thick hair can do that. Unfortunately, artists tend to relay on that trope a lot, to the point of looking forced and cliched. The worst are the extreme "Godiva hair" that flows over the shoulders and down to the lap, with the male equivalent being a long Dwarven-styled beard. Leather strips and gauze-bras looks silly to me. Sea-shell bras never looked good on mermaids. The jeweled pasties seen with a lot Dejah Thoris pin-ups never seemed right to me. I also have issue with some savage creatures (trolls, minotaurs, etc.) sporting loincloths. To me, they are primal by nature and beyond anyone else's consideration, thus they would be strutting naked as they day they were born. It gets weirder when "beastly hair" is used to cover up that area. In other words, "The thingy is evil! Thick pubic hair is good!" All those forms of forced modestly feel like weird little cop-outs to me. Unlike Geoffrey, I do not mind clothing on succubi and incubui, as long as it done to highlight their alluring and predatory nature. Carmilla's open-cleavage robes (kinda NSFW; I cant tell?) in Castlevania: Lords of Shadow is a good example of this. If she is a succubus, does good work to hide her demotic features: horns, wings and tail. The way the robes open has a look of (anatomical) femininity, that puts her sexuality out on display (she is a lesbian vampire), and with the robes giving a false sense of transparency (it still shrouds her true self), looks like she is giving open sexual invitation to anyone before her — she'll invite you it, but she would suck you dry! The dress keeps her covered-up (somewhat), but leaves her open in a way that is highly alluring. But yeah, I do agree that succubi and incubui do not need clothing, and looks best without them.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on May 7, 2015 12:48:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on May 15, 2015 18:46:53 GMT -6
Say what you want about the whole nudity discussion here. As soon as I saw the depictions of hobbits/halflings in 5th edition, I was pissed off.
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on May 15, 2015 22:17:15 GMT -6
Say what you want about the whole nudity discussion here. As soon as I saw the depictions of hobbits/halflings in 5th edition, I was pissed off. Yeah, I hate them too. They look a little too... Top heavy. Their feet look too small, and their legs to far apart at the hips. I cant help but to see a twinkle-toed, little freak that would run around with hyper-fast feet, only to trip and crash, as they look so top heavy, they would trip on a drawing of a crack on the floor! They are not as bad as the dread Kinder — who's primary racial trait is "Pint-sized Marry Sue" — but they are d**n close to it.
|
|
|
Post by franchise on Jun 20, 2015 12:14:35 GMT -6
When I look at D&D art, the first thing and main thing that I look for and appreciate about it, is if it makes my imagination fill in the gaps. If it gets my imagination excited about what kind of world that the beings are in, then it's a good thing, if not, then it's a boring or at least, less exciting thing. If my mind starts imagining textures of the things in the room, imagining how characters feel, and that they live in a world full of infinite possibilities, then I'm happy. If they look like super heroes where it looks like the artist was trying to make a comic book or anime legend, then I don't think it's as great.
That being said what sets my imagination off isn't the same thing that will set off the imagination of many other folks. So I'm fine if I like or dislike the art and other people disagree and have a different opinion.
So with that preface I'm mixed on the 5e artwork. A lot of the pictures do set my imagination running, and I like that. But some of the pictures such as the halflings in the section about halflings that others have mentioned seemed too off for me to lose myself in instant daydreams. The pictures of adventuring parties seemed great at getting my creative juices running.
As far as the nudity, I don't really care one way or the other. I'm not put off by a lack of it, nor would I be offended by some of it, as long as it made sense in the context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2015 2:39:21 GMT -6
Glad this remained friendly, and civil, guys. Let's keep it this way. I think that the change in art simply reflects the changing of the times - the 1990s were perhaps the last and highest point of D&D's cultural influence in the field; but after that, it quite simply were anime, and Todd-Mc-Farlane-style comic book illustration that had the most appeal on the market. In the late 2000s, that trend again faded away, and since then, it's been interesting for me to observe how the fantasy illustration genre has entered some sort of post-modern identity crisis: Even Tolkienian art is not particularly en vogue any more, and I am genuinely curious what the next big fad will be.
|
|
|
Post by Eibon of Mhu-Thulan on Jun 21, 2015 14:59:48 GMT -6
Say what you want about the whole nudity discussion here. As soon as I saw the depictions of hobbits/halflings in 5th edition, I was pissed off. I hated the 3rd Edition Halflings even more. I don't understand why Wizards of the Coast wants to distance their Halflings from those of "Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit", since the Peter Jackson movies where such huge hits. Does anyone know. I have been wondering. It seems stupid to me. Rafe's wrath was calmed, which is no easy thing...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2015 19:20:39 GMT -6
Get on with the thread, folks, nothing to see, here...
|
|
|
Post by Eibon of Mhu-Thulan on Jun 21, 2015 19:27:36 GMT -6
Font size edited by Rafe: Don't do that again, ever, or you'll get a temp-ban. Whatever point you want to make, this is the wrong way to emphasize it.
What are you talking about!?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2015 22:57:09 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 5:58:28 GMT -6
Thread reopened.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jun 22, 2015 11:25:57 GMT -6
In addition, as a continental European the idea of no nudity in a fantasy publication is simply a non-starter. The type V demon all modestly covered-up particularly jarred me. Completely veering off topic: I would like to see a picture of the Type 5 Demon with the upper half dressed as Mary Poppins, complete with fashionable hat. Back on topic: what bothers me about a lot of D&D art, especially for later editions, is not how the characters and monsters are dressed or undressed, but how there's nothing really going on in the art. It's fantasy people or creatures sitting or standing around, or stiffly posed. The pictures don't tell a story about what just happened, or what might be about to happen. And no, a picture of a guy swinging a big-ass sword, or a monster shooting flames, does not count as something happening. Take an example of a party of adventurers sitting around a campfire. That's dull. Nothing is really happening, even if you try to depict each character doing something, like gambling with dice or playing a lute. But if it's a bunch of adventurers around a campfire and there's a unicorn roasting on the spit, that tells you a little about this particular party of adventurers, and hints at a story. Why are they roasting a unicorn? Do they hunt unicorn normally? Or did they just happen to fight one? It doesn't have to be semi-humorous, like the roasting unicorn example. But it should sort of have that same "surprise reveal" feeling. A picture of a party talking to a man in armor, with the party facing us, the man facing away from us... and we see he's holding a concealed dagger behind his back. Or a mand dressed in ragged clothes desperately pushing a dungeon door closed, and there's an arm caught in the door. If the picture can be summed up as "these people are dressed how they normally dress" or "these two guys are fighting", it just doesn't interest me.
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Jun 22, 2015 22:09:07 GMT -6
The element I liked the most in the old art was how they handled horror. (What? You though it was the other thing? It was not my intention to make that a focal point in this thread.) When I was younger, I found the pictures of demons and devils in the Monster Manual unsettling. They had an occult vibe about it. The Arch Devils alone had the look of powerful masterminds who can own any room they enter, and woe to anyone who defies them. Monsters back then did not need to be physically beefed-up and covered in lots of sharp, pointy like something out of a McFarland/Liefeld comic to look scary. Much like a good horror film, fear and dread can come form subtlety — a notion completely lacking with the newer artists. If I could change one thing: I would add faces to the bellies of some of the demons, and to add other random bits of stuff onto them. Like in those old pictures. To be fair the Todd Lockwood — who helped lay-down the groundwork of WotC's art house style during the development of 3rd edition — when he first applied to TSR, his first work was a picture of Orcus. That picture is "pulp" in its most pure form! A dread image of a helpless mortal held before a sinister monster who only values the unwavering loyalty of walking bones and copses. Regardless of his intentions — the lack of any stated makes it even more mysterious and thus more captivating — her future is bleak. Nothing in that picture conveys any sense of hope! Contrast that with Wayne Rreynolds' Orcus; nothing more than a brutish, rampaging juggernaut who would more likely trip over his own fat hooves than convey any realty sense of dread. His version looks like nothing more than a boss monster in a bland, soulless MMORPG. "Its looks like its going to be a toughie; I hope it drops something good for all the time we'll put hacking into him." 9_9 In other words, Rreynolds turned something that is scary by his own right into something that looks like an oversize pinata with teeth to most of the younger gamers! As utterly cartoonish Erol Otus' art style is, it really works for the Cthulhu Mythos. The come off looking like a bad acid trip, man! Its just the right weirdness to convey that nothing is right about them when they are around: not even reality! And *that*... is &%$#ing awesome!
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Jun 22, 2015 22:31:44 GMT -6
After seeing the breathtaking RED AND PLEASANT LAND I wish WotC had Zak S. do more than consult on 5E and had asked him to contribute art as well.
Whatever you might think of Lamentations of the Flame Princess, their books (IMHO) are miles ahead of the rest of the industry in terms of just being beautiful, well-designed objects.
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Jun 22, 2015 22:34:06 GMT -6
As utterly cartoonish Erol Otus' art style is, it really works for the Cthulhu Mythos. The come off looking like a bad acid trip, man! Its just the right weirdness to convey that nothing is right about them when they are around: not even reality! And *that*... is &%$#ing awesome! Hell yes! Otus is a national treasure. He's the Ditko of RPG art.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 23, 2015 7:41:34 GMT -6
I don't understand why Wizards of the Coast wants to distance their Halflings from those of "Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit", since the Peter Jackson movies where such huge hits. Does anyone know. I have been wondering. It seems stupid to me. My guess is that it goes back to the early days when OD&D got caught by the Tolkien estate for using Middle-earth terms like balrog and nazgul without premission and had to scrub that stuff from the rules. Before that time it was "use D&D to recreate fantasy like Tolkien" and after that time is was more "well, D&D was never really influenced by Tolkien...." The Tolkien estate has a lot of power and it's possible that WotC didn't want to go back into that territory all over again.
|
|
|
Post by archersix on Jun 23, 2015 20:19:17 GMT -6
Yeah, but whenever I play a halfling, he's a freakin Hobbit with big hairy feet! :-)
And, I can't recall the name of the guy who did the art in the Labyrinth Lord books, but he did a great job channeling 1978.
|
|
|
Post by Eibon of Mhu-Thulan on Jun 23, 2015 23:30:48 GMT -6
Yeah, but whenever I play a halfling, he's a freakin Hobbit with big hairy feet! :-) And, I can't recall the name of the guy who did the art in the Labyrinth Lord books, but he did a great job channeling 1978. I certainly feel the same about playing a halfling (Hobbits to me). Sometime after I inquired about the Hobbits in D&D, the art that is, I read some blog. I knew about TSR's trouble over using the word "Hobbit", but not the other words. When I saw the "Lord of the Rings" and the demon came on screen, the word that immediately escaped my lips: "balor." From reading the blog, I got the feeling that Wizards might be simply playing it safe. I have the books close, so I thought I would list the Labyrinth Lord artists: cover illustration and interior illustrations by Steve Zieser. That is for the core book. The Advanced Edition Companion lists the same for the cover illustration and interior art, Steve Zieser, adding for the interior art these names: Sean Aaberg and Jeremy Pea. I would definitely say that the art is in the 1978 spirit. AD&D 1st Edition
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Jun 24, 2015 9:25:55 GMT -6
Yeah, but whenever I play a halfling, he's a freakin Hobbit with big hairy feet! :-) In my 5e campaign Stouts are the "Original" halflings, described in the player's handout as looking like the Hobbits from Bakshi's Lord of the Rings. They're "Our halflings". Lightfoots are the descendants of unfortunates caught on the wrong side when the Black Wall of the Lich-Lords went up. Malnutrition, foot binding, and generations of inbreeding have given them a stunted, tiny-legged, hydro-cephalic appearance. They're "The bad halflings".
|
|
|
Post by Eibon of Mhu-Thulan on Jun 24, 2015 18:27:37 GMT -6
Yeah, but whenever I play a halfling, he's a freakin Hobbit with big hairy feet! :-) In my 5e campaign Stouts are the "Original" halflings, described in the player's handout as looking like the Hobbits from Bakshi's Lord of the Rings. They're "Our halflings". Lightfoots are the descendants of unfortunates caught on the wrong side when the Black Wall of the Lich-Lords went up. Malnutrition, foot binding, and generations of inbreeding have given them a stunted, tiny-legged, hydro-cephalic appearance. They're "The bad halflings". Foot binding? Isn't that the horrible crap that used to be inflicted on some Japanese women? Some of your Hobbits have it rough, to say the least. Who would do such? The wall you mention made me think of the Berlin Wall. Just curious, did these "Lich-Lords" of yours arrive to some location and erect a wall or were they rulers of an area before they joined the ranks of the undead?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jun 24, 2015 18:44:07 GMT -6
Foot binding? Isn't that the horrible crap that used to be inflicted on some Japanese wonen? Chinese, but yeah - not nice at all (binding is inaccurate and far too polite a term for what is actually involved). Back to an earlier point, I agree the appearance of characters is not the only consideration. There is far too little background in most RPG art, and I include the old school stuff in that sweeping generalisation. Obviously it can be a problem if a game is meant to be generic, but unless all you show are nude creatures without context you are already building setting information into your art. One of my favourite pictures is the aerial view line drawing of the city of Pavis in RQ2 Glorantha.
|
|
|
Post by Eibon of Mhu-Thulan on Jun 24, 2015 19:20:07 GMT -6
Foot binding? Isn't that the horrible crap that used to be inflicted on some Japanese wonen? Chinese, but yeah - not nice at all (binding is inaccurate and far too polite a term for what is actually involved). Back to an earlier point, I agree the appearance of characters is not the only consideration. There is far too little background in most RPG art, and I include the old school stuff in that sweeping generalisation. Obviously it can be a problem if a game is meant to be generic, but unless all you show are nude creatures without context you are already building setting information into your art. One of my favourite pictures is the aerial view line drawing of the city of Pavis in RQ2 Glorantha. Did you mean that "it can't be a problem if a game is meant to be generic" ? I ask. Because, would not lack of background contribute to it being generic? I did a quick search for Pavis but did not find a city image. My first D&D experiences were old-school, but I have more experience with d20 system (D&D and Conan RPG 2nd Edition). I believe that after looking at the covers and some interior of my AD&D, AD&D 2nd Edition, and D&D basic books and having done a search for images for art of the same, the art took a turn for the worse starting with 3rd edition. What stands out to right at this moment is the covers of the Gazetteers and the old Dragonlance art. I believe that 5th Edition, however, looks better that the 3rd and 4th edition art. Someone made mention of the swords that are wider that the head of the wielder. I too find that to be a bit to much for me.
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Jun 24, 2015 19:42:57 GMT -6
This is Middle-Earth styled Hobbit feet: And this is Brazilian styled Hobbit feet: Any questions?
|
|
|
Post by Eibon of Mhu-Thulan on Jun 24, 2015 20:07:21 GMT -6
Brazilian? I like the Middle Earth version, certainly!
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Jun 24, 2015 20:21:48 GMT -6
.[/quote]Some of your Hobbits have it rough, to say the least. Who would do such? The wall you mention made me think of the Berlin Wall. Just curious, did these "Lich-Lords" of yours arrive to some location and erect a wall or were they rulers of an area before they joined the ranks of the undead?[/quote] Back when most humans were still living in caves the men of Zarkuth captured some elves and tortured the secrets of magic out of them, thus becoming the first human wizards. Even now, thousands of years later, there's still a "Magic gap" between the Zarks and the free nations of the West: Zarkuth simply produces more and better wizards than anybody else. Eventually thirteen "Lich Lords" (The only liches in the world, the Gods will tolerate no more) rose to power and took over, backed by vampire knights that ride black unicorns, highly-disciplined "Skullboys" (Old soldiers turned into talking skeletons a la Army of Darkness. Yes, they're a PC option), lightfoot halfling assassins, and orc hordes. The Lich Lords, being undead, can't have children. The vampires are forbidden by ancient law and custom from turning anyone except white Zarkuthi of pure noble blood into vampires. These two facts keep their brutal and chaotic society remarkably stable. “Lightfoot” or “Lichsworn” halflings live in Zarkuth, where they have their own semi-autonomous puppet state called the Union of People's Progressive Shires, a breadbasket region for Zarkuth's dwindling population of living humans. Lightfoots address each other as “Neighbor” and wear crude “Black pajamas” jumpsuits. Their leader is a hereditary dictator called the First Neighbor who rules in the name of an obscure ideology called “Dialectical Post-Materialism” and keeps total control with a suffocating snitch culture fueled by vast networks of informers, constant magical surveillance by Zarkuthi wizards, and legions of secret police. Foot binding, malnutrition, and centuries of genetic stagnation have given lightfoots a bizarre appearance: Tiny feet, disproportionate limbs, and bulbous heads. Lightfoots speak Opzark, a weird dialect of Zarkuthi that has been “Optimized” by merging certain words (“Corethought” for “Correct thought”, “Poloff” for “Political Officer”, “U-gade” for “Youth Brigade”) and getting rid of “Unnecessary” or politically sensitive words. Lightfoot halflings that escape to the West tend to carry theses speech patterns over to other languages that they learn. "Victory over the West! Victory over the Gods! Victory over Death Itself!" ("Communist halflings" were added to the campaign way back in the early days (Circa 1989), I think by a player as a joke, but no one ever actually played one. When I saw the weirdo big-head "Halflings" in the 5e PHB...)
|
|
|
Post by Eibon of Mhu-Thulan on Jun 24, 2015 21:10:30 GMT -6
Some of your Hobbits have it rough, to say the least. Who would do such? The wall you mention made me think of the Berlin Wall. Just curious, did these "Lich-Lords" of yours arrive to some location and erect a wall or were they rulers of an area before they joined the ranks of the undead?[/quote] Back when most humans were still living in caves the men of Zarkuth captured some elves and tortured the secrets of magic out of them, thus becoming the first human wizards. Even now, thousands of years later, there's still a "Magic gap" between the Zarks and the free nations of the West: Zarkuth simply produces more and better wizards than anybody else. Eventually thirteen "Lich Lords" (The only liches in the world, the Gods will tolerate no more) rose to power and took over, backed by vampire knights that ride black unicorns, highly-disciplined "Skullboys" (Old soldiers turned into talking skeletons a la Army of Darkness. Yes, they're a PC option), lightfoot halfling assassins, and orc hordes. The Lich Lords, being undead, can't have children. The vampires are forbidden by ancient law and custom from turning anyone except white Zarkuthi of pure noble blood into vampires. These two facts keep their brutal and chaotic society remarkably stable. “Lightfoot” or “Lichsworn” halflings live in Zarkuth, where they have their own semi-autonomous puppet state called the Union of People's Progressive Shires, a breadbasket region for Zarkuth's dwindling population of living humans. Lightfoots address each other as “Neighbor” and wear crude “Black pajamas” jumpsuits. Their leader is a hereditary dictator called the First Neighbor who rules in the name of an obscure ideology called “Dialectical Post-Materialism” and keeps total control with a suffocating snitch culture fueled by vast networks of informers, constant magical surveillance by Zarkuthi wizards, and legions of secret police. Foot binding, malnutrition, and centuries of genetic stagnation have given lightfoots a bizarre appearance: Tiny feet, disproportionate limbs, and bulbous heads. Lightfoots speak Opzark, a weird dialect of Zarkuthi that has been “Optimized” by merging certain words (“Corethought” for “Correct thought”, “Poloff” for “Political Officer”, “U-gade” for “Youth Brigade”) and getting rid of “Unnecessary” or politically sensitive words. Lightfoot halflings that escape to the West tend to carry theses speech patterns over to other languages that they learn. "Victory over the West! Victory over the Gods! Victory over Death Itself!" ("Communist halflings" were added to the campaign way back in the early days (Circa 1989), I think by a player as a joke, but no one ever actually played one. When I saw the weirdo big-head "Halflings" in the 5e PHB...)[/quote] I like your ideas. "4 legs good, 2 legs bad!" “Correct thought”, reminds me of "1984" and the idea therein of "the destruction of language". It reads like a magical-medieval hell on Middle Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jul 5, 2015 13:55:35 GMT -6
Personnaly I dislike the kobold body-builder ...
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Aug 5, 2015 5:19:25 GMT -6
The type V demon all modestly covered-up particularly jarred me. I looked-up the succubus again, and lo and behold! She's fully clothed. That makes as much sense as the following wearing clothes: Dejah Thoris Eve in the Garden of Eden an infant born 10 seconds ago Tinidril (from C. S. Lewis's Perelandra) etc. This fight is over and I don't want to reignite it, but I'd trust a succubus to be clever enough to understand the Theiss Titillation Theory (aka the idea that sexy clothing can be sexier than just straight up nudity.) Anyway by and large I like the new art, there's a few that don't quite land for me but on the whole it's most satisfactory... with one exception. Pretty much every illustration of the halflings is even more disappointingly goofy-looking than the concept art was. I don't know why halflings seem to be so hard for people to draw. Bugs me, especially because they're my favorite race.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 5, 2015 10:00:43 GMT -6
Pretty much every illustration of the halflings is even more disappointingly goofy-looking than the concept art was. I don't know why halflings seem to be so hard for people to draw. Ignorance. They are Edwardian Englishmen with no shoes and hairy feet. Most everyone draws something else.
|
|