bbarsh wrote:I 100% agree. There is nothing wrong with trying to draw sexy females with swords. But most of what we get is so over the top, it just sucks. My personal most hated are all those DL illustrations. In reality those half naked chicks would last five minutes walking through a dungeon or even a simple forest.
deimos3428 wrote:bbarsh wrote:I 100% agree. There is nothing wrong with trying to draw sexy females with swords. But most of what we get is so over the top, it just sucks. My personal most hated are all those DL illustrations. In reality those half naked chicks would last five minutes walking through a dungeon or even a simple forest.Unless they're really nymphs, Type V demons, succubi, etc. There were far too many monsters designed to prey on male roleplayer's hormonal stupidity. Our characters quickly developed a simple rule: If it's female, attractive, alone, and in a dungeon -- kill it, ask questions later.
bbarsh wrote:jpipes wrote:Personally, I've never been offended by the suggested/potential sexual overtones in any of the various D&D related artworks, but what HAS always annoyed me is the (in my opinion) totally silly "girl with huge breasts in a thong and chain mail bra" topic of painting. It's just plain silly. I can think of at least 5 or 6 prominent works that had this as the focus, and I hated them all. I just never got it...I 100% agree. There is nothing wrong with trying to draw sexy females with swords. But most of what we get is so over the top, it just sucks. My personal most hated are all those DL illustrations. In reality those half naked chicks would last five minutes walking through a dungeon or even a simple forest.
jpipes wrote:Personally, I've never been offended by the suggested/potential sexual overtones in any of the various D&D related artworks, but what HAS always annoyed me is the (in my opinion) totally silly "girl with huge breasts in a thong and chain mail bra" topic of painting. It's just plain silly. I can think of at least 5 or 6 prominent works that had this as the focus, and I hated them all. I just never got it...
mbassoc2003 wrote:I have a bigger problem with the giant tree stump than the nude on the cover of EW.
MShipley88 wrote:d) Object to the tree being cut down?
harami2000 wrote:MShipley88 wrote:d) Object to the tree being cut down?I suspect the EW druids might've done!
killjoy32 wrote:yeah that was always something i tended to have problems getting my head around on a constant basis.i could accept neutrality on the basis that you extract yourself from everything and do your own thing and not be involved in any way with one or the other. that kinda works in my head.but then most of my characters were always chaotic neutral. basically very instinctive and pretty much off the cuff lunacy. this used to wind up the whole party loads, but it was worth every penny.specially trying to creep up on a black dragon, and there is me standing there throwing stones at it (just about every player in the room at that time threw a book at me)Al
Badmike wrote:killjoy32 wrote:yeah that was always something i tended to have problems getting my head around on a constant basis.i could accept neutrality on the basis that you extract yourself from everything and do your own thing and not be involved in any way with one or the other. that kinda works in my head.but then most of my characters were always chaotic neutral. basically very instinctive and pretty much off the cuff lunacy. this used to wind up the whole party loads, but it was worth every penny.specially trying to creep up on a black dragon, and there is me standing there throwing stones at it :D(just about every player in the room at that time threw a book at me)AlDruids in all my campaigns are NG or NE...no one, I'm sorry, could ever be TRUE neutral without eventually going bonkers at some point in their lives "Did I take too many pine cones from the forest today for my stew? If I eat thisrabbit, does the balance of the woods tip to one side or another? Should I rescue that small child from the jaws of the hungry wolf, who is only feeding his poor wolf cub family, but then the human family will be upset.....?" Enough! Dimbulb the 1st level druid should never have to wrestle through existential questions of existance that a Tibetian Zen Master could only begin to fathom. Also, true neutral IMO means you can never go adventuring....what party in their right mind harbors a guy who any moment might yell "Run away, grizzly bear, the party wants to take your fur!" In my campaign, NG druids work for the general good of all humans in harmony with the forest, in general putting the rights of living thinking reasoning beings above those of ravening, wasteful and unintelligent monsters, animals or humans, unless such thinking beings are wantonly destroying the flora or fauna. NE druids might be perfectly ok guys, but they respect the rights of animals or plants over that of us pesky humans in all circumstances, no matter what. So Druid #2 might sit and watch you get eaten by a python because that's the "circle of life, my friend" and not violate his ethos, while Druid #1 would feel compelled to rescue you (hopefully by not killing the snake) in the hopes of some "greater good" arising from allowing a thinking being to live. It sure solved a lot of dilemmas we had when trying to play the old strict Neutral type druids.Mike B.
killjoy32 wrote:yeah that was always something i tended to have problems getting my head around on a constant basis.i could accept neutrality on the basis that you extract yourself from everything and do your own thing and not be involved in any way with one or the other. that kinda works in my head.but then most of my characters were always chaotic neutral. basically very instinctive and pretty much off the cuff lunacy. this used to wind up the whole party loads, but it was worth every penny.specially trying to creep up on a black dragon, and there is me standing there throwing stones at it :D(just about every player in the room at that time threw a book at me)Al