Most Objectionable TSR Art Ever Published!
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 41, 2, 3, 4
Author


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:56 pm 
 

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.

 YIM  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1271
Joined: Jan 09, 2005
Last Visit: Nov 17, 2020
Location: Azeroth

Post Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:29 am 
 

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.


Wish I could say the same here. There was one player that no matter the character they were playing could always be counted on to fall for the happless female who later wanted some alone time. Did not matter what it was, succubus, doppleganger, illusionist, assassin etc. they fell for and often died for it everytime. It became almost curuel, sadistic and unfair to do it.


Information Superhighway - A Rough Whimper of Insanity - Scott Hansen

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:52 am 
 

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.


   But then again, if there really was a D&D forest no one in his right mind would ever go near it...much less a dungeon!

   Also, no one would ever live next to water...particularly the ocean.  Talk about a death wish!  Fishermen must be the highest level guys in every D&D world.

   Humans in a D&D world would live only on extremely flat, open plains, possibly with herds of cattle to provide the humans with dairy products and their gigantic packs of attack dogs with meat.   :lol:   A special detail would always be assigned to listen for burrowing!

   Everyone would have worse nightmares than the poor children forced to live aboard the USS Enterprise in Star Trek the Next Generation!  Talk about mental problems!

Mark   :lol:  :lol:  :lol:


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:54 am 
 

My players often joke about "Player-Character Dislexia."

   This is the syndrome that causes PC's to go towards whatever everyone else is running away from.   :lol:

Mark


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jul 20, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:11 am 
 

I am not even talking about our half naked chicks goint into combat. The simple environmental factors of walking through a forest, dungeon, desert, is at its best dirty, wet, cold, hot, bug-filled, sharp objects, on and on.

And it sure is amazing how they keep their hair perfect! Now, it is a fantasy game and we all understand that. But for me, I like a little reality-based fantasy 8O ... you get what I mean.

I spent 4 years in the army walking and crawling through jungles, woods and deserts. Even under the easiest of training missions, you got messed up. Guys getting cut, bruised, etc.

As cool as it would be to have a half naked, chainmail bikini girl along, she wouldn't make it 100 yeards.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6352
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Jul 27, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:49 am 
 

I have a bigger problem with the giant tree stump than the nude on the cover of EW.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . minestrone soup.

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 132
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 02, 2006
Location: Clifton Park, NY

Post Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:56 am 
 

Look on the cover of AC2. My players for years have referred to the picture of the 3 monsters as the _____-nosed creatures.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:48 pm 
 

mbassoc2003 wrote:I have a bigger problem with the giant tree stump than the nude on the cover of EW.


   Is it because you:

a)  Find the tree stump unbelievable in some way?

b)  Object to naked trees?

c)  Object to a naked girl abusing a tree stump?

d)  Object to the tree being cut down?

Mark    :lol:


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:50 pm 
 

MShipley88 wrote:d) Object to the tree being cut down?

I suspect the EW druids might've done! :)

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 125
Joined: Oct 27, 2003
Last Visit: Aug 23, 2017
Location: Atop a heap of slain orcs

Post Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:10 pm 
 

I am jumping in here but there is some TERRIBLE artwork in that 3rd immortal module, IM3...I can't remember his name but the pictures just stink.....

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 590
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 15, 2020
Location: NYC

Post Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:51 pm 
 

:lol: @ Mark.

I agree with Ian though. That stump is kinda objectionable. Stone altar would have been better.  :wink:


"before chuck even gets in the room, you can feel the bad-ness." -Al

  


Active Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 50
Joined: Nov 05, 2002
Last Visit: Mar 05, 2012

Post Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:24 am 
 

Am I the only one who found the illustration on the bottom of page 104 of the Fiend Folio disturbing?

I'm a dwaven cleric by day and a male stripper by night.

Nice bag of holding.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:41 am 
 

harami2000 wrote:
MShipley88 wrote:d) Object to the tree being cut down?

I suspect the EW druids might've done! :)


    I think that the eco-druids of AD&D are one of the less workable concepts of the system...but then druids in general were not well thought out in first edition...and they still suck in 3.5.  I think a late 20th century Defender of the Wild is a fairly stupid concept in a medieval setting.

   Never fear!  I have saved this baby deer!  You may return to your homes safe in the knowledge that no critters will be harmed this day!. Hey, you!  Unhand that rabbit!

    Downright dorky.  

    Right down there with the amusing vocabulary error that had monks as "aesthetics" rather than "ascetics."

Mark


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5634
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Jul 27, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:05 am 
 

Well, surprisingly enough, a PROPERLY played druid would not have issues with characters hunting in their woods, as long as they hunt game animals and eat what they catch, and don't strip the land bare. Chopping down live trees, butchering wildlife needlessly, that is what sets druids off.
You can't expect a druid to yank a rabbit out of the jaws of a hungry wolf! Druids understand that things must die for other things to survive. They are really just concerned with balance. Hence the Neutral alignment.
I've seen some moronic 3E art, with 120 pound women (40 pounds of it breast) swinging 6' long swords as wide as the Mississippi. Usually the chainmail bikinis they are wearing (so pointless) are riding so far up their cracks that they are digesting links. Chainmail bikinis offend me. "Sure, slice up my abdomen, back, neck and other critical areas, but you ain't gashing these oversized tits!" PUH-leeze.
And of course they are fighting 3,500 lb. monsters with teeth longer than a car, and muscles so cut that they could win a MR. Monster Universe pageant.
To me, that is objectionable.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:17 am 
 

"Balance" is another fantasy gaming concept that I find amusing.  

   I could accept the Balance between Chaos and Law of Michael Moocock's writings.  That works.

    But a "Balance" between Good and Evil makes me laugh:

   "I need some evil to balance all the good I have done.  What do you suggest?"

    There is too much good?  We need some evil?:

    "Sir, this sandwich is too delicious!  I really must insist that you balance it with some dog turds or my neutrality may be compromised.  Yes, the really big ones.  Thank you.  Now I may enjoy my balanced sandwich!  The gods of Whatever will be most pleased."

Mark   :lol:  :lol:


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:27 am 
 

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



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7960
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jul 27, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:16 am 
 

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


Druids 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.

 WWW  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1271
Joined: Jan 09, 2005
Last Visit: Nov 17, 2020
Location: Azeroth

Post Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:13 pm 
 

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)

Al


Druids 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.


This is very similar to how they worked in my campaigns. I did though have true Neutrals though the balance they tried to maintain was the order brought forth by the Light and Dark Druids. The Druids were actually the most powerful organization in my campaigns. It was rare I would let any players play one as I preferred to keep them as NPCs.

My campaign had the Good Druids being the friendly environmental types who wanted to protect the environment but if civilization was really going to suffer they would agree to what was for good of civilization (within reason). The Dark Druids were the radical environmental types. They were anti-civilization and would often go out of their way to disrupt things they saw an encroachment on their "wilds".


Information Superhighway - A Rough Whimper of Insanity - Scott Hansen

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7960
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jul 27, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:14 pm 
 

Marlith wrote:
This is very similar to how they worked in my campaigns. I did though have true Neutrals though the balance they tried to maintain was the order brought forth by the Light and Dark Druids. The Druids were actually the most powerful organization in my campaigns. It was rare I would let any players play one as I preferred to keep them as NPCs.

My campaign had the Good Druids being the friendly environmental types who wanted to protect the environment but if civilization was really going to suffer they would agree to what was for good of civilization (within reason). The Dark Druids were the radical environmental types. They were anti-civilization and would often go out of their way to disrupt things they saw an encroachment on their "wilds".


Bingo!  Exactly the same as in my campaigns.  Basically the evil Druids are the "Animals first, Plants second, People way down the list" types.  Evil Druids are some nasty foes, They are fun to play, imagine a beyond rational, radical PETA/Earth First type backed up by powerful magic and a menagerie of bears, wolves, tigers, eagles, etc. and you have a foe that might make you go AROUND that forest rather than right through even if you are in a hurry...

Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jul 20, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:24 pm 
 

True Neutral:

1.  Too stupid to decide anything.

2.  Too selfish to care about anything.

3.  Too arrogant to believe in anything.

No wonder I never liked playing druids  :lol:

Seriously, I think more people screw up playing druids that they do overplaying paladins.
"Don't start that campfire, you might unbalance the universe by cutting up that dead wood!"


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 41, 2, 3, 4