D&D 5E The 5E Art is Awesome

[Sword of Spirit]

What, no love for the halfling wizards on pages 44, 142, 156 or 180?

Those ones look different, and perhaps that's why few people are noticing them. They don't stand out as the new direction of halflings.

 

[redrick]

Yeah, I don't see it that way at all. That might be a young dragon, but it's still pretty big, and it still could have easily killed livestock and people. Putting it down doesn't make the people in that picture "murderous monsters" any more than someone who kills a cougar that has been killing off livestock and attacking people.

I'd also add that the DM's job isn't to be against the PCs, or to "bring the degenerates to justice." That's how you end up with all these stories about jerk DMs. A DMs job is to run the adventure, the world, and be impartial (hence why the DM was originally called a referee).

My post was largely tongue in cheek. I do think that the image is different from a standard "heroic" portrayal of adventurers. Describing an act as "neutral" isn't necessarily a critical description! Just that it's not exactly heroic to pose next to the picture of a fallen foe. So killing the dragon may have been a Good act, or it may have been an Evil act, depending on context that we don't have.

I'm also not actually advocating for an adversarial relationship between DM's and player characters. Tongue in cheek! That doesn't change the fact that sometimes player characters do things that are pretty reprehensible (from an in-game perspective). Furthermore, as a GM, it is my job to create and role-play various adversaries who are very much trying to kill or hinder said player characters. Then, it is my job to rule impartially on the success of said adversaries, which generally works out with dead adversaries. Afterwards, we all hug it out.

I don't have pictures of all my PCs hanging on the wall with lots of darts and knives sticking out of them. I don't think to myself every time I roll a critical hit, "that one was for Kobold Jimmy! And that one was for Half-Orc Timmy! And that one was for the really nice merchant back in Adventuretown whose pocket got picked!" Honest.

EDITED TO ADD:
Anyway, to keep this back on topic. I think the Elmore pic is a great one. I'm not sure that there's anything in the 5e art that I've seen that quite captures the same spirit. There's lots of other great artwork in those books that captures other spirits, though!

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah, I don't see it that way at all. That might be a young dragon, but it's still pretty big, and it still could have easily killed livestock and people. Putting it down doesn't make the people in that picture "murderous monsters" any more than someone who kills a cougar that has been killing off livestock and attacking people.

I'd also add that the DM's job isn't to be against the PCs, or to "bring the degenerates to justice." That's how you end up with all these stories about jerk DMs. A DMs job is to run the adventure, the world, and be impartial (hence why the DM was originally called a referee).

Dragons, even young ones, are intelligent creatures. They can usually speak common and almost assuredly speak draconic, which makes for a very important difference between it and a cougar. Preemptively killing anything because they are "typically evil" especially when they are intelligent creatures is also evil, from the dragon's perspective their attacks against humans might be justified on exactly the same grounds. It's a very, literally dangerous associative fallacy and on top of that, it is basically racism or specisism.

Though it might not always be the case in the gameworld at hand, it is worth considering: are "evil" sentient creatures evil because they have experienced nothing but endless waves of adventurers attempting to kill them? Imagine all the dragons who came before that little dragon in the picture. How many adventurers tried to kill them? Of those, how many only did so in response to the dragon perpetrating an evil act? How many did so because they wanted a new set of dragoncale armor or because they needed a dragon-eye for a casting reagent, or because they wanted fame and glory?

The "impartial DM" is a fantasy. You want an impartial DM? Go play an MMO. You want an interesting game where your moral compass may get questioned? Sit down at a table and play face-to-face with real people. Then see how long your 'murderhoboing' lasts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My post was largely tongue in cheek.!

Ah! I probably should have guessed that. My bad. I guess I've seen WAY too many posts where people made that argument in all seriousness. And it's just plain odd.

Dragons, even young ones, are intelligent creatures. They can usually speak common and almost assuredly speak draconic, which makes for a very important difference between it and a cougar. Preemptively killing anything because they are "typically evil" especially when they are intelligent creatures is also evil, from the dragon's perspective their attacks against humans might be justified on exactly the same grounds. It's a very, literally dangerous associative fallacy and on top of that, it is basically racism or specisism.

Wait, what? Killing a green dragon is basically racism or speciesism? Look, D&D is a fantasy game where we have the luxury to define certain monsters as "always bad" and don't have to follow the rules of real life. Besides, what do green dragons eat? They are not vegetarians. The bottom line is you have no idea what the back story to that painting is. What we do know, from a D&D context is that green dragons are maliciously evil and look to cause harm. What we know from that painting is that you have a large sized creature perfectly capable of killing livestock and people. You're trying to make it out like they are hanging a puppy or something.

The "impartial DM" is a fantasy. You want an impartial DM? Go play an MMO. You want an interesting game where your moral compass may get questioned? Sit down at a table and play face-to-face with real people. Then see how long your 'murderhoboing' lasts.

Hate to break it to you, but I've played with impartial DMs for almost 35 years. I am one myself. The game world keeps on keep'n on regardless of what the PCs do. It reacts based on PC actions. I don't start changing up the rules on a whim based on a player's behavior. Lucky for me, I guess I don't play with players who view the game as just a way to express their homicidal tendencies.

But based on your response, I can assure you that I wouldn't want to play in your games, if you're thinking you like to "question my moral failings" any time my PC wants to kill a green dragon. D&D is not a game for you as a DM to sit on a pedestal and dictate your personal morals on others.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I like the art in general. Definitely a step up from the very variable AD&D artwork. But I also have a real fondness for the Elmore B/X artwork (mmm, Aleena. Rraaow).
Halflings being from Innsmouth though? That's genius. I may have to incorporate a Halfling seaside village with a stench of decay and a weird fishy cult who're in league with the Sahuagin, under the control of a wicked GOO Warlock. I may call it Squamous. I can see it now.

 

[Unwise]

I like the art in general. Definitely a step up from the very variable AD&D artwork. But I also have a real fondness for the Elmore B/X artwork (mmm, Aleena. Rraaow).
Halflings being from Innsmouth though? That's genius. I may have to incorporate a Halfling seaside village with a stench of decay and a weird fishy cult who're in league with the Sahuagin, under the control of a wicked GOO Warlock. I may call it Squamous. I can see it now.

If you do decide to run it, you can use Last Breath of Ashenport for 4e, it does not take much to modify it. That is pretty much a Call of Cthulhu adventure set against a Dagon cult. More hack and slash and less investigating, but it does capture the vibe well. I have used it in 5e.

 

[Bagpuss]

I was just flipping through my core set, looking for inspiration, and it occurred to me just how great the art is.

On the whole I agree but what is with the bobblehead halflings?

 

[Sunseeker]

Wait, what? Killing a green dragon is basically racism or speciesism? Look, D&D is a fantasy game where we have the luxury to define certain monsters as "always bad" and don't have to follow the rules of real life. Besides, what do green dragons eat? They are not vegetarians. The bottom line is you have no idea what the back story to that painting is. What we do know, from a D&D context is that green dragons are maliciously evil and look to cause harm. What we know from that painting is that you have a large sized creature perfectly capable of killing livestock and people. You're trying to make it out like they are hanging a puppy or something.

Hate to break it to you, but I've played with impartial DMs for almost 35 years. I am one myself. The game world keeps on keep'n on regardless of what the PCs do. It reacts based on PC actions. I don't start changing up the rules on a whim based on a player's behavior. Lucky for me, I guess I don't play with players who view the game as just a way to express their homicidal tendencies.

But based on your response, I can assure you that I wouldn't want to play in your games, if you're thinking you like to "question my moral failings" any time my PC wants to kill a green dragon. D&D is not a game for you as a DM to sit on a pedestal and dictate your personal morals on others.

Says the guy who is sitting on a pedestal claiming that certain creatures are "always evil".

The only thing we don't share and frankly I don't care if you want to play at my table, is an absolute moral compass. Because if a green dragon just saved a baby from a burning building, apparently they're still evil so you'd kill it.

I highly doubt your DMing or the tables you play at have impartial DMs, I suspect they simply have the same moral outlook as you, which makes them appear impartial.

 

[Reynard]

Because if a green dragon just saved a baby from a burning building, apparently they're still evil so you'd kill it.

A couple things:

1) in a world where absolute morality is a real thing, a green dragon might save a baby from a burning building but if it did you can be sure it was for self serving evil reasons. That's how absolute morality works.

2) Just because a creature is evil does not mean the only or even preferred method is to kill it. Evil comes in many form, from Sauron to the merchant that sells you a fake silver sword. Are they equally evil and deserving of equal punishment.

3) When it comes to hunting dragons and looting hoards, good and evil might not be especially relevant.

4) not all dragons are intelligent. I don't have my BX books on me but there was a percentage chance that any given warm was capable of language. That's the era from which the picture in question comes.

5) This thread is still about the 5E art.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Says the guy who is sitting on a pedestal claiming that certain creatures are "always evil".

Well, if you're not going to read what I said....

I said that in a fantasy game like D&D we an make absolute assumptions because it's a fantasy game. In D&D, some monsters are always the bad guys. Always. And hundreds of thousands of players like it that way because they don't want to have a philosophical discussion about moral relativity in a freaking fantasy game.

The only thing we don't share and frankly I don't care if you want to play at my table, is an absolute moral compass. Because if a green dragon just saved a baby from a burning building, apparently they're still evil so you'd kill it.

I highly doubt your DMing or the tables you play at have impartial DMs, I suspect they simply have the same moral outlook as you, which makes them appear impartial.

So now you've moved to calling me someone who lacks a moral compass because my PCs would kill a dragon? Classy. There are a million other ways for me to have discussions about the right and wrong of various moralities...like just sitting around and talking. Playing D&D is not the time or place, and certainly isn't a very good tool, to try to lecture the players about how my morality is right and they're all a bunch of psychopathic killers.

And yes, there are LOTS of impartial DMs. But it appears that you're so blinded by your own views and insisting others share them, that it doesn't surprise me that you think DMs can't be impartial. I also don't think you know what impartial means. It certainly doesn't mean taking sides on a moral stance. Quite the opposite in fact. Luckily, impartiality is something we can measure objectively by looking at how often the DM took one side over the other. If that answer is "never', then you have a pure impartial DM. Which lots of DMs are. Like I said, there's a reason why it was called a "referee".