• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E I hope this isn't 5E...(art that screams "not this, not this!")

You specifically stated you found the image "disgusting". You use the term porn pejoratively with 100% consistency. Then you claim you do not find porn immoral. And all this from what is a relatively tame image. SO, as far as I am concerned I think that you are contradicting yourself.

I simply find most porn style stuff made in fantasy or SciFi style disgusting. The naked Klingon chicks anyone? Oh dear gods... makes me wonder if some people lost all contact to reality.


I think you are projecting your own values about what constitutes a family game. D&D at its core is about killing a VERY VERY large part of the time. But you're okay with this. Many people play very dark versions of the same game and without even going that far down the track I'd even suggest the large majority of D&D games wouldn't be something you'd want your 10 year old son listening in on. I've played D&D with kids, but I heavily adapt it so that it is appropriate.

As stated above by Mokona, a lot of kids play this game. So it is a family game simply because kids are part of the target audience, and seeing how much effort is put (at least by Paizo) to gain them as players, any art not appropriate for kids needs to stay out.

I came over very few games I'd not have my son allowed to listen in on.


Your group sounds very colourful and interesting. Ethnicity and religion however are not the only factors that define culture. Your gaming group for example will have its own culture. I wouldn't like to start supposing about your fellow players so I won't. I will say that your gaming group must be quite large if you see 4 or 5 of them outside of the game but they are the minority.

Defining culture that way, yeah I guess. We are 19 people split in different overlapping groups (and one more 5 player group I run not overlapping with the others).


It's not ancient art. It's Renaissance art. And for it's time it was HIGHLY risqué. Your opinion of the piece reveals a lot about the knowledge you project upon art in general.

Renaissance = ancient. In the sense of what can be marketed or not, anything older than 50 years or so is too old to matter. It is one of those pieces which are usually impressive to see in a museum or at a wall of a historic building. Out of context it is just not that interesting.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Which brings me back to one of my original points which I made due to the criticism Wayne Reynolds character with the oversized sword.

Artists are commissioned to do paint a certain image a certain way. If this is a strong enough argument to excuse the instances I have linked of D&D images with sexual overtones, then why is it not strong enough to justify Reynold's oversized sword?
A couple things. You've linked one D&D image that has sexual overtones: Crysania and Raistlin. I'm not even going to count the Kitiara picture -- there are no suggestive poses or situations. Just some cleavage, and not even as much as in a typical episode of "Ghost Whisperer".

Now, what is the difference between Elmore and Reynolds? Well, for one, Elmore was responsible for faithfully illustrating a scene from a book. That scene is not at all representative of the art he did for D&D. It is, in fact, the most sexually suggestive of all his TSR work. Link to non-TSR work he did all you like. The bone of contention vis-a-vis Elmore was not that he doesn't or hasn't ever drawn racy pictures. It was that he did NOT do so in D&D to any great degree.

You said:
jbear said:
Well ... many many of Larry Elmore's illustrations were extremely erotic.

That's the bone of contention. No, some of his work since leaving TSR has been erotic, or at least racy. But virtually none of his D&D was even close to erotic. Hell, even the illustration of Crysania, while sexually themed, has to be squinted at to come close to "erotic".

If you want to say Reynolds was justified in the design of the big sword because of the character background, go for it. I, at least, will not dispute it. But the criticism of Reynolds is beyond just that one picture, it goes to his whole style. It's like criticism of Elmore based on lack of dynamism, or 80s hair, both charges I'd happily agree with. If you want to say, "Elmore's non-TSR work was too sexy," that's cool. But one thing Elmore's D&D art did not have was an abundance of T&A. For that, TSR's go-to guy was Clyde Caldwell.

Elmore is unquestionably a fantasy artist. Yes, many of his paintings depict women who aren't scantily clad. But it is also fair to say that many of his images also contain sexual overtones. And if you look at his pencil sketches of women, well, there I think we see how he prefers to depict women. Erotica.
Uh, no. That he has racy drawings and nudes in his portfolio does not mean that's how he "prefers" to depict women. Particularly in an RPG publication. The abundance of nudes in Annie Leibovitz's portfolio hardly means she prefers to depict people in the nude.
 

Ugh... I think I prefer anime to that :cool:

I have to admit I think that Cap picture is pushing the "hugely muscular man" ideal a weeee bit too far. I've seen depictions of The Hulk with smaller shoulders.

I wouldn't mind seeing some traditionally comic-book artists come to the table for D&D imagery, but I want to maintain a diversity of art and artists. I think my biggest issue with 4e was that SO MUCH of the art was done by one artist(who I liked), but it was just overkill.
 


I actually like Wayne Reynold's work. His work for "Pathfinder" draws me, a dedicated 4e fanboy. Still, the kind of art that makes me want to play (rather than just read rulebooks) is exemplified by this:

http://greymerryfaire.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/harbek-dwarf-fighter.pdf

Now, that's a dwarf! Notice the hairy arms, the bullet-style helmet...he doesn't look like a 4 foot version of Cap upthread, but he doesn't look like a weakling either.

A similar style permeates the awesome "D&D Worlds of Adventure" video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOSsQlV2Qw"]video[/ame].

Finally, concerning art generally, Brian Regan's take is very similar to mine:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JforqAWJHAU"]take[/ame]

("If I were judging, I'd have to take points off.")
 
Last edited:

I actually like Wayne Reynold's work. His work for "Pathfinder" draws me, a dedicated 4e fanboy. Still, the kind of art that makes me want to play (rather than just read rulebooks) is exemplified by this:

http://greymerryfaire.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/harbek-dwarf-fighter.pdf

Now, that's a dwarf! Notice the hairy arms, the bullet-style helmet...he doesn't look like a 4 foot version of Cap upthread, but he doesn't look like a weakling either.

Great image. Something you (or others) may or may not realize, being a dedicated 4e fanboy, but that dwarf is by Larry Elmore. It's from an image used in the BECMI "Companion's" book.
 

I agree anime styled art is bad and needs to vanish from my player's handbook!! We need a real artist to work on DnD art, like Rob Liefield!



Imagine Cap wearing armor and carrying a sword... it would be the best picture or a paladin EVAR!

Rather nasty chest infection he seems to have there...
 



Mmmmm, no. That looks most definitely Jeff Easley to me...possibly Tim Truman, but I'm going to stick with Easley.

If memory serves it is from either an opening or closing margin/page in either the Expert (BECMI blue box) book....hang on lemme go check...

[EDIT] Got it right with Easley. Right with positioning. But wrong with the Expert book. This is also from Companions set...for the epilogue (last image) in the DM's book.[/EDIT]
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top