Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8816835" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So, you saying "I give little weight to the art that was copied from a 16th century manual" is something that I should have just gone 'oh, you give it a vague amount of 'weight' that you feel is inconsequential" instead of just addressing the actual point which is that you believe any art based on an old manuscript from the middle ages shouldn't be taken seriously. Your point was that you were dismissing the idea that the art shows the creature, because of the source it was copied from. Which was also shown in the fact that you and others keep referring to it as an extraplanar fiend, when it isn't. The creature is a magical beast. Not a fiend. And really, you are basically taking a stance which would discount many many many pieces of artwork in the game. Which seems like a very poor stance.So, you continuing to insist I consider how I would view the creature if it was on a stained glass window or a cartoon was... pointless. That wasn't even the point you cared about. Yet you kept bringing it up again and again. Weird to flex on yourself like that, but fine, you admit it wasn't a serious point of consideration."Use your imagination" being a stand in for ignoring what the artist drew and inserting your own reality in its place. I don't care about your tolerance level, your tolerance level has nothing to do with my points. You are fully within your rights to say "I don't care what it looks like" but saying that the design is good because you are just going to ignore the problems with the design and decide to make up solutions? That isn't a good faith look at the design. I could argue that owlbears are terribly designed because their bones are made of glass and they shatter with a single blow, but that isn't a true thing, that is just a thing I made up, and not a fair take on the Owlbear.Nothing. They don't need to. My point was that unicorns as depicted in media are highly fantastic (true, as I listed abilities given to unicorns in media) and that it has nothing to do with their design, which, as you note is just a horse with a horn.So, you wouldn't be able to tell me anything at all about this creature in this dictionary? [ATTACH=full]265538[/ATTACH]Because... I can say an awful lot authoritatively about that tiger from that picture alone. It is a bit small, but you can zoom in and even see fangs and whiskers. That there is a very good depiction of what a tiger looks like. Which makes sense, because as a picture in the dictionary, the entire goal is to present a picture that accurately shows a tiger. It would be incredibly bizarre to use a picture meant to inform to mislead.  ... You seem to have completely missed the entire point of art in a dictionary. Like, to an astounding degree. The entire point of an art piece in a dictionary is to attempt to show how the thing "really is". If it is not doing that job, it is bad art. I don't understand how you could completely dismiss art in a dictionary as not showing what the thing really looks like. I'm just utterly confused, because the very nature of a dictionary and its purpose runs counter to your point. It would be like saying the musical score in a movie isn't supposed to match the emotions of the movie. That is, in essence, the entire point of its inclusion.</blockquote>

Verification