The "iconic" characters -- time to for them to die?

[Dark Jezter]

Of course it was intentional! I would never have thought otherwise (it couldn't have been a coincidence that the art was so consistently silly).

Just because it was an intentional decision doesn't mean that it was a wise decision.

To each his own. I'd rather have the characters in my D&D books look like something out of fantasy than have them look like characters from Monty Python & The Holy Grail.

 

[Paragon Kobold]

There's no need to get rid of the current Iconics. We just have to make them cooler by adding "the Chaotic" to their names and getting someone to draw a picture of them riding a horse through town and offing a random passer-by.

For example, Mialee the Chaotic could cast Finger of Death.
Hennet the Chaotic could also cast Finger of Death.
Jozan the Chaotic could cast Implosion, followed by Symbol of Pain.
Regdar the Chaotic could decapitate someone with his greatsword.
Krusk the Chaotic could decapitate someone with his greataxe.
Tordek the Chaotic could decapitate someone with his dwarven waraxe.
Alhandra the Chaotic could decapitate someone with her lance (it's okay, she detected evil first).
Ember the Chaotic could decapitate someone with a flurry of shuriken.
Soveliss the Chaotic could decapitate someone with a quiver full of arrows and Manyshot.
Lidda the Chaotic could also decapitate someone with arrows, and get sneak attack damage, too.
Vadania the Chaotic could wildshape into a tyrannosaurus, decapitate someone with a bite and then cast Finger of Death.
Devis the Chaotic could cast Greater Shout on Gimble the Chaotic.
Gimble the Chaotic could Use Magic Device to cast Finger of Death on Devis the Chaotic.

See? We can keep the Iconics because they are now Cool .

Sounds like the iconics for the 'darker, edgier' DnD.

 

[Akrasia]

To each his own. I'd rather have the characters in my D&D books look like something out of fantasy than have them look like characters from Monty Python & The Holy Grail.

Unfortunately, the characters in the D&D books don't look like ANYTHING out of fantasy literature! It would be nice if they did ...

And I have no idea what you're getting at with the "Monty Python" quip. (Though, to be frank, even film stills from that "The Last Grail" film would be preferable to another iconic posing for us.)

 

[Akrasia]

I don't agree. I find the art much better and more appealing than in previous editions.

But that is just my personal taste, which differ from yours, which is perfectly fine. When it comes to art, it is almost nearly subjective. For every person that you find that hates 3e art, there is a person who loves it, like me.

Well, the fact that there is a wide range of opinions regarding a certain matter does not necessarily mean that it is "subjective."

I like *some* of the art in 3E. My compaint is that it lacks variety -- all the art tries to emulate the same "spikey" style (with tattoos, piercings, etc.). In moderation, fine. But some variety for people whose vision of fantasy is more Tolkienesque (or Vancian, or Leiber-esque, or ... well, pretty much anything found in fantasy literature other than WotC novels) would be nice.

The iconic characters just reinforce this tedious aesthetic homogeneity.
That is why they must die.

 

[hong]

To each his own. I'd rather have the characters in my D&D books look like something out of fantasy than have them look like characters from Monty Python & The Holy Grail.

The characters in Monty Python and the Holy Grail look almost entirely like they're from a conventional medieval movie.

 

[hong]

Well, even if you prefer a non-medieval look, how about some variety?

The current art fails utterly to recognize that DnD's not just cartoonish people with absurd spikey armour and unrealistic clothing.

This is true. We need more Erol Otus, so we can have cartoonish people with absurd non-spikey armour and unrealistic clothing.

 

[dreaded_beast]

Well, the fact that there is a wide range of opinions regarding a certain matter does not necessarily mean that it is "subjective."

I think I should have said "it's all a matter of taste". :\

Unfortunately, the characters in the D&D books don't look like ANYTHING out of fantasy literature! It would be nice if they did ...

Depends on what type of fantasy you are talking about. In my opinion, it's all about imagination and how you imagine a particular person, place, or thing to look. Just because something doesn't look like your idea of fantasy doesn't mean it isn't. If you are talking about "medeival fantasy", true, 3E doesn't fit the mold, but in my opinion, is still fantasy.

In regards to 3E being unrealistic, how much of the fantasy art from then and now really was? Women in chain-mail bikinis? IMO, More often than not, realism is boring. If I wanted to play something realistic, I don't think I would be so into DND. (Realistic, meaning mundane) Sometimes an artist needs to take "artistic liberties" to spice up the piece. Besides, how much of the actual game is realistic? Why should the art be "real" but the game "mechanics" not?

 

[Gez]

Dave Trampier, where are you now?

He's driving a cab and he will throw garlic and profanities at you if you ever talk to him about making art for D&D again.

By the way, how can you proudly display so much contempt for the cartoony look of D&D and miss Trampier's art? Wormy is totally cartoony.

 

[Akrasia]

This is true. We need more Erol Otus, so we can have cartoonish people with absurd non-spikey armour and unrealistic clothing.

That would rock my world.

 

[Akrasia]

... By the way, how can you proudly display so much contempt for the cartoony look of D&D and miss Trampier's art? Wormy is totally cartoony.

Well Wormy was just a comic in Dragon. Trampier's stuff in the ADnD books was quite nice IMO.

But there were definitely cartoonish stuff (and heck, straight-up cartoons) in the OADnD books. However, at least there was variety!