Knights & Knaves Alehouse

thedungeondelver wrote:

Matthew wrote:Bah! That's not a Marilith... this is a Marilith!



How does she use those weapons? Supernatural strength and wilful ignorance of basic physics!

That's not a Malirith...these are Malirith!

AMEN BROTHER!

I was thinking, why are these guys still posting crap art and trying to spin it off as good, or old school? LOL its not.

I think a valid question is, would you let a Type V...

Nah, best not to ponder that, no matter how nice the rack.

Wheggi wrote:the most awesome fantasy movie of all time.

Just put a snake torso on her and you're good to go.

Abso-friggin'-lutely!

Here's the problem, right here: In the "Olden Days" people worked hard to make things realistic. These days, people work hard to go beyond reality! When the Hulk jumps, do the special effects guys strive to show a realistic example of what would happen? No! When spacecraft fly past a planet, do they bother to make it appear true to nature? No! They don't go for realism anymore. They go for super-realism. Beyond realism. Things created to look good, no matter how impractical they would be if they actually had to exist.

Godzilla was more realistic when he was a man in a rubber suit than when the CGI people effed him up to outrun military helicopters in the streets of New York.

One day, the movies adored by these audiences we sit among today will be just as laughably unbelievable to future audiences as the old man-in-a-rubber-suit Godzilla movies are to movie-goers now. But until then, we'll have to suffer with this super-realism overwhelming artwork in all popular formats.

thedungeondelver wrote:I think a valid question is, would you let a Type V...

Nah, best not to ponder that, no matter how nice the rack.

Well I never thought about it until now. Thanks

How would you..

Where would you put..

What position...

And I thought calculus was hard to figure out.

Those newer pieces are awesome. Strategically placed weaponry for the win.

thedungeondelver wrote: That's not a Malirith...these are Malirith!

Ha, ha. I was hoping somebody would post those up. I couldn't find them using Google Image Search.

Looks like the hiding of her natural assets began with 2e (I know, who would have guessed?):

thedungeondelver wrote: I think a valid question is, would you let a Type V...

Nah, best not to ponder that, no matter how nice the rack.

Maybe, if I were a Type VI...

Wheggi wrote:And while not a type 5 per se, you cannot have a conversation like this without bringing up the most awesome fantasy movie of all time.

Just put a snake torso on her and you're good to go.

Edited for the combat scene. No sound, but still great. Rest in peace, Ray.

- Wheggi

Thank for the link! Ray Harryhausen rocks!!!

T. Foster wrote:Screw this "Marilith" noise. Type V Demon -- that's what my copies of Eldritch Wizardry and the Monster Manual say (and yeah, I know later printings added "(Marilith, et al.)" but it's not in my copy).

The name "Marilith" is iconic because it was the only entry in the known names. I did not know the Type V Demon had other names until I started using the MMII as a master index (listing the page numbers of both MMs & the FF). As I was looking I found all the names of the Type V Demons: Aishapra, Kevokulli, Marilith, and Rehnaremme.



Pardon me for the 3.X art. It was the point that Wiz-bros are going in such a PC power-ranger anime direction with 4e, that they are rejecting their own art because it not save for the women and children. Before I left the Wizard Forum, such art like the Nymph, the Succubus, the Thrall of Graz'zt was forbidden to post (hell, they throw out the banhammer for art that was covered up with long hair or steam! They got so crazy, that they would lock or remove threads over a lot less!).

I also have no regret posting the Thrall of Graz'zt, even though it came from a nasty, immature book, it was the only pic in the whole edition I liked (and I never liked armored Clerics).

As for what I think of 4e art? Its an amazing thing with the magic of photoshop to take a piece of shitty-ass art and "polish the terd" to make something that is passed off a masterpiece! I also hate how loud and flashy the new art is, it like going outside in an orange and pick polka-dot blazer, it just hurts the eyes!

On the idol: Not bad. Not great, but not bad. He's kinda stretchy compared to the original. And they wouldn't want to alarm parents with any images of slain, evil lizard-men, now, would they? 'Cause lizard-men are cute like puppies and folks don't want their kids killing evil creatures.

On the marilith/nekkid hotties: The more the better. The "PC" movement is trying to further remove any hint of women from any an all of our beloved activities. It's misogyny, really. Pretty soon it will be illegal to have any representations of gender in any art: the human form will be bland, featureless, neuter, like a plain department store dummy, complete with removable head and hands.

What about the trouserless Bugbear (MM, 12)???
The centaur (MM, 14) with his privates showing, hm???
The Rakshasa (MM, 81) whose smoking something in his pipe???

You get the idea.

Oh, COME ON! It's a roleplaying game rulebook, mostly targeted at preteens and teens, the purpose of which is to communicate the rules of the game and people are bitching and moaning because there aren't enough naked boobies? I assume the majority of you posting in this thread are adults. If you're really that desperate to see breasts, I'm sure you can find much surer (and cheaper) ways of seeing them than buying a roleplaying book. It's ridiculous (and, honestly, pretty damn creepy) for grown men to be using issues like political correctness, misogyny and corporate pandering as an excuse to complain that a toy and game company isn't providing an acceptably high level of nerd-wank in their game rulebooks.

Give me a break.

I don't think anyone is bitching, or at least being overly serious about the boobs or lack there of. At least I'm not. I see it more as light-hearted jokes and commentary about boobs and the changing artwork containing said boobage. Nothing too serious.

Edit: Bah. Mi grammer and spelting iz nott so gud.

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:Oh, COME ON! It's a roleplaying game rulebook, mostly targeted at preteens and teens, the purpose of which is to communicate the rules of the game and people are bitching and moaning because there aren't enough naked boobies? I assume the majority of you posting in this thread are adults. If you're really that desperate to see breasts, I'm sure you can find much surer (and cheaper) ways of seeing them than buying a roleplaying book. It's ridiculous (and, honestly, pretty damn creepy) for grown men to be using issues like political correctness, misogyny and corporate pandering as an excuse to complain that a toy and game company isn't providing an acceptably high level of nerd-wank in their game rulebooks.

Give me a break.

I agree that Hasbro's Dungeon and Dragons titled game should not have images or content that would be inappropriate for children. AD&D however was not designed for children, and I would oppose censoring of material for this game strictly to meet with some PC ideal. Now, I'm not talking about creating nudity for the sake of nudity, but nudity keeping in line with the source material.

- Wheggi

This artwork, though techincally renderred well, IMHO sucks!

Let me fix that image for you DD...

I am rather unconcerned either way with a topless female in my roleplaying books. It is an odd trait in some people to become upset regarding a drawing/painting/sculpture. Try watching unadultered television from other countries. It is an interesting shift from these games stating "adult" clearly on the cover (as in the Holmes boxed set, for example) to the current mindset of altering what we think a creature is from, say classical Greek mythology, to a clearly different form, which might appear more menacing and easier for a younger audience to see as monstrous and worthy of instant video-game inspired destruction. Why don't kids just play video games rather than pen and paper games? It seems that in trying to make a roleplaying game using elements of WoW you make the roleplaying game redundant.

Either way, I run very innocent games, devoid of any sexual content. I enjoy my fairytale world.

Wheggi wrote:I agree that Hasbro's Dungeon and Dragons titled game should not have images or content that would be inappropriate for children. AD&D however was not designed for children, and I would oppose censoring of material for this game strictly to meet with some PC ideal. Now, I'm not talking about creating nudity for the sake of nudity, but nudity keeping in line with the source material.

- Wheggi

I'm not a prude, it's not like I object to the pictures in the AD&D books. On the other hand, I don't think it would have been some travesty for roleplayers everywhere if the Marilith in the MM wasn't showing nip.