Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Indeed. Brass plates over breasts is no issue, but monstrous characters who are depicted with naked breasts 'strategically' covered for the sake of modesty, just seems contradictory. Either include them or don't, but don't be half hearted about it.

That said, I dunno how accepting I would be of exposed genitalia...

stranger wrote:It isn't a problem with it not being there, it is a problem with it being avoided or intentionally "covered up" and therefore giving the impression that it is "wrong" in most cases.

Sorry, Stranger. I'm sure you think this is a significant distinction, but (unless you've learned how to read minds) it just reads like a biased and hypocritical double-standard to me.

Wait till you see how they filled the new books with screen shots from WoW












( I really did think they were for a minute)

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:

TheRedPriest wrote:I don't read anyone writing "WoTC *must* include nips!". Anyone, correct me if I'm wrong. If I gauge the temperature correctly, then it seems that people are using this as *one more example* of how WoTC is just goofy. In this case, they fear nudity, for whatever reason (legitimate or silly).

If I recall correctly, neither Monsters of Myth nor OSRIC contain any pictures depicting female nudity either. Does that make "those OSRIC guys" goofy and "afraid" of nudity?

Well, I dunno about being "'afraid' of nudity", but they are a goofy bunch.

Note to self: next time you do layout work for someone, you insist on art with nipplage.

mhensley wrote:


I wouldn't call them different enough to be upset about anything.

Well, when I look at the 1e PHB cover, I start to wonder about the fight which happened just before the snapshot we see, and what sort of loot they might get, and what dungeon they are in, and how long they've been down in the freakin' hellhole.

I look at the DDI thing, and I think, "CAN I HAZ CHEEZBUGR?!??!11!!?!"

One big problem is that the original statue is sitting with darkness behind it, and given the general lighting it looks okay that the interior of the mouth is dead black. That lighting effect isn't the same in the new version, where there's a lighter background -- the back of the carved mouth should be visible in the new version, and it isn't. That's one of the things that gives it a weird appearance.

The wider-open eyes, with their obviously flat stone irises in the old version, plus the stylized carving of the forehead (no realistic wrinkle-lines) makes it look like an actual old statue (ever see a Mayan or egyptian statue with realistic wrinkles?). Higher-detail statues aren't carved in rough stone like the one in the WotC version (you use marble or at least granite). Also, the stone in the old version is smoother, but I don't think that changes much in terms of the quality of the picture; it's just different. Also, the multiple chins in the old version aren't pronounced in the new version. There's a more gluttonous feel to the old version.

Also, the edges of the mouth in the newer verson go just slightly wider than the outside edges of the eyes. Just slightly - but it's enough to click in that sort of Polynesian "Tiki" look instead of the slightly Indian/Cambodian/Sri Lanka look of the original.

So, all told, there are some very identifiable differences to the statue itself, which do indeed combine to change the effect both in terms of quality (the too-black mouth) and effect (switched from Sri-Lanka to Polynesian).

So Polynesian gods have that "retarded" look, while those from Sri-Linka have a more gluttonish, devilish look?

BPoM: "How old were YOU when you picked up your first D&D book? How old were any of us? D&D is a game, of course it's primarily targeted at kids. "
So, are you saying that the market was kids back then as well as now?

I was in 8th grade I think, when I first played, but the guys that showed me (and their group of like 10 or so) were all around 21-22.

I still don't know what the average age is for say Heroquest. I suppose online D&D will be about the same, maybe older (since alot of the guys that started with 3E as kids are college now. And then theres all the other players that will be drawn to it from the past.

As for the MoM and OSRIC, I don't know if nudity was intentionally avoided or it just didn't come up. I can't think of any MoM monsters that were presented as female come to think of it (maybe the witches, but they are supposed to be clothed typically). The difference here with nudity (and I think Wheggie mentioned this) is that the classic presentation of some of these monsters kind of requires it. To put cloths on a sucubus, for instance, would be counter-productive.

Anyhow, the MM presentation was illustrative not sexual or suggestive. No different then looking in a National Geographic (and our Catholic grade school library was full of them).

BPoM what bothers people is the invisible pressure they think "others" (be it govt. or relig. right) are using on publishers and game designers (or musicians, or any sort of creative person) to "be responsible". when they really shouldn't have that kind of absolute power (the publisher should only be making their decisions on how the market place).

Also its a matter of common sense. Nobody wants to live in a world where someone tells you what you can and can't see, or dictates to you what you'll allow your kids to see. All societies have norms. And most people don't want to live in one where either extreme dominates the rest (for instance, you wouldn't want to live in a nation with no laws about public sex, but then again you wouldn't want to live in a puritian world where girls can't show their knees).

AxeMental wrote:BPoM what bothers people is the invisible pressure they think "others" (be it govt. or relig. right) are using on publishers and game designers (or musicians, or any sort of creative person) to "be responsible". when they really shouldn't have that kind of absolute power (the publisher should only be making their decisions on how the market place).

But people here are not holding those other entities responsible, they're complaining about the publisher (in this case, WotC).

TheRedPriest wrote:In this case, they fear nudity, for whatever reason (legitimate or silly).

That's the USA in a nutshell. R movies can show a lot of gore but it doesn't take much nudity to tip a R movie into NC-17 or X. And typiclaly it's only female nudity, often not often a naked male chest is shown.

I'm amused that a company that produces a game that revels in bloodshed and carnage of all types fears nudity. "Decapitate the bitch and throw her in the acid bath, but make sure that her chain mail bikini top doesn't slip off!!!"

What Wizards of the Coast book was that in? D&D3E doesn't even come close to the likes of HOL or F.A.T.A.L..

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:

stranger wrote:It isn't a problem with it not being there, it is a problem with it being avoided or intentionally "covered up" and therefore giving the impression that it is "wrong" in most cases.

Sorry, Stranger. I'm sure you think this is a significant distinction, but (unless you've learned how to read minds) it just reads like a biased and hypocritical double-standard to me.

Biased, probably, anything involving an opinion is and I don't expect everyone to feel the same way I do otherwise it wouldn't be an opinion. As for a hypocritical double-standard, that might be a stretch, but if your opinions put you on the other side of the fence I completely understand the opinion.

How do you guys feel about this: Otherworld Minitures is recreating MM critters in minitures form. Some of these monster, such as the barbed devil, have full frontal male nudity. Are you opposed to these sculpts?

I myself would have to say no. In both instances where I've seen this done, it was used to heighten the effect (with the devil the effect is perverse and medieval, with the humanoids the effect is primitive and beastal). Neither to me seemed to be 'erotic' or presented in an obscene manner, and I actually have to applaud the artist for such a bold move. Are they marketed to kids? Heck no, but I don't think they are angled towards adults looking for a thrill either. They're just what they are.

- Wheggi

I was a little put off at first, to be honest, Wheggi. After a few moments, though, I decided that it was fine and did indeed heighten the monstrousness of the creature without being truly obscene. I don't know that I would feel the same way about an erect phallus or a depiction of female genitalia. I guess I would have to see how they were done.

Exactly. As a mostly heterosexual male community we are usually pretty cool with 'awesome bewbage', becuase on a whole that's what heterosexual men like. We are also able to look as said T&A comfortably, since that is still in the realm of acceptable in popular culture. Full frontal male nudity or a wide open vagina OTOH will set off all kinds of bells and whistles, because 'civilized' culture almost universally doesn't see such body parts as acceptable for public viewing. T&A straddles the line between sexy and lewd, esp. with middle Americans (who tend to be a pretty conservative lot).

Still, we are adults, and after the initial shock ("whoa, that devil has his schlong out!") we come to accept it.

- Wheggi

Wheggi wrote:How do you guys feel about this: Otherworld Minitures is recreating MM critters in minitures form. Some of these monster, such as the barbed devil, have full frontal male nudity. Are you opposed to these sculpts?

It doesn't bother me at all, but if Otherworld decided, "Hey, if some 9 year old brings this home and leaves it in the living room, their mother is going to freak out and give us a lot of bad publicity, so let's put a loincloth over this dude." I wouldn't burn them at the stake for being politically correct genre-traitors either. As far as I'm concerned, devil-schlong doesn't have any more to do with the quality of a sculpt than demon tits do with the quality of a rulebook.