Paizo Art Department, I am so mad at you OR Which undead are "okay" to find attractive?


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

101 to 135 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Montalve wrote:
Daniel Moyer wrote:
Montalve wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
No I'm not trying to justify ghoul-love!
well I suppose Urgothoa might be able to explain every doubt you have about this... and increase your ghoul-love :P
Urgothoa can TRY and explain all she wants, but she's "ill-equipped" from the waist down to win such an argument.
her portfolio says otherwise

The picture and statue of her in a certain AP has her skeletal from the waist down. I will likely never ever EVER be allowed to play a worshiper of such a god, so I am going by what I know as an adventurer.

Silver Crusade

Brian Cortijo wrote:

In fairness to Mikaze, the art order for ** spoiler omitted ** called for her to appear seductive, despite her clearly monstrous appearance.

I'm not sure which of the artists supplied that pic, but it certainly does its job.

So it was YOUUUUU!!!!

...

But yeah, good job to whoever did that art. I support it becoming one of the standards for Golarion ghouls. I like the chalk-white, gaunt, hairless appearance they've all had so far in Pathfinder. They really do look like you'd find them living underground.


Ghouls get bite and claw attacks, don't they? Makes sense to have unnaturally sharp fangs and claws. Ghasts are basically just more powerful ghouls, and they have a super-stink; so probably not much of a stretch to say that they're all kind of foul.


Ughbash wrote:

WoD made a great world adn great story.

GURPS gave it a rule system that worked.

I don't know the GURPS rules, but I think nWoD is a good rules system.


Wolf Munroe wrote:

Just wanted to get a little timeline correction on the stuff about Bram Stoker making vampires sexy then penny dreadfuls copying him. The order there is backwards. Bram Stoker's Dracula came out in 1897 (1896?) and was influenced by penny dreadfuls like Varney the Vampyre (taken in its entirety, one of the longest texts in the English language) and pre-existing works like Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla and John Polidori's The Vampyre.

Hey thanks for correcting me. That is stuff I recalled from about 20 years ago that was when I first read Carmilla, I was doing a paper on vampires in literature for school. Seem the fog of time mixed me up a bit


KaeYoss wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

WoD made a great world adn great story.

GURPS gave it a rule system that worked.

I don't know the GURPS rules, but I think nWoD is a good rules system.

I 2nd this. I like the nWoD rules, HATE GURPS.

The Exchange

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

WoD made a great world adn great story.

GURPS gave it a rule system that worked.

I don't know the GURPS rules, but I think nWoD is a good rules system.
I 2nd this. I like the nWoD rules, HATE GURPS.

How could hate GURPS? I thought it was a great system, just too realistic at times.

"I am the mighty dragon slayer."
*gets stabbed in the back by a drunk peasant*
"......."


I just dislike it , alot. Can't pin down why I just really dislike it.


Cuchulainn wrote:
Daniel Moyer wrote:


Masterwork Flesh Golems? Glamoured Grafts? Inquiring minds want to know... well not mine, but somebody's!

The wizards who create them generally live in castles, wear bustiers and fishnet stockings, and host elaborate parties where everyone dances the "Time Warp" - so I've heard.

You win sir!


I liked a few of the pictures in the Book of Erotic Fantasy (especially the Dryad).

Of course, some of my friends say I'm creepy, so...


Misery wrote:


So technically an artist could or Hollywood or writer or whoever could wake up one morning and decide "Hey, let's make zombies SMEXY!" and if it caught on, then twenty years from now it would be the norm ... sorta

Already been done, it just never caught on.

As far as vampires go, we've gone from Eastern European tales of disgusting, disease-ridden things that inspire terror to the Victorian vampire tales where blood-drinking is just a thin veil for sexuality. Then you've got the Hollywood version of Dracula and Anne Rice's vampires, where the sexuality is no longer veiled.

Then you get Twilight...where its not even sexuality...just lust.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

WoD made a great world adn great story.

GURPS gave it a rule system that worked.

I don't know the GURPS rules, but I think nWoD is a good rules system.
I 2nd this. I like the nWoD rules, HATE GURPS.

Really?

I never warmed to the basic dice-rolling mechanic of the nWoD. It seems designed around characters succeeding, but the base target of "8" almost assures that most rolls will fail (and even successes will be marginal).

Spoiler:
Of course, I may also be biased because of I loathe what they did to Mage.


Mikaze wrote:

So I'm reading ** spoiler omitted ** and I come across this particular portrait and I'm thinking, "Wow, that's kind of freaky hot. Must be an elf-vampire or something. Reminds me of the girl from that Lenny Kravitz video. Diggin' it." And I look over at the stats.

Damn your art supplies, you made me attracted to a damn ghoul. Now I'll never be clean again.

A @#$%ing ghoul.

Good pic and all, it's just that it's a bit upsetting.

Aw, that's just this trope in action. It's nothing to be ashamed of, I think Atendri is a cute ghoul-gal myself.

Though my favorite 'pretty monster' would have to be the shapely female werewolf in hybrid-form the WoTC artists gave us in Monster Manual for 3.5. Now she was a girl to make men howl. Woof!


Kuma wrote:

It wasn't the subject matter so much as the treatment. I got a very unwholesome vibe from the whole thing, and I really wish they'd just hired an art student to paint them some naked critters instead of getting their friends together for an afternoon of awkwardness.

THIS.

The book itself was hardly as edgy as the authors wanted you to think, but the photographic art was either boring or revolting. And gthe sex golem... well, the photo of it shows a naked woman from Frankenstein's Lab. I'm talking the 1931 B&W Universal Frankenstein, except this one has bad eyesight and doesn't know how to stitch very well.

And you get to have sex with this... thing?


Shadowborn wrote:
Misery wrote:


So technically an artist could or Hollywood or writer or whoever could wake up one morning and decide "Hey, let's make zombies SMEXY!" and if it caught on, then twenty years from now it would be the norm ... sorta
Already been done, it just never caught on.

Obviously that's a dire zombie. Just look at her spikes.


Eric Hinkle wrote:
Though my favorite 'pretty monster' would have to be the shapely female werewolf in hybrid-form the WoTC artists gave us in Monster Manual for 3.5. Now she was a girl to make men howl. Woof!

What do you think of this?


I'd say that Vampires are classically supposed to be intelligent seductive predators, far from the walking, decaying, predatory corpses that most undead are. By current convention, vampires are almost indistinguishable from normal humanoids and able to blend in with little effort. So it makes sense that one could find them attractive.

Liches and Mummies, on the other hand, are decayed husks containing a life-force passed beyond death. They should be horrifying and revolting.

Zombies are animated cannibalistic cadavers. One supposes that they might initially look alright, but they do seem to be subject to decay and the fact that they are basically mindless feeding machines should rule them entirely out as far as attraction goes.

I wouldn't consider the smoking hot Melinda Clarke's character in Return of the Living Dead to be a zombie, by the usual definition: she was self-aware, remembered her own identity and those of others important to her, and was aware of pain.

Ghouls feed on corpses, do they not? That alone means they'd be quite foul to the senses - like humanoid vultures.


KaeYoss wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

WoD made a great world adn great story.

GURPS gave it a rule system that worked.

I don't know the GURPS rules, but I think nWoD is a good rules system.

I DO know the GURPS rules and and anything is a better game system.

Batts

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Iczer wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

WoD made a great world adn great story.

GURPS gave it a rule system that worked.

I don't know the GURPS rules, but I think nWoD is a good rules system.

I DO know the GURPS rules and and anything is a better game system.

Batts

Palladium?


Aaron Bitman wrote:
Eric Hinkle wrote:
Though my favorite 'pretty monster' would have to be the shapely female werewolf in hybrid-form the WoTC artists gave us in Monster Manual for 3.5. Now she was a girl to make men howl. Woof!
What do you think of this?

Sorry, but the 'wolfman', or woman in this case, look just does nothing for me. When it comes to werebeasts, either make them actual animals or animal-human hybrids, not cavemen with a glandular problem.

Though the entire Van Richten's Guide series itself was made of pure awesome.


Lord Fyre wrote:
Iczer wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

WoD made a great world adn great story.

GURPS gave it a rule system that worked.

I don't know the GURPS rules, but I think nWoD is a good rules system.

I DO know the GURPS rules and and anything is a better game system.

Batts

Palladium?

The Palladium RPG is VERY fun, but it is a bit clunky. I have to admit, however, IMHO, the setting are among my favorite.

Edit - I also fixed the linky for you, Lord Fyre.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Sharoth wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Iczer wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

WoD made a great world adn great story.

GURPS gave it a rule system that worked.

I don't know the GURPS rules, but I think nWoD is a good rules system.

I DO know the GURPS rules and and anything is a better game system.

Batts

Palladium?

The Palladium RPG is VERY fun, but it is a bit clunky. I have to admit, however, IMHO, the setting are among my favorite.

Edit - I also fixed the linky for you, Lord Fyre.

Thank You. :)

And some of the GURPs source books are excellent. :)


Lord Fyre wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Iczer wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

WoD made a great world adn great story.

GURPS gave it a rule system that worked.

I don't know the GURPS rules, but I think nWoD is a good rules system.

I DO know the GURPS rules and and anything is a better game system.

Batts

Palladium?

The Palladium RPG is VERY fun, but it is a bit clunky. I have to admit, however, IMHO, the setting are among my favorite.

Edit - I also fixed the linky for you, Lord Fyre.

Thank You. :)

And some of the GURPs source books are excellent. :)

The GURPs books are great SOURCEBOOKS, but the system is too clunky too. When you are taking forever to make a PC or NPC, then it is too complex.

Edit - Despite that, I think it is a very good system, if you want to put the time into it.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Sharoth wrote:

The GURPs books are great SOURCEBOOKS, but the system is too clunky too. When you are taking forever to make a PC or NPC, then it is too complex.

Edit - Despite that, I think it is a very good system, if you want to put the time into it.

I take it that you have never played/run Hero?


Lord Fyre wrote:
Sharoth wrote:

The GURPs books are great SOURCEBOOKS, but the system is too clunky too. When you are taking forever to make a PC or NPC, then it is too complex.

Edit - Despite that, I think it is a very good system, if you want to put the time into it.

I take it that you have never played/run Hero?

~grins~ I have played Champions, which is the precursor to Hero. Yes, it is more complex than GURPS.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sharoth wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Sharoth wrote:

The GURPs books are great SOURCEBOOKS, but the system is too clunky too. When you are taking forever to make a PC or NPC, then it is too complex.

Edit - Despite that, I think it is a very good system, if you want to put the time into it.

I take it that you have never played/run Hero?
~grins~ I have played Champions, which is the precursor to Hero. Yes, it is more complex than GURPS.

Champions/Hero is great! fun system once you get the familiarity done. character creation goes fairly quick for me in it.


Rathendar wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Sharoth wrote:

The GURPs books are great SOURCEBOOKS, but the system is too clunky too. When you are taking forever to make a PC or NPC, then it is too complex.

Edit - Despite that, I think it is a very good system, if you want to put the time into it.

I take it that you have never played/run Hero?
~grins~ I have played Champions, which is the precursor to Hero. Yes, it is more complex than GURPS.
Champions/Hero is great! fun system once you get the familiarity done. character creation goes fairly quick for me in it.

~looks at you carefully~ Are you CourtFool in disguise? ~GRINS~ Yea, I liked it when I played it. Unfortunatly, I am running out of room so I am trying to minimize my RPG spending, especially on stuff I am not likely to play anytime soon.

Sovereign Court

Lyingbastard wrote:
I'd say that Vampires are classically supposed to be intelligent seductive predators, far from the walking, decaying, predatory corpses that most undead are.

You've got a funny definition of classically, since 19th century Bram Stoker is the first guy to really do "seductive" with vampires, and even his Dracula is something of a brutal thug. You don't get sexy, smart, seductive, beautiful dead people until Anne Rice and "Interview With the Vampire" in the early 1980s. Before then, they were, for the most part, walking, decaying, predatory corpses.

Lyingbastard wrote:
Zombies are animated cannibalistic cadavers.

Since the 1970s and Romero.

Lyingbastard wrote:
Ghouls feed on corpses, do they not? That alone means they'd be quite foul to the senses - like humanoid vultures.

Had a hamburger lately? Feeding on a corpse. Fried chicken? Feeding on a corpse. Eaten a carrot? Another corpse. We hate ghouls because they eat the interred, human dead, and the socio-religious revulsion that engenders.

Ghouls were initially a desert-dwelling, shapeshifting demon that can assume the guise of an animal, especially a hyena. It lured unwary travellers into the desert wastes to slay and devour them. The creature also preyed on kids, robbed graves, drank blood (OMG VAMPIRE), and ate the dead, taking on the form of the one they previously ate. Lovecraft made them a physical, material thing, and D&D made them dead things that ate the dead. There's nothing inherently repulsive about their appearance classically.

Joe Abercrombie's noir fantasy novels have what are effectively ghouls - men and women who eat the human dead to gain phenomenal mystic powers, and they can be very beautiful and very compellingly charismatic.

Now, mummies; mummies are sexy.

Dark Archive

Can't argue with a man named Cappadocius in a vampire thread.


cappadocius wrote:


You've got a funny definition of classically, since 19th century Bram Stoker is the first guy to really do "seductive" with vampires, and even his Dracula is something of a brutal thug. You don't get sexy, smart, seductive, beautiful dead people until Anne Rice and "Interview With the Vampire" in the early 1980s. Before then, they were, for the most part, walking, decaying, predatory corpses.

Carmella from 20 years or so before Stoker, a few of the other stories already mentioned in this thread, the Christopher Lee vampires; Count Yorga was essentially soft-core porn in the early 70's. Even Klaus Kinski's Nosferatu, while monstrous to look at, was definitely a sexually driven creature, though not as much as Kinski himself, obviously. Then of course there's the seductive blood-drinking Lamia, who lured soldiers to her bed before draining them of blood in legends from Greek mythos, as well as the vampiric Empusa. Also, most of the gothic monsters had a sexual aspect to them as well, so using that as the basis doesn't seem out of line.

cappadocius wrote:

Zombies are animated cannibalistic cadavers.

Since the 1970s and Romero.

Okay, originally a Zombi was a dead and damned mind-erased slave in the Voudoun black magic. Then it became a generic term for the walking mindless dead. Since everyone understands that meaning of it, why change the term?

cappadocius wrote:
Ghouls...

Hamburgers, fried chicken, and carrots aren't rotting carcasses, unless you really really tick off the cook staff. Your examples are as ridiculous as comparing drinking whiskey to eating tofu - sure, they're both fermented plant matter, but it ain't the same thing. And yes, okay, you bring up the classic mythological origin of the ghoul - but since we're dealing with the gaming system ghoul, wouldn't it make sense to deal with what the gaming system presents as a ghoul?

Sovereign Court

Jared Ouimette wrote:
Can't argue with a man named Cappadocius in a vampire thread.

Apparently one can. :\

Dark Archive

I'm going to disagree with you, Lyingbastard.

While you portray those monsters as an example, the overwhelming majority of the Vampires decribed in old folklore were nothing more than walking corpses that fed on blood.

Nothing about them was considered sexy. They were either cunning zombies that just drank blood, or they were evil magicians who got their power from the devil.

The magician-types used magic to keep their victims from waking up if they were asleep or hypnotize them if they were awake, so nothing "seductive" about them.

The form vampires have taken today were cobbled together from a little bit of both of these stories.


Mikaze wrote:
No I'm not trying to justify ghoul-love!

If this image makes you HOT, then you might have a problem. I just saying...


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
Misery wrote:


So technically an artist could or Hollywood or writer or whoever could wake up one morning and decide "Hey, let's make zombies SMEXY!" and if it caught on, then twenty years from now it would be the norm ... sorta
Already been done, it just never caught on.
Obviously that's a dire zombie. Just look at her spikes.

Dire is definitely a word that could be used to describe that movie, that much is certain...

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Jared Ouimette wrote:

I'm going to disagree with you, Lyingbastard.

While you portray those monsters as an example, the overwhelming majority of the Vampires decribed in old folklore were nothing more than walking corpses that fed on blood.

Nothing about them was considered sexy. They were either cunning zombies that just drank blood, or they were evil magicians who got their power from the devil.

The magician-types used magic to keep their victims from waking up if they were asleep or hypnotize them if they were awake, so nothing "seductive" about them.

The form vampires have taken today were cobbled together from a little bit of both of these stories.

And a heaping helping of Victorian sexual frustation.

101 to 135 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Paizo Art Department, I am so mad at you OR Which undead are "okay" to find attractive? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.