The appropriate amount of sexual content in D&D.

[Avoraciopoctules]

D&D needs more PC-grade characters who were clearly attractive people at one point, but have enough old injuries and psychological trauma from their adventuring careers to overshadow their baseline appearance. If nothing else, pointing and laughing when people start ranting at each other about Beauty vs. Charisma might be worth it.

[Ganbare Gincun]

What the fuck is up with Ivy's tits? Her rack has exploded in size since she was first introduced. Good god.

The same has happened to a lot of characters in the Soul Edge/Calibur series. The sexualization of the female cast has upped significantly with every new game, and in 4 it's just ridiculous.

I love boobs as much as the next guy, but that's just ridiculous. Same thing with Taki. Scale that shit down a bit. Yikes.

[Meikle641]

D&D needs more PC-grade characters who were clearly attractive people at one point, but have enough old injuries and psychological trauma from their adventuring careers to overshadow their baseline appearance. If nothing else, pointing and laughing when people start ranting at each other about Beauty vs. Charisma might be worth it.

Sorta like this? On a side note, I <3 this fella's work. Even commissioned a piece for a character of mine by him (this isn't it).

[Count Arioch the 28th]

That's similar to most of the characters I've played. I typically envision my characters as formerly handsome but marred with scars. And I have yet to play a character with a charisma less than 12.

Then again, I was told by a straight female playing in a game I was in that she had never seen a cute half-orc until she saw the character portrait I doodled on my character sheet while the DM was explaining the plot twists so we could be prepared when they happened (not making that up in the least).

[Prak]

I was actually just referencing Frank's thing about fantasy armour in tome, but I'm sure he was referencing the game.

also, Duck on the Head now has an illustration courtesy of Jhonen Vasquez"

[Koumei]

...I thought the duck-hat reference in Tome was to the Discworld, where a guy seriously wears a duck on his head. But doesn't seem to acknowledge this fact.

[Prak]

I'm starting to wonder if the duck hat is some kind of racial memory, long forgotten, of a tribe of savage warriors who, for one reason or another, wore duck helms. Maybe they prominently displayed the drakes' penises to intimidate enemy warriors.

[Fuchs]

Powerful, rich people having scars they don't want to have makes no sense in a world where you can magically heal wounds, regenerate limbs and raise the dead.

[Prak]

So maybe they want to have them. Maybe facial scars are good advertisement of their adventuring and ability to kill. And honestly, a few scars are not going to make them go wanting for sex, that's what reputation, skill, and gold is for.

[Fuchs]

Yeah, I can see some people liking scars, as reminders of their deeds and fights. But you'll not have the "Woe is me, scarred and maimed, my face ruined" emo crybabies, at least not at PC grade level.

[Prak]

yeah, those are more likely to be prissy aristocrats who fancy themselves the top swordfighter in their daddy's kingdom after you wipe the floor with them. With a wooden practice sword. While sitting and reading/eating/playing cards.

[Fuchs]

As aristocrats they'll get their wounds/scars fixed though - unless they want to kee that cheek scar to pose as experienced warrior...

[Prak]

Oh certainly. But first they'll whine about their scarred visage. Then daddy will smack them upside the back of the head and tell them to go see the family priest.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Actually, why would anyone have scars fixed?

In D&D-land, the rich and powerful are PC's. Adventurers would be likely to have scars as good advertisement, to encourage the less bold from attacking them, and to let the prissy aristocrats know that they only exist to please them.

So why wouldn't the upper and middle classes want to imitate the ruling class?

I can totally see ritual scarification and branding occur in the upper and middle classes to imitate the ruling class. Maybe in a city you can tell the different noble families apart because each one has a distinctive facial scar designed to imitate their famous adventurer founders?

[CatharzGodfoot]

But isn't the greater warrior the one who can defeat an owlbear without getting scarred?

[Fuchs]

There are scars like the german fencing "Schmisse", and there are scars that mutilate you, hinder your expression, are so gruesome you hate yourself.

I do not think there are that many who like showing off their mutilations that it can become fashionable.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

But isn't the greater warrior the one who can defeat an owlbear without getting scarred?

Greater warriors had to start out as scrubby lesser warriors. One might argue that you're not a true warrior until you've gotten your ass beat hardcore at least once.

EDIT: Screw you guys, I'm having the ruling elite in a nation all have ritual scars meant to signify the scars their founding ancestors have, that idea is awesome.

[Avoraciopoctules]

D&D needs more PC-grade characters who were clearly attractive people at one point, but have enough old injuries and psychological trauma from their adventuring careers to overshadow their baseline appearance. If nothing else, pointing and laughing when people start ranting at each other about Beauty vs. Charisma might be worth it.

Sorta like this? On a side note, I <3 this fella's work. Even commissioned a piece for a character of mine by him (this isn't it).

Yeah, that looks pretty rad. Someone who clearly displays signs of hard experience but doesn't let the rest of their appearance degrade. She's broadcasting competence and reliability, which is more appealing than any amount of faffing about in metal undergarments looking more like a model than someone with practical skills.

Yeah, I can see some people liking scars, as reminders of their deeds and fights. But you'll not have the "Woe is me, scarred and maimed, my face ruined" emo crybabies, at least not at PC grade level.

Indeed. I see mental scarring for adventurers more like modern PTSD, where they compulsively check for traps everywhere and you do NOT want to surprise somebody after they've gotten used to instinctively stabbing anything that jumps out of a closet at them.

But isn't the greater warrior the one who can defeat an owlbear without getting scarred?

Greater warriors had to start out as scrubby lesser warriors. One might argue that you're not a true warrior until you've gotten your ass beat hardcore at least once.

EDIT: Screw you guys, I'm having the ruling elite in a nation all have ritual scars meant to signify the scars their founding ancestors have, that idea is awesome.

That does sound potentially quite cool.

I read a book starring a cowardly goblin cleric a few months ago and at one point, he joins a monster army. Starting rank is determined by how many scars you have, since high scarring presumably means that you survived more battles. Since this guy is a partially comic PC who has terrible luck and several past adventures under his belt, he is covered in the scars of horrific wounds that he only survived due to his healing magic (he doesn't mention the magic). The others are awed, and he gets yet more groupies with unrealistically high expectations for him.

[Maj]

But isn't the greater warrior the one who can defeat an owlbear without getting scarred?

I'm with you.

[virgil]

I've oft wondered about the interaction of healing magic and scars. A cure light wounds and similar magic won't reattach limbs nor remove disfigurements, and is silent in the manner in which it heals. In AE, it specifically states that the better kind of healing magic will leave scars behind.

It would certainly say something about power if resurrection magic leaves some kind of visible mark, or even scars in areas that absolutely require healing magic to keep from being nonfatal.

[PoliteNewb]

But isn't the greater warrior the one who can defeat an owlbear without getting scarred?

I'm with you.

But there's no real way to prove that the unscarred guy claiming to have fought an owlbear without a scratch actually fought the damn thing (as opposed to finding it dead, buying it's hide, etc).

Of course, I suppose there's no way to tell that the scars on a guy's face are from a harpy's talons, as opposed to his ex-girlfriend, so YMMV.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

And my argument is that at some point, all great warriors were scrubby little kids. No one is born awesome, it takes hundreds of thousands of hours to get awesome at any given thing.

Being a warrior is like being a tarantula breeder. You don't get to call yourself a breeder until you've been bit and continue anyway (Really, it's not that bad. You puke your guts out for a day or so and then you're fine).


Likewise, if you get your ass beat and never fight again, you are no warrior.

[Maj]

Of course, I suppose there's no way to tell that the scars on a guy's face are from a harpy's talons, as opposed to his ex-girlfriend, so YMMV.

Aren't those the same thing?

And my argument is that at some point, all great warriors were scrubby little kids. No one is born awesome, it takes hundreds of thousands of hours to get awesome at any given thing.

Chances are pretty good, though, that they have a reputation - and that's really the "mechanic" I like my characters to function on. The following are totally OK with me:

Dude, that's the guy who saved the city from that raving harpy. You can still see the scar across his cheek where she got him during the fight.

Dude, that's the guy who saved the city from that raving harpy. She couldn't even land a hit on him.

Dude, that's the guy who saved the city from that raving harpy. She nearly eviscerated him, but he has awesome powers of regeneration.

My characters tend to go with option #2 because I personally am not a scars-are-awesome kind of person, but I can see the arguments for/against. Ultimately, for me, it's the reputation of the character - scars or no - that I go for.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Warrior 2 would probably have had gotten beat up lots of times before he was skilled enough to take out a harpy without being harmed.

He might not have any harpy scars, but he'd have a purple worm scar from a week ago, a couple old cauterized stab wounds from salamanders he fought last month, maybe a missing eye or ear for when the evil Duke Badinov hewed him down as a callow youth which motivated him to protect the weak and small.

[CatharzGodfoot]

No, Count, wizards tend tot to get purple worm scars. The options are usually 'win without getting scratched' or 'get eaten'. Similar idea with a rogue or assassin.

But think about it this way: The guy who isn't scarred probably refuses to take on creatures above her level. Which means that if she agrees to do whatever for you, she can probably do it easily. For a PC's perspective it might look like cowardice, but from a bean counter's perspective it's a safer bet.