





Moderator: Mod Janitor
Isn't this primarily because this sort of image was what was popular in the media at the time?
Some background on the pic:
I'm not sure what you mean by "at the time". Those artworks are decades apart. It's always been popular.orinEsque wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:10Isn't this primarily because this sort of image was what was popular in the media at the time?
Thanks God fantasy outgrown this and more mature settings and genres were created.
I hope that was sarcasm because anything depicted here is infinitely superior to 95% of the **** produced today.Faceless_Sentinel wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:29Thanks God fantasy outgrown this.
Who is talking about today ****?SoLong wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:31I hope that was sarcasm because anything depicted here is infinitely superior to 95% of the **** produced today.Faceless_Sentinel wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:29Thanks God fantasy outgrown this.
I think Faceless may be referring to the fact that not every fantasy protagonist necessarily has to look like a Golden Age Mister Universe, but I do sustain that a "barbarian" hero looking like that does make sense.SoLong wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:31I hope that was sarcasm because anything depicted here is infinitely superior to 95% of the **** produced today.Faceless_Sentinel wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:29Thanks God fantasy outgrown this.
You are. If you outgrow the past you end up in the present. That's how time works.
Isn't low fantasy was before high fantasy?SoLong wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:41You are. If you outgrow the past you end up in the present. That's how time works.
No, we were just talking about fantasy in general, not even the guy you replied to talked about low fantasy exclusively. As he already pointed out to you those pictures were made decades apart.Faceless_Sentinel wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:43Isn't low fantasy was before high fantasy?SoLong wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:41You are. If you outgrow the past you end up in the present. That's how time works.
Every warrior/fighter archetype with superhuman level of strength should look roided out. It doesn't make sense for a character to be as powerful as a giant or troll and look like Ryan Gosling.UltraFan123 wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:37I think Faceless may be referring to the fact that not every fantasy protagonist necessarily has to look like a Golden Age Mister Universe, but I do sustain that a "barbarian" hero looking like that does make sense.SoLong wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:31I hope that was sarcasm because anything depicted here is infinitely superior to 95% of the **** produced today.
So I believe it boils down to if every single fantasy hero has to be a "barbarian" like how it was back in the day where pretty much every fantasy author and his cousin was making a Conan wannabe.
I don't know how to answer to this. My point was that fantasy doesn't stopped on low fantasy, it evolved in high fantasy, warriors eventually figured out that fighting completely naked doesn't work for long, so they put on armor, for example.SoLong wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:46No, we were just talking about fantasy in general, not even the guy you replied to talked about low fantasy exclusively. As he already pointed out to you those pictures were made decades apart.Faceless_Sentinel wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:43Isn't low fantasy was before high fantasy?SoLong wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:41
You are. If you outgrow the past you end up in the present. That's how time works.
Not every warrior must be with "superhuman level of strength".Hyborian wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:52warrior/fighter archetype with superhuman level of strength should look roided out. It doesn't make sense for a character to be as powerful as a giant or troll and look like Ryan Gosling.
you're literally making a special snowflake. Why would you choose an ugly face? It kind of weirds me out when the same men complaining about ugly women shoehorned by SJWs want conan the barbarian instead of Henry Cavilles. (not that arnold wasn't attractive in his prime ofcourse)Hyborian wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:52Every warrior/fighter archetype with superhuman level of strength should look roided out. It doesn't make sense for a character to be as powerful as a giant or troll and look like Ryan Gosling.UltraFan123 wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:37I think Faceless may be referring to the fact that not every fantasy protagonist necessarily has to look like a Golden Age Mister Universe, but I do sustain that a "barbarian" hero looking like that does make sense.SoLong wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:31
I hope that was sarcasm because anything depicted here is infinitely superior to 95% of the **** produced today.
So I believe it boils down to if every single fantasy hero has to be a "barbarian" like how it was back in the day where pretty much every fantasy author and his cousin was making a Conan wannabe.


Absolutely correct.Faceless_Sentinel wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:54Not every warrior must be with "superhuman level of strength".

This type of strenght fits me perfectly.SoLong wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:06Absolutely correct.Faceless_Sentinel wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:54Not every warrior must be with "superhuman level of strength".
However, the ones we're talking about here in the BG3 thread are warriors fighting a trio of literal gods and a giant eldritch abomination.
I don't think that a garden variety strength warrior is gonna cut it here. From a storytelling rather than gameplay mechanic perspective.

>talking about conan the barbarianorinEsque wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:57you're literally making a special snowflake. Why would you choose an ugly face? It kind of weirds me out when the same men complaining about ugly women shoehorned by SJWs want conan the barbarian instead of Henry Cavilles. (not that arnold wasn't attractive in his prime ofcourse)Hyborian wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:52Every warrior/fighter archetype with superhuman level of strength should look roided out. It doesn't make sense for a character to be as powerful as a giant or troll and look like Ryan Gosling.UltraFan123 wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:37
I think Faceless may be referring to the fact that not every fantasy protagonist necessarily has to look like a Golden Age Mister Universe, but I do sustain that a "barbarian" hero looking like that does make sense.
So I believe it boils down to if every single fantasy hero has to be a "barbarian" like how it was back in the day where pretty much every fantasy author and his cousin was making a Conan wannabe.
wrong. Jason Momoa is very attractive. He's quite well built.Finarfin wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:11>talking about conan the barbarianorinEsque wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:57you're literally making a special snowflake. Why would you choose an ugly face? It kind of weirds me out when the same men complaining about ugly women shoehorned by SJWs want conan the barbarian instead of Henry Cavilles. (not that arnold wasn't attractive in his prime ofcourse)Hyborian wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:52
Every warrior/fighter archetype with superhuman level of strength should look roided out. It doesn't make sense for a character to be as powerful as a giant or troll and look like Ryan Gosling.
>mentions arnold
Oh **** off, respectfully. His portrayal of Conan is a ******* insult. And yes, I want my characters to look like Conan, why would I want him to look like Henry Cavill?
Just look at these depictions of Conan, why would I not want my character to look like this, especially if I play a barbarian. A man doesn't to look handsome unless he has a normal build (like Ryan Gosling)βΊ Show Spoiler

I'm kinda lost. What is your point?orinEsque wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:09Let's see some peak male physique in the olden days without roids.
Farnese Hercules
![]()
Then why are you complaining about other people designing mods for levels of strength that suits them?Faceless_Sentinel wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:10This type of strenght fits me perfectly.SoLong wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:06Absolutely correct.Faceless_Sentinel wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:54Not every warrior must be with "superhuman level of strength".
However, the ones we're talking about here in the BG3 thread are warriors fighting a trio of literal gods and a giant eldritch abomination.
I don't think that a garden variety strength warrior is gonna cut it here. From a storytelling rather than gameplay mechanic perspective.
![]()
I'm talking about physique. Ryan is otter mode.orinEsque wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:57you're literally making a special snowflake. Why would you choose an ugly face? It kind of weirds me out when the same men complaining about ugly women shoehorned by SJWs want conan the barbarian instead of Henry Cavilles. (not that arnold wasn't attractive in his prime ofcourse)Hyborian wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:52Every warrior/fighter archetype with superhuman level of strength should look roided out. It doesn't make sense for a character to be as powerful as a giant or troll and look like Ryan Gosling.UltraFan123 wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:37
I think Faceless may be referring to the fact that not every fantasy protagonist necessarily has to look like a Golden Age Mister Universe, but I do sustain that a "barbarian" hero looking like that does make sense.
So I believe it boils down to if every single fantasy hero has to be a "barbarian" like how it was back in the day where pretty much every fantasy author and his cousin was making a Conan wannabe.
Faceless_Sentinel wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:14I'm kinda lost. What is your point?orinEsque wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:09Let's see some peak male physique in the olden days without roids.
Farnese Hercules
![]()

That's just how Conan looks in the books and comics. He's not some handsome man, he is a stoic, intelligent and intimidating man.orinEsque wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:13wrong. Jason Momoa is very attractive. He's quite well built.Finarfin wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:11>talking about conan the barbarianorinEsque wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:57
you're literally making a special snowflake. Why would you choose an ugly face? It kind of weirds me out when the same men complaining about ugly women shoehorned by SJWs want conan the barbarian instead of Henry Cavilles. (not that arnold wasn't attractive in his prime ofcourse)
>mentions arnold
Oh **** off, respectfully. His portrayal of Conan is a ******* insult. And yes, I want my characters to look like Conan, why would I want him to look like Henry Cavill?
Just look at these depictions of Conan, why would I not want my character to look like this, especially if I play a barbarian. A man doesn't to look handsome unless he has a normal build (like Ryan Gosling)βΊ Show Spoiler
Edit: man in your picture is attractive too............
But wtf is this abomination!?
![]()
A warrior from hyborian age. Men used to be built different back then.orinEsque wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:13wrong. Jason Momoa is very attractive. He's quite well built.Finarfin wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 16:11>talking about conan the barbarianorinEsque wrote: β August 15th, 2024, 15:57
you're literally making a special snowflake. Why would you choose an ugly face? It kind of weirds me out when the same men complaining about ugly women shoehorned by SJWs want conan the barbarian instead of Henry Cavilles. (not that arnold wasn't attractive in his prime ofcourse)
>mentions arnold
Oh **** off, respectfully. His portrayal of Conan is a ******* insult. And yes, I want my characters to look like Conan, why would I want him to look like Henry Cavill?
Just look at these depictions of Conan, why would I not want my character to look like this, especially if I play a barbarian. A man doesn't to look handsome unless he has a normal build (like Ryan Gosling)βΊ Show Spoiler
Edit: man in your picture is attractive too............
But wtf is this abomination!?
![]()



