that's because our moral heritage comes from the puritans, who apparently believed that if you were having sex without a) being married, b) being fully clothed, and c) punching yourself to keep out any residual enjoyment, you were going straight to hell.

I showed this to one of my Player's. I haven't seen him more devastated in all the time I knew him. He almost closed the window, I made him look at the links. He didn't think it was too funny at first...


(Edited:some typos)

Yes it does..
Yes It Does.

Ha! What if that is April Fool's Karma?

GM: So all of the hard work, training, time and Nuyen you spent on upgrading your computer skill was a total waste of time. That was April Fool's Karma.

Players: Nooooooo! Curse you, Very Evil GM!!!!!

GM: Hahahaha, April Fools!

yes, the image alone was just dumb but used like the troll in a catholic schoolgirl outfit in target: matrix when talking about the virtual bordellos and whats not it would set the theme for the section.

drawing a fully armored man right next to a elf maiden in a leather bikini on the other hand is typical d&d page stuffings (alltho i belive there was a front page to a sr1 series book that had a lot of men in heavy arms and armor and in that gang there was a lady with a loose red dress, go fig)...

heh, the image you selected from royo is more tame then most of his works iirc...

It wasn't; same with the strip-bar image, it was supposed to be in DiDS but was cut. The race images were cut from SR2; they're not the SR1 race images. The SRd20 cover was - obviously - the Shadows of Europe cover.

We had fun with this gag - thanks guys! It prompted some interesting discussions and reactions.

But it's okay for you to force your beliefs down everyone elses by demanding a lack of sensuality or sexuality (as opposed to sex) in art, even when it's completely appropriate?

you could always tape a piece of black paper over the offending image if it's that touchy a subject for you. as a nation i think we need to not get so worked up over sexual things, we've all got nipples, what's so bad about showing em on tv? as long as it doesn't turn into soft (or hard)-core porn then it's ok. and how come it's ok to show a naked baby's butt but not a grown person's?

All I want to do is play shadowrun, not look at porn, is that too much to ask?

How is that forcing my beliefs down your throat?

*chuckles* /WOW/ this thread drifted! =)

Shadow, depiction of skin/sensuality/sexuality in art is not always porn. For example, Rodin's "The Kiss" sculpture, is one of the most tender, yet very sexual, pieces ever sculpted. I would LOVE to have a miniature of that in my house.

I've never seen anything in any of the (admittedly few) SR books which comes anywhere close to sexual content; except perhaps the color picture in SR3 of the ghoul eating someone? (And if that's your idea of porn, I suggest you stay away from me and my can of mace, since that is WAY too freeky for the average bear!)

If anything, the SR pictures I've seen show either excesively large amounts of /hardware/ (often including a lot of violence and flyign lead/dwarves/street sams/people with spiked boots (wtf?)), or are great "atmosphere" pieces. Some of the pics in SR3 do this REALLY well, in my opinion ...

BTW, I loved the bits on the SR-D20 gag page with the various races, and then the "sorry no more elf porn". Almost had me literally ROTFL.

I agree it's not. This all started because someone said they wanted more pictures in SR like the strippers in the joke. Let me say this so there is no room for interpretation.

I don't want to look at naked men or women engaging in acts of a sexual nature with either other naked men, women, animals or anything else. I just want to play Shadowrun with my wife, and one day my daughter without having to censor the book. Why is that bad?

Tell me please so I can explain it to my wife. This is exactly why I despised the lounge. Your opinion was not welcome, nor respected if you had the least bit of conservatism in you. I am not gay, I do not drink, or do drugs, I do not watch porn, nor do I look at pictures of naked women. So somehow that means I am bad?

Fine. Bad is good and good is bad. I am done with this topic. All I can do is hope that the powers-that-be feel as I do, and keep Shadowrun the way it is.

And Adam, I am sorry your joke spawned this mess, I thought it was truly funny. Even if I didn't look at the pictures.

While I really have no desire to get into a long debate on this matter, and I have no problems with your beliefs, I still think there is a large difference between "porn" and an illustration that shows a naked backside. I do not think naked backsides should be on every page or every illustration in a Shadowrun book; I think that when used appropriately, they are fine. There was a section in Sprawl Survival Guide on sexuality in the Sixth World; that would be an appropriate place. Next to a description of a mafia-owned strip-parlour, also appropriate. In the character generation section, no.

Ehh.. PPHIOYuuh!!! What a relief. I heard rumors about the D20 thing a while back and I couldn´t stop saying "NO". I said "NO", then I stoped and thought about it for a few seconds then i said "NO" again. And so I went on, only I slided deeper and deeper down in the sofa were I sat, holding my hair in my hands, with a look of despair on my face...


I can see how it would make no sense for Shadow to have his good conservative belifes and values questioned by so many here on this board. For my part, I can say that ods are my opinions would raise qiet an outrage from any conservative. But I still think I agree with Shadow in this thing. I whant no porn in Shadowrun, and I dont whant more naked girls depicted in Shadowrun eather. The reasons being (for me) that such an increase in th acurance of nudity would be made to please sexist minded males in the age of puberty. There´s not much room for acuratelly placed nudety in Shadowrun´s concept. I´m not chocked by nudety no matter how explicit, unless it´s shown in a way that´s demeaning or inapropriatly sexuallizing (like if every arcetype in the core-book was depicted with oily uper bodies and no shirts).

I think there´s a discussion of America vs Europe coming, so I stop here.

To you Shadow: I think we non-conservatives are just offended by the thought that you might look down upon habits and values that we treasure. Just as you are offended by our slander of your beliefs. As you put it: Good is bad, bad is good. Well, there´s nothing strange going on here really. We just have very different opinions.

>edit< For the record. What everyone is trying to say is that there´s a difference between portraing sex and nudity as it is IRL, and well... porn, or nudie-pictures even. Take for example a picture of a person relaxing at home. This person is alone, nobody´s watching. Nudity is private you said it your self. So it´s ok for this person to be nude, right? Well, the difference is wether the person is depicted like no one is watching, relaxed postiure and all. If the artist keeps his/her dirty mind from sexuallizing the picture there´s really nothing to worry about. I would show my children that picture. Children see nudity all the time. I would hold a hand over their eyes when passing a clothing commercial maybe, because they tend to be more insinuating. But then again. I drink and watch pictures of naked women so what do I know. >edit<

Peace, everyone

As for unnecessary or malplaced skin in SR art...you don't have to go further than the 1st edition cover. I'd like to see the shadowrunner who'd wear nothing but a pair of shorts and a bikinitop under an open long coat... (must've been a hot night in ol' Seattle...)

Personally, while I don't mind sexy or semi-nude pics in the books, I'm with Adam - put it where it makes sense, like the Kama Sutra schoolgirl Troll, or the S&M bar in Sprawl Sites (though I was abit surprised to find that one...)

Loved the joke though Adam, more so because it DID make my heart stop for a moment

You´re right! 1st and 2nd ed had that picture on the cover. There´s not many ridiculously unclothed female runners in the 3rd ed book though. Maybe there´s progress in this world after all.

>chanting in the streets< "Equality between the sexes!"

Regarding the first edition cover: Well, that was Sally Tsung, who apparently had different standards of dress than Hart (the elven woman Sam Verner eventually shacked up with). And she's a mage, so of course she feels she's adequately protected.

Of course, that's just adding justification to the image, which although cool, does have a bit of the "what's with all the skin?" incredulity. Hey man, it's Shadowrun. It's all punky and not necessarily about sense, but style.

Oddly and/or interestingly enough, the picture labelled "Magical Girls, the Sixth World Way" is an actual piece of Fanpro art. It's in the Deutschland in den Schatten II book. I want to say the picture is for Leipzig-Halle and on the page decribing it as a goth/vampire hang-out.

[edit] as Adam already mentioned. I just happen to own a copy of the 2nd Germany sourcebook. [/edit]

Don

hmm, s&m bar, it sounded familiar or i looked at what books i have. does the image on p.117 of sota:63 look in any way familiar?

allso, take a look at many of the images of females in mits, magic and near (or more) nudity in sr seems to go hand in hand.

personly i dont have a problem with people walking around nude if they want to. its the sexual act itself that they can keep private. but then im from the contry that have a whole park in theyre capitol dedicated to naked people (never sexual mind you, but tender, active and so on)...

Is there any way we can change the name of this thread? It makes me nervous everytime it ends up at the top of the forum...

Mmmm.. Shadowrun d20.

I'm with Adam on this one. SR D20 makes me feel all warm inside.

Yeah, almost like I sat in something.