Bittersweet Candy Bowl

Hello, and welcome to a most egregious mistake on my part. That’s right. I’ve drawn fan art, and now I am going to post it for all* to see. (*All being the people who browse these forums.) I must have a thing for the ridicule of my peers.

First, a warning. I am a wordy little bastard, so for each piece I link to, I will also include a relatively lengthy description about it. Of course, you are not required to actually read anything I write. If lots of words bother you, the following options are available to you:

A) Avoid this thread like the Plague.
B) Ignore the words and just look at the pretty pictures.
C) Petition Taeshi to delete this thread from the face of the Internet.
D) All of the above. (Yes, even though A and B are mutually exclusive.)

Lastly, though I appreciate any kind of feedback, positive or negative, I especially appreciate thoughtful critique, whether it praises my work or rips it to shreds. Of course, if writing more than three words isn’t your thing, don’t let me rain on your parade. Any (relevant) comments are great.

With minimal further ado, the first picture (in the next post yes I am committing a crime here).

I was originally going to try posting this in “The Sweet Thread” until I realized that my definition of “sweet” shares a shocking similarity to how a clinicaly psychotic individual would define it. This one’s for all you MikexLucy fans out there, and I call it “Stuffed Luv.”

http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy56/ DisingenuousFacade/BCB%20Fanart/ StuffedLuvFinalcopy.jpg

Since Photo Bucket seems to have a limit on image size, I would suggest using ctrl + + (that is, hold control and the plus (+) key) to zoom in further. This works on PCs, at least.

This was basically a quick comic I sketched (it’s still in pencil, for goodness’ sake) because I thought that it would be hilARious. I used references for the drawings, of course, and the laughing Lucy was basically copied directly from the comic (shameful). Still, didn’t turn out quite right. I seem to have difficulty getting Lucy to have that “Lucy” feel. I do like how Mike turned out, though … . Heh heh heh. I even drew a (poorly drawn) couch! And gradients, gotta love those. I basically tried to copy the monochrome colors from the comic, but without any of the finesse or skill.

If you need an explanation for this, it’s simply that in my mind, Lucy will always be the OTP (One True Psychopath). That is what makes her so adorably frightening.

… so creepy… awesome.

Okay that was a little odd, at first I thought it would fit perfectly in the sweet thread, then I realized (after like 30 seconds) that I could scroll down… yeah, it’s well drawn but the content is just… yeah

I’m going back to my hidey-hole… Like I did in Lisa’s thread… and Senator Splash’s thread… and every art thread in here…

@L.D.: Excellent.

@A.P.M.: Somehow, the delayed reaction makes it better. Don’t worry. The next few things I put up should not be disturbing at all. Well, in all likelihood, anyway. Thanks for the comment, even if the picture doesn’t do it for you.

@G.K.: Oh, dear, perhaps that was the wrong picture to open with … .

WHY CAN’T I EVER CATCH UP TO EVERYONE ELSE’S AWESOMENESS!?

It was perfect too since only the last panel was cut out, right at the top of the panel

Nyaagh.
Creepy dolly is creepy.

Sir Kaxbe: I still feel like I have a long way to go, myself, so don’t be hard on yourself.

@P.S.83: Yeah. A doll. It’s a definitely a doll … . >_>

Who oh no!!!

This brings back haunting memories of stuffing. ^_^

Sorry. It’s a funny picture, and you draw very well.

Nice work, I’m glad people are starting to take the initiative.

Pretty awesome comic… !

What was the word.. taxidermist or something? XD

Okay, I was going to wait a little while to post the next item, but I suppose that I don’t want everyone to think that I’m a complete sociopath, so I’ll start putting these up. This will be the first of six pieces and it betrays my true nature. Yes, that’s right, recoil in horror!

I decided to try depicting the principal cast as Dungeons & Dragons characters as well as take a stab at what their Alignments might be (based on their actions in the comic). If you’re not familiar with the D&D alignment system, I am going to write up a little explanation here so you’ll have a better idea about the nonsense I will be spewing from my typing-fingers. If you already know this or don’t care, just skip this part.

A very brief definition of “class”: This basically encompasses the skills and abilities a character has. That’s about it.

The Alignment system is composed of two Axes: Law-Neutral-Chaos and Good-Neutral-Evil. How they intersect determines one’s whole alignment. There is Lawful Good on one end, Chaotic Evil on the other, and Neutral (or True Neutral) in the middle.

Law: A Lawful individual likes order and tradition. While they may follow the law of the land, they are just as likely to follow a strict moral code. They prefer the “tried and true” method to approaching problems. They are more likely to make long-term plans.

Chaos: Note that this does not mean “erratic.” A Chaotic person prefers freedom and new experiences. They prefer to try new approaches to old problems. While not incapable of planning ahead, Chaotic individuals more often prefer to take things as they come and not tie themselves to one path.

Good: Shouldn’t need much explanation, but a Good person helps those in need, even to the point of self-sacrifice. They do not harm those who have done no wrong, and they are generally active in trying to better the world.

Evil: Also fairly explanatory. An Evil person looks out for number one. They are generally willing to cause injury and pain in order to get what they want and are generally the villains of the story. An Evil person is not necessarily the stereotypical maniacal wizard who laughs and all that; he or she might be a “respectable” person who abuses their resources in order to enrich themselves at others’ expense.

Neutral, in both cases, is a middle point. Most often one is Neutral because they waver back and forth and have not made up their minds, but in some cases, a person displays an active dedication to Neutrality.

How Law/Chaos and Good/Evil combine lead to more nuanced alignments, but I won’t go into that here. Next post is the first drawing.

Alright, so this one is simply called “Michael the Sorcerer.” His Alignment is Neutral Good. Here’s the link to the picture. Many words follow.

http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy56/ DisingenuousFacade/BCB%20Fanart/ Mike_Sorcerer_FinishedJPEG.jpg

I’m actually kind of proud of this one, partly because I actually finished it (not pencil!) and colored it and did a few basic photoshopy things to it. Look at the glowing runes on his scarf! Yeah. I even tried to add shading, but I kind of suck at that because I very rarely go beyond the pencil stage.

You may notice that I used his old blue scarf as the base instead of the striped one. Why? Well, it was easier to do it this way, and I always liked that shade of blue. Very pretty. Oh, and if his tail looks odd, well … turns out I actually forgot to include it in the original drawing, so I had to add it in (note that I do not own a tablet).

Not sure what I think about his expression. He’s looked smug before, but he’s never looked like he was gonna chuck a ball of dragon’s fire down someone’s throat before, either. Anyway, I think it turned out alright, overall.

The Sorcerer: So now I explain why I made Michael a Sorcerer. The Sorcerer is a mage who was born with magical powers; they channel this power through sheer force of will, so Charisma is their most important attribute. In addition to measuring the strength of one’s personality, Charisma also reflects how positively others view a person. Mike has always seemed to be pretty popular, despite his best efforts at times, so a high-Charisma class seemed appropriate. There were other options, but Sorcerer seemed like the coolest one.

Neutral Good: Despite Mike’s attitude problems in recent arcs, I think that he is basically a good guy. I mean, he put up with Lucy for all these years (that should be evidence enough); just because he’s Good doesn’t mean that his patience is infinite. I don’t think that he’s displayed a particular dedication to Law or Chaos, so I’m putting him in the middle (although I could see arguments for Law). As far as I can tell, he generally tries to do what he feels is the right thing, even if he could take advantage for himself. Turning down all the other girls in order to stay loyal to Sandy is one such example. Overall, he seems like the kind of guy you could count on to have in your corner.

I’m curious if anyone else, Taeshi certainly included, has other perspectives on the Alignment, assuming they are nerdy enough to care.

Five more to follow, probably over the next few days.

The runes are a nice touch

Hm, honestly I agree with your choice for alignment and class.. even though he leans a bit into paladin territory, but not lawful/dumb enough for it…XD

Abbey is the Lawful Good Paladin, but that’s for another time.

*Switches to D&D nerd mode for a bit*
I…. would have to disagree with sorcerer. While Mike likely DOES have the charisma for it, he also has the over all best physical abilities of the group and is always intent on protecting those around him standing up to the front line like.. well a warrior class, not a caster.

Also I’d suggest NOT falling into the trap of thinking Lawful good/Paladin types HAVE to act lawful stupid no more then a chaotic neutral person needs to act completely bat-shit insane. Being ‘lawful’ is a general thing, and your typical Lawful character will still have chaotic personality traits. Just as a chaotic hero can say have a barbarians honor, or be very obsessed about keeping a promise.

Personally I think there’s more then enough argument to make Mike Lawful. He’s all about promises, following is conscience, being honest, and I don’t think we’ve once seen him be manipulative or underhanded in his tactics.

Yes he was mean to Lucy recently. But that cruelty WAS a lawful act. He was telling her the blunt truth and was frustrated when people got angry at him for being HONEST.

Dudes a Paladin man. Maybe a Neutral good variant if you prefer, but he’s all about keeping the ladies safe. Might be multi-classed a bit though, he’s been shown to be VERY acrobatic, which doesn’t really follow the heavily armored Paladin stereotype. Maybe a little rogue or ranger in there?

In other news. While Abbey would most certainly be lawful good as well (likely with a much bigger helping of Lawful then what Mike has) he would NOT be a Paladin. He just doesn’t have the charisma for it, most people just don’t listen to the poor guy! That said he does have a good helping of Intelligence and wisdom (Given that he noticed what FF-Cat was doing to Daisy while the others overlooked it shows some level of awareness)….personally I’d vote for some sort of Lawful-Cleric, always trying to atone for his ‘sin’ of what happened to his mother.

Yeah I’m a GIANT GIANT NERD

But enough rambling about D&D stuff. The art the art! The first ones funny, seen it before, drawn well enough to drive the point across! The second one… ehn.. decent, but not perfect either really. Nothing jumps out as WRONG about it to me.. it just lacks a bit of that… professional touch. The lines aren’t quite perfect, and the pose and proportions don’t look QUITE natural yet. Really the only thing you need dude is more practice~

Heh heh, pulled another one out of the wood works.

Well, I had hoped that I made it clear in my alignment summary that I don’t think Lawful = stupid or Chaotic = insane. I realize that there are nuances there and that each person will have some traits from everywhere. And I’m well aware that the Law-Chaos axis is most vulnerable to misinterpretation.

I ended up interpreting Mike’s actions towards Lucy as a “Good” act rather than “Lawful,” although on further consideration, Lawful makes a bit more sense, although keep in mind that honesty does not equate to Lawful by necessity. Still, I can see the argument for Lawful Good.

I disagree on the Paladin bit, though. I just don’t see him being dedicated in that way. You don’t have to be a paladin to want to protect others. I did consider making him a Rogue, but he just doesn’t seem like the sneaky type. He could be multi-class, though … but that would have been slightly more difficult to portray. And the Sorcerer is more flashy to draw, so =P

Oh, and I most enjoyed your comment, by the way. Glad I’m not alone here, even if we disagree slightly.

Oh, and second comment. (Well, Paladins don’t need a high Charisma. It can just be very helpful.) I agree with your points on the art. I’m not terribly practiced and I’ve never really learned any “inking” or coloring techniques, so I just go with best-guess process.

Ehn…. Paladins DO need Charisma really. At least half their class abilities are based around it. You don’t become a librarian of you can’t read! In some editions you needed high charisma to be one at -all-. I will admit its need is not as great in 4e though…

I’ll also say the lawful-stupid explanation was more directed at Lurk whom I sure was making a joke anyway

Well, granted, in 3rd edition, a Paladin with low Charisma will certainly be playable if under-powered. Maybe Abbey is a 4th edition Paladin (they can focus on Strength-based abilities). Either way, I still feel that both his alignment and temperament are fitting to the class, even if his abilities might not be perfectly suited. But! We can probably table the argument ‘till I put the picture up. Good ‘ol Lucy will be next.

Also, now I want to make a Barbarian character who is also a Librarian. Wait, wasn’t there some kinda sketch on that? Conan the Librarian?

That first pic was hilarious. Anybody else get a “Rose For Emily” vibe on that one?

@Taeshi: Yeah, I’m sure that you’re constantly being bombarded by people like me who want your attention. No biggie. And, yeah, it looks like I cheated on the right hand. I suppose I should either do both in detail or both blobby.

I should probably try to avoid writing anything more complicated than that at this time of night.

Edit: Oh, and glad you liked the first one, “Jerk.”

Okay, time for the next picture, I suppose. This one is Lucy. Lucy the Monk, who is probably Lawful Neutral.

http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy56/ DisingenuousFacade/BCB%20Fanart/ Lucy_Monk_FinishedJPEG.jpg

I can’t seem to do Lucy justice. Something’s just always felt off about this picture. I think I made her too tall, or at least, her legs too long, and her face just looks flat. And her pose is lame (maybe I should have drawn her jump-kicking some random dude). And she doesn’t have anything that glows. So, so sorry.

On the other hand, I decided to use a thicker line for outlining her, and I think that looks better than what I did for Michael. Unfortunately, I still completely lack finesse, so it’s all blah. No variable thickness; doesn’t look natural. She doesn’t appear to have any obvious magical items, although those are +5 Gloves of Pummeling, trust me.

Despite the fact that she is white, I had considerable trouble getting a shading tone that looked right. Referenced the colored pictures I could find, but it was still tricky. But at least it’s in color! Still, I’d say “competent, but you can do better.” So, on to the nerdy stuff.

The Monk: Monks are basically martial artists who have gone through intense training to turn their bodies into deadly weapons. More powerful Monks can channel “ki” because Wizards of the Coast is like that. Anyway, because of Lucy’s tendency to smack people around, I knew I was going to put her in a martial melee class of some kind. However, I cannot picture her using an actual weapon, so Monk it was! I’m not familiar with 4E Monks (I know that they are Psionics), but 3E Monks need good Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom. I think that Lucy has good stats in the first two, but I think that her Wisdom is low. She doesn’t seem especially aware of those around her; plus, she’s a little bit crazy (I think at least one addition of D&D also tied Wisdom to sanity, but I could be wrong).

Lawful Neutral: Originally, I had her pegged as plain Neutral, but after some more thought, I think she is of the Lawful variety. She is not dedicated to either Good or Evil, but she values stability. I’ll explain the “Neutral” part first. She’s Neutral on the Good-Evil axis, mainly because she takes a bit from each side. She tends to express positive feelings (affection) in negative ways (physical beatings). While I do not think that she is actively malicious, she does not strike me as the type to volunteer assistance for others, either. The exception, of course, is when she has something to gain, but that’s easily Neutral. And, as I am sure that I have made abundantly clear, I don’t think that it would take too much for her to snap and slide all the way down into Evil.

So, now the Lawful component. After thinking about it, I think that Lucy does not like change. She’s kind of a shut-in and only gets close to a few (mainly MIke). Rather than having a personal honor code, I think that Lucy just wants everything to stay the same, stay familiar, and her whole “co-dependency” issue can be tied into this, or is a manifestation of it (or vice-versa, I don’t know). Viewing it this way, I think that the whole “Another Shoulder” arc was Lucy’s attempt to restore equilibrium to her life. I don’t think she wants to strike out on her own.

Now, just to wait for Bribri to tell me why I’m wrong! Ha ha ha!

*Cackles* Yes yes I shall. Prepare to get your butt kicked.

First off Monk is a most certain no. Yes Lucy uses her fists a lot… but so does mike (He’s suppose to be a better fighter in fact! So is Mike a Monk too now? After all he never casts magic how could he be a sorcerer?

This is because she is from a setting full of teenagers:They wouldn’t be USING swords, bows, or magic, or anything similar so that isn’t enough to back the ‘monk’ class, which has a lot of other beliefs tied to it. I will say her physical nature encourages a warrior type but monk is simply not it. Just like last time you latched onto ONE aspect of the character and used that to decide what class they are, ignoring the rest.

Personally I’d peg her as a ranger. It allows for her warrior slant, countless animal companions (Whom she seems to lay more trust in then her real friends!), and brooding, distrusting, loner personality which is often tied to the ranger stereotype. The only aspect of the ‘Monk’ she suits is the fist fighting angle, she has none of the typical philosophy or personality.

Second I think you’re forgetting a large part of the Lawful alignment:a certain trust in society which Lucy completely and utterly lacks. She distrusts society as a whole, generally thinks ‘people are bastards’ preferring to cut herself off from the world to live in her own. She also acts spontaneously and without reason or logic quite often, giving into her more primal emotions (Lucy has a problem? HIT IT!). For that matter with the exception of her co-dependency issue (Needing -one- person to believe in her) Lucy is very self-reliant in nature (Tae said as much once I think&hellip more then used to spending much of her alone. All of this is chaotic in nature.

I would however agree the co-dependency and fear of change IS on the lawful side. But with the above? It likely balances out to Neutral I’d think. As for the Good Vs Evil Axis… I’d have to agree with neutrality there as well. While she certainly has good aspects caring for her friends, particularly her pets, she is also often emotionally selfish. Uncaring of those she doesn’t know, and sometimes even those she DOES know.

Just for the record though. I’m just debating this for fun, not out of spite, or seriousness. D&D nerds must talk about silly silly things am I right? hahaha

I agree on the fact that Lucy should be a ranger, but mike, for sine reason he reminds me of an inspiring warlord, he’s very charismatic, people follow him easily, he’s a good fighter and leader. That’s my two cents on dis.
Also, David is a barbarian. Ohoho

Ehn… sorry Ace gotta disagree with you too.

While Mike IS charismatic and a good warrior… how often does he really LEAD the group? Think about it…. does he often tell others what to do? Or spout out advice or encouraging words regularly? Not all that often. He might have charisma but the man is no leader….no more then say Paulo is, who is also quite charismatic but doesn’t use it for the purposes of leadership either.

That.. and.. Barbarian? David? Dude’s almost always happy. Doesn’t really scream raging barbarian to me. Chaotic neutral without a doubt certainly….but he doesn’t really have much barb traits beyond ‘He’s stupid!’

Chaotic neutral ‘NPC-Warrior’ maybe.. if simply because he doesn’t have the brain power or motivation to take something more complex.

I agree with Bribri on the Monk angle. You just focused on a single aspect of Lucy (that just about everyone else has in common with her) and chose a class off of that. I’m no D&D nerd, but I still think you could have done better.

Ok, ok..I ment to read this…but it got more and more and I really dislike reading and I AM SORRY, but seriously, your Art is pretty amazing, and I like your ideas.

Lucy: taking skimpy outfits in the fantasy genre to their logical conclusion.

Whoaaah, what have I unleashed?!? Well, Bribri will be very disappointed when I get to David, I see … . Though I try not to stereotype for classes. My favorite character I ever made was a 3E Elf Barbarian merchant. Had ranks in profession (merchant), even. I decided to reinterpret the flavor of the “rage” into something more like a “self-hypnosis” or “battle meditation,” even though that sounds funny. The character was a merchant by trade, but had learned a particular style of fighting that involved going batshit insane for brief periods of time. I will admit that I was inspired by Berserker from 8-bit Theatre. Anyway … .

I’m just going to start out by saying that I think that there is a huge amount of room for interpretation insofar as what class is appropriate to each character. To me, Monk for Lucy feels right. Yeah, of course the BCB cast doesn’t use swords, bows, magic, or whatnot. However, for me, being charismatic and flashy seems to suit Mike, and, as I said, I just can’t picture Lucy using weapons, even if they were available. The point with animal companions is an interesting one. Perhaps she multi-classes. I’d also disagree that her personality bars her from being a Monk, though I will admit that if there was a “street fighter” class, I’d probably pick that instead since Lucy really isn’t the meditative type.

As for the alignment, well, as I said, I was originally thinking Neutral, though I think that we are interpreting Law and Chaos differently, as well as what actions Law-Chaos and Good-Evil are applied to. I do not believe that being Lawful means that one necessarily trusts society. To use a different character as an example, I’ll pick Rorschach from Watchmen. I think that he is incredibly Lawful (whether he’s Good, Neutral, or Evil, I could not say). He lives by an iron-bound code of honor; he sees the world in black and white; and he thinks that the society that he lives in is corrupt to the core. Yet it is his code that makes him Lawful. Likewise, I do not think that self-reliance means Chaotic, not does cutting oneself off from society imply a Chaotic nature in-and-of-itself. They may chafe at aspects of society that they feel are restrictive, but they could still be active participants in their community, as well.

As for some of Lucy’s erratic actions, well, few people are planted completely at one extreme or the other. However, I interpret her violence towards her friends on the Good-Evil axis rather than the Law-Chaos one which might be a reason for our different perspectives. What’s kind of funny to me is that many actions may be seen as clear-cut Good or Evil, but stuff on the Law-Chaos axis could be interpreted very differently, especially if in a vacuum. That whole relation to society bit you were talking about, again. If all I knew is that someone wanted to isolate themselves from society, that’s not enough for me to tell if it’s Lawful (this society does not live up to my Code), or Chaotic (I just wanna be FREE!). So, my perspective on Lucy, trying to look at more of her character, I end up seeing that separation as a desire to preserve order in her personal little world, rather than a desire to be free of society itself.

Of course, I suppose only a Word of God would settle this, but I don’t think that it’s coming (and it wouldn’t stop the argument, anyway).

@Lisa: Well, you probably aren’t reading this because of the massive text glacier above, but, well, I guess I tried to warn you way at the top. Still, reading is fun! But I guess I’m practically writing a novel here.

@Jerk: Well, she doesn’t wear much in the first place … . Though I will admit that the main reason I haven’t given everyone detailed costumes is sheer laziness.

@Bribri again: Yeah, I know this is just for fun. I’m interested in the other perspectives that you and everyone have. For the record, I consider my class/alignment picks and those of everyone else merely to be opinion. I explain what makes sense to me, you explain, well, apparently why I’m wrong, but I’ll just interpret that to be what you think makes more sense to you. Obviously, well, obvious to me, there’s no “right” or “wrong” in this little debate. Unless Taeshi is a nerd in disguise and has the gang all play D&D sometime.

I know, Who, but I wasn’t trying to tease you. I was teasing Taeshi. Again and again and again because that detail of the comic amuses (but does not bother) me.

If your class picks aren’t based on any sort of stereotype, or typical personality then there’s no point of debating what ‘class’ the character would be at all. As all the characters could be ANY class period or even discussing it.

I mean I’m all for playing the classes in an un-stereotypical fashion as well. I’ve played barbarians based around fun and focus before and broken common trends. Most of my characters DO break those stereotypes in fact!

But if you throw that stuff out the window there’s no longer ANY debate when it comes to class beyond ‘Oh he has the stats for it’ and the ‘rule of cool’ “He would look COOL as this class so I’m making it!” the second seems to be really your only argument which is all fine and dandy…but it makes this entire thing 100% personal preferance.

(For that matter when has Mike ever acted ‘flashy’? He doesn’t even LIKE attention, he’s never been a show off. That really seems more Paulo’s boat, or even Davids. The only time he ever shows off is when he’s in competition with Lucy which is a different thing all together. Is wearing a scarf enough to make a person flashy?)

As for your arguments about alignment I would agree to some extent. A lawful character doesn’t HAVE to like society nor does a chaotic character have to be self-reliant. As always a person is made up of equal bits of both, and a person might have one Lawful aspect that’s VERY STRONG that over-riders all others (Such as your example with Rorschach who’s never ending commitment to his cause makes him VERY lawful even if he has other chaotic aspects and his black and white view of the world)

But….this just doesn’t apply to Lucy for me. She’s simply too impulsive at times for it to work. Yes you can say her impulsive acts are a matter of ‘good and evil’ but I wouldn’t really think so. She’s often done GOOD things impulsively and without thought as well.. all be it with a bitter edge to them. There is also no real sign that Lucy IS afraid of change. As long as she has that one person she can rely on the girl could likely live through the end of the world and not care.

Oh. and as always:This is purely for fun. I’m just playing around, over-thinking intangible ideas for fun and glory~

Or wait never mind! 100% serious! As we all know the D&D alignment system is a perfect way of defining all the philosophies of the world ^_~ kekekeke yeah I kid~

Loves everyone <3~

Take something from Disgaia, make Lucy a brawler.

You make a point about the classes that I was just thinking about. I can no longer remember if I was picking them because I thought that the class fit the character or if I thought this is the class the character might choose to play. Might have been a bit of both, maybe not. It was probably just one of those cases where it made the most sense at the time. Though there definitely was some internal logic, since I wouldn’t cast, say, Daisy as a Barbarian, or Lucy as a Paladin. Anyway, I’ve already drawn them, so I’ll just have to figure out some way to justify them, won’t I?

Re: Mike: I was probably thinking about his tendency to show off and be competitive when I started to draw and decided to go off of that. Probably. Anyway, I suppose I’d agree that a class that focuses more on athletics, you mentioned Ranger and Rogue, might be more appropriate for Mike. In these cases, I am forced to resort to my tag-line: “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” I still submit that Sorcerer is a valid pick for certain definitions of “valid.”

Oh, and yes, thank goodness we have the D&D alignment system to pigeon-hole our lives! Ha ha ha ha! Still, hopefully we can agree that it’s an interesting mental exercise. Again, though, I disagree with one of your points. I don’t feel that impulsive behavior is necessarily related to either Chaos or Law. While a Chaotic individual may prefer to throw themselves into things rather than sit around thinking about it, I feel that a Lawful person can just as easily have a tendency to come to quick, rash decisions. It’s the weird thing about alignment to me. The same act could mean different things depending on the motive, though discerning the motive in another person’s character can be tricky, I think.

I’m not really sure where I’m going at this point. I kind of want to avoid the ‘ol “agree to disagree” mantra since that’s just a way to kill an debate, though I think we are approaching this from different perspectives. But I’ve already said that. What I think is the most hilarious, though, is that you’re arguing for a Lucy Alignment that I was originally going to choose but then I second-guessed myself. Yet, that last point you made, that as long as she has her One Person, she could handle anything … I still interpret that as the core need for a stable center. Is that enough to make her Lawful? Maybe. Maybe Quasi-Lawful (though it always bugged me when other players would say things like “I’m Neutral Good, leaning towards Chaos” ‘cuz I wanted them to pick one or the other). I suppose I’ve come to see nearly all of her actions, violence and impulsive ones included, as motivated by the need to keep that stability protected.

Hmmm. Interesting. If someone’s philosophy was “as long as I have what I need, the world can go to Hell,” where would that put them (not saying this is Lucy’s position per se, just a random thought). Good-Evil? Eh, I’d probably say Neutral unless they were actively trying to blow the world up. Law-Chaos? Yeah, that gets more interesting, I see. Depends if you look at it as Micro or Macro, perhaps. Macro: Chaotic, probably, if they’re willing to see everything turn to dust around them. Micro: Lawful, since they need whatever it is to order their life. If Micro/Macro are different, would that even out to be Neutral? Hmmm. Or does it depend on how that person views things?

Well, at least I’m not arguing that Lucy is Neutral Evil. Yet. Or perhaps someone does have a good argument for that?

Oh, my, I sure write a lot when I stop paying attention. Anyone who actually reads all of this is something special, indeed.

You are tempting me to read through the wall of text this thread has become. ^_^

@ILB: You can do it! Just, grab a sandwich or something, ‘cuz it’s a long hike. =P

If I had more foresight, I might have called this thread “Who’s This Nerd and Why Does He Type So Much??” I think, rather than a Fan Art thread, this is a Text Thread which includes some fan art.

I read most posts up to and including why Lucy would be a street fighter if that was a class (I love custom classes though =P)

But reading all this makes me want to pick up DnD again, tabletop RPG’s are definately my thing.

I’m not gonna lie here. The pictures are awesome, but your wall of texts are like a series of mountains for someone with my attention span @_@

Well, here comes the next one. What torrents shall it unleash? Oh, and since it seems to be a popular non-request, I’ll also include “short versions” of my analysis for the reading and attention-span impaired. We have Daisy the Wizard, Neutral Good.

http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy56/ DisingenuousFacade/BCB%20Fanart/ Daisy_Wizard_FinishedJPEG.jpg

Short Version

The Drawing: It sucks.

The Wizard: Daisy is smart.

Neutral Good: Daisy is kind and helpful. She avoids Lawful-Chaotic extremes.

Long Version

The Drawing: Still sucks. This is easily one of the worst of the batch. Nothing came out right. Like Lucy, her legs are too long, which mucks up the proportions. Her face … my god, her face … . I’m so sorry, Daisy. I tried redrawing it five times, but I just couldn’t get it right. She deserves to be drawn by someone who can actually make her look cute. I’m not even entirely sure where I went wrong, though I think it’s the eyes. And the shape of the head. And the mouth. I guess … I guess the nose is okay … even I can draw a dot. I guess it all just looks … generic, lifeless, and dull. Oh, and the spell-book didn’t turn out nearly as cool as I’d wanted.

The Wizard: Well, at least I made a good pick here (yes I did!!). Wizards are arcane spellcasters who master magic through intense study. They are also generally glass cannons. Many of the characters comment on Daisy’s booksmartness, A good wizard requires high Intelligence, and I think that Daisy fits the bill.I really think that’s all I need to say on that. She certainly hasn’t given me any reason to believe that physical combat of any kind would be appropriate for her. Oh, though I will add that I personally feel that Daisy would fill her spellbook with spells that either bolster her allies or disable or disorient her opponents. She just doesn’t strike me as the type to load up on damage-dealing spells, like Fireball. Maybe she specializes in Enchantments?

Oh, and if she’s a Wizard, there’s also the slightest chance that she might wear glasses at some point. Y’know, to help her read and stuff.

Neutral Good: I’m pretty confident with this pick. I think that Daisy has a generally kind and compassionate nature, She does not seem to be especially concerned with rules and order in either a positive or negative way. However, I do feel that during her “character development” arc she flirted with Chaotic Good as Augustus pushed her to be kind of a “rebel.” Perhaps someone will argue that it was a shift from Good to Neutral, but I see it as more of a shift from Neutral to Chaotic because it seemed more about flaunting the conventions of being a “proper” girl, rather than being less of a good person. Either way, I think that she’s ultimately rejected that and is holding stable at Neutral Good.

I also want to point out that Daisy seems to be the only kid so far who has given up on her initial crush. I don’t really think that has anything to do with her being Good or not (maybe just mature), but I felt like pointing it out.

In the unlikely event that Bribri unconditionally agrees with my picks, well, you’d better not, or it might tear a rift in the nerd-time continuum.

Um… *glances beside him* well huh….small spoilers for the doctor who fans out there…… I know what caused that crack in space time….

Sorry Who. Can’t help but agree with you this time. ^_^;;;;. Some MIGHT argue Daisy would be some sort of ‘healer’ aka Cleric due to her desire to help her friends…but Clerics have a certain level of insight which… she sort of lacks. A supportive wizard suits her fine.

Yeah, I need a lot more practice drawing props and objects. I tried to write the title by hand, but I couldn’t get it to fit right, so I foolishly thought I could just add it in on the computer. Originally I wanted to write “Big Book ‘O Spells,” but that didn’t fit. (I briefly considered writing “Girly Spells ,” but didn’t seem right to me.) Tried to use a mirror to get the perspective on the book right, but still need more practice. I did make it blocky ‘cuz it’s easier that way … >_> Must avoid the quick and easy path.

Though I am glad you like the way Daisy turned out.

EDIT: Ah, no, Bribri! What have you dooooooone! Ha ha. Actually, I forgot to mention the Cleric perspective, but I decided against it for the same reasons you mention. She’s a bit too naive for that position, methinks.

Well, time for Paulo. I call him a Chaotic Good Bard.

http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy56/ DisingenuousFacade/BCB%20Fanart/ Paulo_Bard_FinishedJPEG.jpg

Short Version

The Drawing: Is awesome, except for the lute.

The Bard: “Ladies Man” class.

Chaotic Good: “Bad boy” with a good heart.

Long Version

The Drawing: This is the one that I really like. I really think that Paulo took to his class very well. He was very cooperative. He’s also the most interesting to draw, I think. For once, I’m actually pretty pleased with how this came out, especially his expression and the rose. However, the lute is pretty, pretty terrible, and his tail could use improvement. That hat’s alright. I wouldn’t change the type of hat, but I could probably have drawn that a bit better, too.

I also believe that Paulo is not entirely sure how to play that lute.

The Bard: OK, I think that Paulo could have been a Rogue, but Bard really says “Ladies Man” to me. Or “wannabe ladies man.” Either definition could work here, depending on your take. Bards use enchanted music to lift their allies’ spirits and confound their foes. Yeah, Paulo hasn’t shown any musical aptitude in the comic, but this is artistic license, see. Bards rely on high Charisma for their main abilities. I think that Paulo’s Charisma is definitely above average. Not sure if it’s as high as Mike’s. On the other hand, Paulo’s Wisdom is probably lower than Mike’s, so even with an equal Charisma score, Paulo is more likely to flub things once he has someone’s attention.

Another note: Prior to 4E, Bards are generally considered, how to put it, “not very useful.” They are much more effective in 4E, though. Is Paulo a 3E or earlier Bard or a 4E Bard? You decide.

Chaotic Good: Even with the current arc, this is where I would put him at the moment. Have to see how things end before I can decide if his alignment is changing. Anyway, I kind of see Paulo as the “rebel” type, or someone who at least tries/wants to be a rebel. He doesn’t really seem very concerned with rules or conventions, tends to follow his whims without thinking of the consequences (his antics on that rock bridge is a good example), but I think that there’s some good evidence to suggest that he’s actually a nice person underneath all the show. Biggest example, probably, is that he didn’t take advantage of Lucy when he could have. He also saved both Mike and Lucy from a watery grave (and kept it to himself in an unusually humble act), and generally tries to do what he thinks is right. Sometimes that may be a bit misguided, but I certainly don’t think that he ever intends to hurt anyone.

If there’s any alignment shift going on, it’s probably towards Chaotic Neutral. I think that, so far, none of the girls he’s slept with have expected an ongoing relationship, but if he starts breaking hearts, well, that’s probably not Good.

Totally saw this one coming right down to the alignment.

I also predict that FFCat will be a warlock of possibly chaotic neutral or neutral evil alignment simply because he isn’t _really_ evil (and because warlocks need to be either chaotic or evil).