[dungeoncrawl] Re: More Symbols
- From: "Jim and Karen" <jimkaren@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:45:37 -0500
Definitely (and John, why are you at work so late?). I think the Cinilac
one is great - maybe it can be used as a background to a simpler icon or
represent a supernatural form he manifests in from time to time.
By the way, I'm really interested to see what you can come up with for some
of my characters! I may pull a "movie director" approach with you down the
road - if I have a vivid idea, maybe I could email you a description or
sketch and see what you can do with it.
You're definitely hired as "symbol" and "campaign look/feel" guy if I get a
vote! :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grogan, Keith" <Keith_Grogan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 5:53 PM
Subject: [dungeoncrawl] Re: More Symbols
>
> maybe kind of like in the DnD books. You have the crappy black/white
> sketches and then in the newer books you have them really well done and in
> color.
>
> > ----------
> > From: Johnathan Detrick
> > Reply To: dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Friday, December 6, 2002 5:52 PM
> > To: dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [dungeoncrawl] Re: More Symbols
> >
> >
> > It's a shame, since I think the Cinilac symbol is very cool. It
> > really
> > jumps out at you. Maybe his big churches could have that symbol above
the
> > altar, while there is a simpler one for worshippers to carry with them?
> >
> > "Grogan, Keith" wrote:
> >
> > > I had thought of that originally. I get a little crazy w/ stuff at
times
> > > when I see what I can do w/ the program. I'm trying to keep them
> > simplistic
> > > as possible. I will have scale some back or re-think them out.
> > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > From: Johnathan Detrick
> > > > Reply To: dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 6, 2002 5:42 PM
> > > > To: dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: [dungeoncrawl] Re: More Symbols
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's a very good point Jim, and I hadn't considered it. Most
> > gods
> > > > (unless they care not for their worshippers) are going to want any
old
> > > > schmoe to be able to duplicate their symbol. If they have something
> > too
> > > > complicated for that, it could dissuade potential worshippers.
> > > >
> > > > jimkaren@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Keith,
> > > > >
> > > > > You did a really nice job on these!
> > > > > Magnus is perfect for him, and Karvas
> > > > > is, well, just plain wild. It's eerie
> > > > > in a way that's hard to explain.
> > > > > Definitely leave it that way.
> > > > >
> > > > > One suggestion, though - consider
> > > > > making the symbols themselves sort of
> > > > > simple. The one that comes to mind is
> > > > > Cinilac - it's really neat, but would
> > > > > be hard for a worshipper to quickly
> > > > > inscribe or for others to recognize
> > > > > easily in a simpler form.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, say someone creates a wax
> > > > > seal with the god's holy symbol - it
> > > > > needs to be instantly recognizable. Or
> > > > > if they want to quickly inscribe it on
> > > > > a door to warn against entry, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Got this from ancient history - the
> > > > > gods then would easily be recognized by
> > > > > their idols or symbols.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, great
> > > > > job!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
