I admire your artistic talents.... but please stop. Just say no to: Gnolls with huge sad moist looking eyes Chibi High Elves Barbarian women sitting on the ground showing a flash of white cotton panties And P.S Iksar women do not look sexy wearing a one piece sling-shot
AratornCalahn wrote: I tend to give Icepaw Gnolls Glowing Blue Eyes not moist ones. I do very little Chibi. I tend to do Barbarian women as body builders working at the forge in skimpy Metal working attire. As for the slingshot, it's all in the presentation As for stopping...Umm No, If you don't like anime, find someone who does realistic style, or commission someone to do Western Comic style.
Brigley@Mistmoore wrote: We are not ogling Iksar/Sarnak cloacae. In fact, I don't see a single hint of her vent anywhere. I don't think the forum's rules would allow for vent shots anyway. FYI: -- Singular: cloaca -- Plural: cloacae
Not to mention that, no one is sure if Iksar have a cloaca (no telling the difference between Ro System and Sol System Reptiles) they might be closer to a mammalian down there since they appear to be warm-blooded enough to be able to survive in Everfrost Velious and the upper mountains such as Teren's Grasp.
Zabjade wrote: [ As we veer off into an anatomy discussion. . . ] Being homeothermic is not the determining factor that separates those critters who have cloacae and those who have separated orifices. I think the determining factor is egg-laying vs placental pregnancies. Birds and platypi are "warm-blooded", yet they have cloacae. [ I am personally happy that Norrath's design team didn't go and give frogloks, iksar, sarnak, and other non-mammalian sentients the boobies. I have been known to scrawl "WRONG!!" on media showing mammalian features on beings that just should not have nipples and such. ]
Would only add breast if it is a Human or other mammalian coming out of an illusion form (more of a incomplete transformation really) I think I manage to have them look nice without said bust. BTW most Dinosaurs are thought to be warm-blooded, especially since birds can be manipulated to have dinosaur throwback features. just by manipulating the master-genes
Zabjade wrote: Very soon, birds won't be their own independent class. Class Aves will disappear as we're finding more evidence that birds are simply evolved, feathered dinosaurs. The cladists will be very unhappy Ah yes, Crocodiles too.
Zabjade wrote: No, it is generally believed the dinosaurs were cold-blooded. There are some theories that work with the idea that some of them were evolving towards warm-blooded though. It is true birds evolved from dinosaurs, but that does not in any way prove that the dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
LOL - at least this bikini discussion is going somewhere else for a change! However, as a Kerra female... We do have decidedly rounded artwork in the upper chest area, but does our fur hide other - um - points of interest?
Liljna wrote: your about 20 years behind there buddy its pretty much considered that not only were dinosaurs warm-blooded but the warm blooded trait evolve before dinosaurs and mammals split off from their common ancestors. And as far s the Class Aves dissapearing... unlikely just because of stubborness the entire reptile grouping isn't really valid cause not only birds but mammals should be lumped into that group. Reptile is really 4 distinct vastly separate animal groupings that long ago should have been broken up. Turtles in their own group, Tuataras, Lizards and Snakes in their own group, Crocodiles, Dinosaurs and birds all in their own group.
More like mutated than evolved, as the DNA is still there. As for a Kerra female, I believe that they do have visible "bits" how much is visible depends on whether they are a short-short fur or a longer short fur. for them it would have to be a looser suit I think so that they fur gets in the way less, or maybe a boiled leather suit... I'll have to think on this...
Wildmage wrote: I will agree I am a bit behind. My university courses in Paleontology are approximately 10 years old We were taught back then that the dinosaurs in general were ectothermic ("cold-blooded"). I also remember the newsgroups and mailing groups (no forums at that time) were divided in the views on the whole thermo-regulation point. At this time (middle of the 1990ies) it did not seem to me (or my professor) that the consensus view was that the dinosaurs were endotherm ("warm-blooded") and at that point people thought Bakkers arguments and theories were too simple. At that time though more and more were looking into the possibility that some dinosaurs were endotherm or has ways of controlling their temperature, so Bakker definitely had an influence (and mind you, I think his works are important). I remember writing a rather large paper on Deinonychus back then, arguing that it probably wasn't ectothermic but that it had some way of controlling or regulating its own body temperature or was perhaps even endothermic. The arguments were based on things like activity levels and bone structure. I read a lot of John Ostroms works and some of good old 'Bob' Bakker (the guy with the dinosaur renaissance) and 'History of Life' by Richard Cower. So I spoke too soon, I simply didn't realize the paleontology on dinosaurs had moved this drastic in 10 years. But I'm actually glad, it means I wasn't completely wrong in that paper I wrote back then And I'm glad the view on the dinosaurs are becoming more diverse. Anyways, this discussion could probably go on forever. But I just wanted to respond to Wildmage, he made me sound a tad too old for my taste Ok, let's get back to dinosaur bikini's!
yeah it was till being debated in the 90s since then we have moved on and are chewing over the whole feather thing and what had feathers and what didn't as we have definiative proof of a couple species of raptorial dinosaurs had feathers covering the entire body.
