@petermorwood For your collection of fab, but not easy to use weapons
Backing music is Edith Piaf singing “La Vie en Rose” - very apt. :->
This one’s not easy to use simply because it’s so big. Trimming everything down by making the head actual rose-sized, and mounting it on a hollow not solid haft, would result in quite an effective and strikingly (ouch) pretty weapon.
Since the head would no longer be as massive, realistic-looking petals would need compressed into the more compact, sturdy shape suitable for something meant for thumping things - like, for instance, these…
*****
Maces with flanged heads were fairly common, and the Indian “shishpar” was sometimes even made with with spiral flanges.
I don’t know this one’s exact weight but if it has the usual hollow metal haft then it’s probably about 1 kg / 2.2 lbs or a little (not much) more.
Look at how thin the flanges are compared to the “La Bonk” petals (unusually thin, indeed possibly sharp-edged, though their spiral curve adds strength); between that and the khanda broadsword hilt, I’m betting it’s well-balanced and manoeuverable.
Yet if some Maratha or Rajput warrior had asked the weaponsmith who made it to make one shaped like a rose, the reply would probably have been “Certainly, sahib, would you like a guhlab rose, a paneer rose, a damask rose or a musk rose, and would you like the petal edges sharp or blunt?”
*****
Here are a few more Indian maces, and here’s another reason why Indian warriors liked hollow hafts - it not only saved weight, it made room for a little extra whether the weapon was a tabar (axe):
…zaghnal (”war-pick”)…
…or bhuj (”hatchet-knife”)
Those daggers seem so common that I’ve started think they weren’t actually a “hidden surprise”, more an accepted way to carry an additional backup weapon. Oddly enough Indian maces seem to be the only hafted weapon which didn’t have them - at least I couldn’t find a pic of one - though there were any amount of maces with sword-hilts.
However maces from other countries did. This one is from Germany, ca. 1550; it weighs 1.2kg / 2.6 lbs…
…while this one is from Poland, ca. 1650s, weight
1.07 kg / 2.4 lbs.
A “Petite La Bonk” scaled down to match these (with or without dagger as optional extra) would be quite something.
Monarch butterflies need moisture on hot days but cannot land directly on water to drink. Instead these butterflies sip moisture and dissolved minerals from the surrounding muddy, wet ground, an example of ‘puddling’.
Over the course of the game, roll a d20 every so often.
This measures the progress of a different, unmentioned party of adventurers who are on their own quest to stop an unrelated threat to the entire mortal world.
If you get a one they fuck up and die so the world abruptly ends with no warning.
Colorized photo of Vincent van Gogh at his home in Arles in 1869.
No it isn’t you lying ass
Other ai giveaways other than the fucked up hands-
Leaves have no form or order- they’re a green mass without reasonable veins or connection points to stems. See the weird bit that crosses Vince’s arm
Same with the yellow flowers tbh they look pasted on and are all the same level of blur despite the leaves being crisply in focus, and several seem to not have stems
The metal in the window has no actual pattern and isn’t continued into the second window
The chunk of rock texture in the middle of the wood next to the window
The folds on Vince’s clothes don’t seem to fall in a natural way and seem excessive, especially on his pants.
Overall the space is… Odd. Where is he? A random corner against a plain blue wall? Why is one wall made of wood and the other has no discernible texture? Why does the stone part have that weird corner and have the foundation so high up in comparison to where Vince’s feet should be? Why doesn’t the stone wall match the geography of its base? What is the fabric thing on the lefthand side that’s conveniently the same blue as the house and jacket?
Anyway, good practice to train your eye for ai generated images
also he was 16 in 1869. didn’t have a house of his own; wasn’t living in Arles yet. he was training to work for art dealers, in The Hague
this is the only known photographic portrait of Van Gogh, age 19 (c. 1872)
