An interesting art comparison

[demiurge1138]

Overall, while some don't care for his style, I felt that Tony D was very very good, but with some very notable exceptions (ie the Glabrezu). His work in the Planes of Conflict box set was some of the best for 2e though IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I love Di Terlizzi. His work on Hellbound and the Planes of... box sets was some of the best of his career. But some of the fiends in the Planescape MC 1 was the worst of his career (those notable exceptions you mentioned). The glabrezu, as previously mentioned, looked really dorky. And the nabassu and abashai mug shots gave you no idea what the rest of the creature looked like! But still, the article really should have had more Di Terlizzi, if only for an accurate comparison.

Demiurge out.

 

[Shemeska]

Wait... how did this article get past its editors?

They completely omitted any 2e picture of Orcus (there are at least two I can think of), any 2e picture of Graz'zt (at least two I can think of), and any 2e picture of Pazuzu.

In fact the article openly claims that Demogorgon, Graz'zt, Orcus, et al were completely absent from all of 2e. Wow... how the heck... they really didn't do their homework for the article. Again, I'm really surprised this got past editing.

 

[frankthedm]

Say, is that altar and victim in front of Demogorgon in FC:HotA, the same altar and victim from the cover of Eldritch Wizardry?

 

[Anson Caralya]

Say, is that altar and victim in front of Demogorgon in FC:HotA, the same altar and victim from the cover of Eldritch Wizardry?

No, she was blond. Although they do both appear to be lying on slabs of chocolate cake.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, they do seem to have given 2e short shrift. It appears that they only took from "core" sources. Maybe they assumed that many people never saw Planescape?

 

[Agent Oracle]

Great googely-moogely! It's Mary-Kate Olsen!

The Nobel Orangutan, misunderstood as a member of the great apes...

Years of wanting to be a fly on the wall... well, i finally got my wish.

(sniff) Ah hab uh code (coughs).

As is tradition, the team dumped the gatorade all over their coach after winning.

 

[Shemeska]

They should have used this 2e Molydeus:

And this 2e Succubus:

 

[Shemeska]

Yeah, they do seem to have given 2e short shrift. It appears that they only took from "core" sources. Maybe they assumed that many people never saw Planescape?

I don't know. The idea of 'core' and 'not core' is pretty much a 3e thing. I'm more inclined to think that the author wasn't very up on what products featured fiends in 2e, and just stopped at the Monstrous Compendium and never did any further reading. I might be wrong of course, but there's some absolutely gaping holes in what they presented, and some either very poorly worded, or just factually wrong statements about the 2e material that covered the fiends.

 

[The Shaman]

What's interesting is how they focused on Dave Sutherland's 1e work while all but ignoring the pen-and-brush stylings of Dave Trampier - DAT's Jubliex is still the best of the bunch.

This smells like propaganda - it's easy to make the new artwork look better if you skip the best of the 1e artists. DAT's lich and intellect devourer (to name just two) kick the 3e version's asses and take their lunch money.

 

[Hussar]

True. But, then again, it's only the demon art they are interested in.