An interesting art comparison

[Desdichado]

There's some really, really great pictures that are missing too, especially from Dungeon and Dragon Magazines.

I think Steve Prescott's cover of Demogorgon easily beats out any of the offerings on that article, for example.

 

[ChristianW]

Gosh, I kind of like them all. TSR did not have the same resources that wotc does, but I think they did just fine with their artwork. For me, 1e is all about visualizations created by the DM's narrative and the PCs' imagination. I really don't need everything given to me in full page color...except for Di Terlizzi's succubus because that's, like, hot!

 

[Pants]

There's some really, really great pictures that are missing too, especially from Dungeon and Dragon Magazines.

I think Steve Prescott's cover of Demogorgon easily beats out any of the offerings on that article, for example.

Yeah, that one was good too.

WAR's Graz'zt (and Iggwilv) is still the best evar.

 

[Dragonbait]

Well they have no reason to have an attractive human body either; what makes humans so darned special that demons have to be in that form?

Yes they do. Why? Because I said so, and the monster manual needs more fapping material.

They always are things like "human with bat wings. Human with snake head. Human with horns." Never "Gnome with bat wings" or "Female hobgoblin with 6 arms and snake tail..."

But they will compare things to elves (elf with bee traits, elf-killer whale combo). Why? Elves are sexy.

Ok, in all seriousness, you bring up valid points. The demons were most likely designed with a humanocentric mindset. However, since D&D is full of non-humans, there definately WOULD be non-human but still humanoid fiends and celestials. Why is there a group of celestials that look very similar to elves, but not a group that looks like halflings or gnomes? And where are the orc's demons? Still, I like the human upper torso marailiths, and you don't.
Perhaps each race sees their own traits in both the fiends and celestials? But that would be an easy answer, and cut down on people complaining. We couldn't have that.

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'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.

I think they are trying to actively ignore a great deal of the later 2ed material that did not tie directly in with the current settings, like Planescape. Just look around here and you can see the generally negative attitude towards 2ed and all its byproducts from people that played 1ed on.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, that one was good too.

WAR's Graz'zt (and Iggwilv) is still the best evar.

Yeah, and since that was in FC1, I'm a little surprised they posted the lame portrait that they did, and not that awesome picture instead.

And for those curious; here's the two pictures we're talking about...

And the following is not the image of a demon, but I think it's pretty funny. PWN3D!

 

[Shemeska]

I think they are trying to actively ignore a great deal of the later 2ed material that did not tie directly in with the current settings, like Planescape.

Except that most all of the 3e material on the planes is either directly and heavily inspired by the late 2e material, Planescape or otherwise, and in some cases there has been some 3e material virtually taken verbatim from the PS sources. It's no longer a seperate product line yeah, but as the assumed default cosmology with its material sprinkled everywhere from the 3.5 DMG to multiple other books, it's hard to see that an idea of 'it doesn't directly tie in with current settings' would be the case with that article.

Just look around here and you can see the generally negative attitude towards 2ed and all its byproducts from people that played 1ed on.

Reactionary, kneejerk hatred towards anything 2e however I could buy, because I've seen it. But I doubt that's the case either. I certainly hope it's not the case.

 

[Arnwyn]

Just look around here and you can see the generally negative attitude towards 2ed and all its byproducts from people that played 1ed on.

I think this is completely off base.

Just looking around here, I see a generally negative attitude towards 2e rules, and a general love towards its byproducts (namely the settings).

 

[Shemeska]

I think this is completely off base.

Just looking around here, I see a generally negative attitude towards 2e rules, and a general love towards its byproducts (namely the settings).

That seems to be the majority opinion seemingly. However there is a rather vocal population of people who just despise 2e (not necessarily here on Enworld, but certainly other places on the web). Heavily generalizing, they seem to be a small fraction of those folks who started in 1e, or earlier, and then for various reasons abandoned DnD in 2e (or just kept using 1e), only to come back in 3e.

I started in 3e, I adore the 2e flavor, but the ruleset... well... I'm not lamenting having missed it

 

[demiurge1138]

I'm willing to forgive him for some of his less popular images, just like I'm willing to forgive WAR for his apparent inability to draw feet. The good stuff outweighs the bad.

I'm not the only one who's noticed that! I thought I was just crazy!

Well, I am, but...

Demiurge out.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I especially noticed the teeth on Fraz. You have to "imagine" Fraz speaking and trying to weave his web of deception. A four-year-old can be scared of the big teeth in the new drawings. Bigger, louder, bright colors, pin-heads on huge muscular bodies - to me it seems cheap and repetitive. 3E art has always made me cringe. At least the demons don't have flat-top haircuts and wear biker-goggles.

I dunno. I like Juiblex with teeth. Why shouldn't fiendish representatives of sentient ooze have teeth?

Same with Fraz's choppers. I think it makes a lot of sense to have demons who are barely capable of performing basic human actions in exchange for fearful glory. I mean, look at some of the critters in Bosch paintings -- completely nonsensical, geared entirely for horror and fear. I can see Fraz speaking, albeit with difficulty, spittle, and blood, and having a fiendish lord spit blood and chunks of lips while speaking to you fits right in the mold of fiendish lords, I feel.

I'm slightly less forgiving for normal-esque critters, but this is fantasy -- making sense only has to happen in the broadest of senses.