D&D 5E D&D Next Art Column: June! And July!

[steeldragons]

Grab yourself a copy, so you can see where the Paladin (and gnome, and troll, and swanmay, and holy avenger) came from.

In all fairness, Klaus, the gnome, troll and swanmay...are all figures/figments of "normal" real world myth, folklore and legend...I assume the "holy avenger" is based off of Excaliber, but if it's in this book as such, then bully...

I'm a HUGE advocate of the whole 1e perception/attitude/immersion/whatever you want to call it...but I will confess, I've never read (nor even looked up!) Three Hearts and Three Lions.

 

[Hussar]

And, really, do we want to base a major element of the game on a very obscure bit of genre literature? Sure, that's where the original idea might have come from, but, I'm thinking after thirty or forty years of gaming, we hopefully have our own conception of what a paladin should look like.

I mean a quick Google Image Search hits the high points really, doesn't it?

 

[Klaus]

In all fairness, Klaus, the gnome, troll and swanmay...are all figures/figments of "normal" real world myth, folklore and legend...I assume the "holy avenger" is based off of Excaliber, but if it's in this book as such, then bully...

I'm a HUGE advocate of the whole 1e perception/attitude/immersion/whatever you want to call it...but I will confess, I've never read (nor even looked up!) Three Hearts and Three Lions.

A lot of that stuff did exist in myth. But the way they're portrayed in 3H&3L *is* how they're portrayed in D&D. That's where the rubbery-skinned, regenerating, only-damaged-by-fire troll came from. Excalibur was a creat sword, but Holger Carlson's sword in the novel shines with the power of law (it's a Law vs. Chaos thing), dispelling Chaos before it (that's where the "dispel magic aura" power of the holy avenger came from).

Hussar: Have we developed our own definition? Maybe. Has that definition been accumulating detritus along the way for the past 30-something-years? Definitley. There is great value in looking at the origin of things to understand how they evolved along the way and what could possibly be recaptured of its initial incarnation. Don't dismiss the influencers of the game because they're "obscure". On the contrary, seek them out so they're no longer obscure.

 

[Hussar]

My problem with that Klaus is that the genre purists start coming out of the woodwork and telling everyone how it's being done wrong. Drop a Tolkien bomb in any online discussion and you've pretty much Godwinned the thread as everyone and their mother who has spent many, many hours pouring over the minutia of Tolkien descends on the thread to "prove" how the LotR really is.

That and while there is nothing wrong with looking at the roots, I find that so many people stop there. Only REH Conan counts, because nothing else is "real" Conan, even if only a tiny fraction of Conan readers have actually read REH and are likely far more familiar with De Camp's version. Or, heck, even Robert Jordan's version. Or the various comic book versions. And then we spiral back down to purists vs anything and everything else.

I mean, look at the reactions to 3e and 4e art and all the "It's so ANNNIE MAYYYY!" threads that we waded through for years. As if we had to stop all D&D art with Erol Otis and Trampier.

Sure, look at the roots, but, with an eye on how people are going to react now, not how we reacted thirty years ago.

 

[Klaus]

My problem with that Klaus is that the genre purists start coming out of the woodwork and telling everyone how it's being done wrong. Drop a Tolkien bomb in any online discussion and you've pretty much Godwinned the thread as everyone and their mother who has spent many, many hours pouring over the minutia of Tolkien descends on the thread to "prove" how the LotR really is.

That and while there is nothing wrong with looking at the roots, I find that so many people stop there. Only REH Conan counts, because nothing else is "real" Conan, even if only a tiny fraction of Conan readers have actually read REH and are likely far more familiar with De Camp's version. Or, heck, even Robert Jordan's version. Or the various comic book versions. And then we spiral back down to purists vs anything and everything else.

I mean, look at the reactions to 3e and 4e art and all the "It's so ANNNIE MAYYYY!" threads that we waded through for years. As if we had to stop all D&D art with Erol Otis and Trampier.

Sure, look at the roots, but, with an eye on how people are going to react now, not how we reacted thirty years ago.

But that's it. There's no way you can look at the roots now without doing so through modern eyes. Go back to the original books and let yourself be influenced by them, adding your own experiences to it, instead of having the books filtered through years of other people's interpretations.

It's a bit like the difference between looking at a painting and reading the description of a painting.

 

[Hussar]

But that's it. There's no way you can look at the roots now without doing so through modern eyes. Go back to the original books and let yourself be influenced by them, adding your own experiences to it, instead of having the books filtered through years of other people's interpretations.

It's a bit like the difference between looking at a painting and reading the description of a painting.

Oh, fair enough. And it's not like we should totally write off the roots either. I just want a fairly balanced approach. I mean, there's some here that think that D&D art should stop at about 1982 and any inspiration from anything later than that should be shown the door.

While I might be a huge Boris Vajello fan, I'm also willing to admit that the times have perhaps changed a bit and maybe it's not a bad idea to look at stuff that's been published after most players were born.

 

[Scribble]

Even if you look at modern works, I can almost guarantee they weren't created in a vacuum. Ask any of their creators and I'm sure they'll list any number of old "out dated" sources as inspiration even if their work seems dramatically different.

In any art class they'll teach you about classic old works- Not because it's better or the best, but because art influences art, and it's good to look at where we came from even when attempting to move forward. It gives you a better understanding of how and why things became what they are.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The new article today is about the gnoll. Famously described in OD&D as the combination of a gnome and a troll.

I described my view of gnolls here, and WotC took their track in Tuesday's Wandering Monster article.

The picture presented as a gnoll so far hits most of the high points. I don't really object to it.

I do think it could be better. I think the general image is a bit...cartoony, and the big hands don't help. I do love the face, but it looks a little sympathetic...even cute. And while the concept overall is pretty strong, I feel like I'm not getting a sense of the gnoll's role in the world very strongly. It's not doing anything particularly cruel or debased or "casually violent." It doesn't look like it's ready to gleefully rip me limb from limb.

The hunch is good, but I think we need to ratchet up the evil and danger a little bit, here. And gnoll "dumbness" to me wasn't a lack of cunning or intellect per se, but more a lack of awareness of themselves or the consequences of their actions. Rather than looking "duuuuh...", maybe they should look careless. I'd expect gnolls to be the type to run with scissors or to let a wound get infected. They get that it's dangerous, they just don't care.

That might be my own narrow take on it, though. And the image isn't bad. A little cartoony and non-threatening, but not bad. B. Which also corresponds to the production sketch I like the best.

 

[Klaus]

The new article today is about the gnoll. Famously described in OD&D as the combination of a gnome and a troll.

I described my view of gnolls here, and WotC took their track in Tuesday's Wandering Monster article.

The picture presented as a gnoll so far hits most of the high points. I don't really object to it.

I do think it could be better. I think the general image is a bit...cartoony, and the big hands don't help. I do love the face, but it looks a little sympathetic...even cute. And while the concept overall is pretty strong, I feel like I'm not getting a sense of the gnoll's role in the world very strongly. It's not doing anything particularly cruel or debased or "casually violent." It doesn't look like it's ready to gleefully rip me limb from limb.

The hunch is good, but I think we need to ratchet up the evil and danger a little bit, here. And gnoll "dumbness" to me wasn't a lack of cunning or intellect per se, but more a lack of awareness of themselves or the consequences of their actions. Rather than looking "duuuuh...", maybe they should look careless. I'd expect gnolls to be the type to run with scissors or to let a wound get infected. They get that it's dangerous, they just don't care.

That might be my own narrow take on it, though. And the image isn't bad. A little cartoony and non-threatening, but not bad. B. Which also corresponds to the production sketch I like the best.

I love the picture, but I absolutely agree with the cartoony hands. They need to be smaller and wirier. And I'd trade the scythe for a more brutal weapon, such as a spiked club, and a longbow.

As for it looking cute, add some drool (or rabies-like foam) and yoou're good to go.

 

[Stormonu]

The gnoll looks good, but there is something about the face not quite right - it needs a more eeeevil grin on its face. Likewise, the hands look cartoony big (so what if hyenas have big paws? It doesn't look right on the gnoll).

And while I appreciate they are attempting to create an iconic image for their monsters, I wish they'd consider slipping more variety into the their overall appearance. Allow for different breeds with different builds, stances, colorations and the like.

I mean, how uniform is human appearance?

 

[Hussar]

The gnoll looks good, but there is something about the face not quite right - it needs a more eeeevil grin on its face. Likewise, the hands look cartoony big (so what if hyenas have big paws? It doesn't look right on the gnoll).

And while I appreciate they are attempting to create an iconic image for their monsters, I wish they'd consider slipping more variety into the their overall appearance. Allow for different breeds with different builds, stances, colorations and the like.

I mean, how uniform is human appearance?

By and large, humans, besides maybe coloration, are pretty darn uniform. Hairy heads with a small range of colors, skin pigmentation, but, it's not like anyone has spots or stripes. Barring genetic abnormalities, ratios tend to be pretty static, within a fairly small variance.

I mean, there's a reason that clothing comes off the rack and fits most people.

I gotta admit, I liked the gnoll that was depicted. Works for me.

 

[Shemeska]

I really like the artwork, but I've kinda got a soft spot for deranged, depraved, yet intelligent gnolls (some of the ones in Katapesh and elsewhere in Pathfinder's Golarion setting). Even if much of a pack or tribe of gnolls is crazy and kinda dumb, I like there to be canny, deceptively intelligent ones as well (who also happen to be even bat*hit crazier).

 

[Yora]

Both with gnolls and orcs, I think they are going a bit too much in the "evil monster" direction and away from the "hostile humanoid people" one.

From the articles of the last week, they are more like demons than humanoids. Pure evil, and they should be killed on sight, because there is nothing good about them. Not really a fan of that.

I like gnolls in Baldur's Gate. With a more narrow build, but really tall.

 

[Hussar]

Ahh, I kinda like my baseline monsters to be monstrous. Makes for a nice heroic game. Changing that sort of thing is pretty simple anyway - just graft on a different bit of flavour and you're good to go. It's not like every different setting didn't have variant humanoids anyway.

 

[Stormonu]

By and large, humans, besides maybe coloration, are pretty darn uniform. Hairy heads with a small range of colors, skin pigmentation, but, it's not like anyone has spots or stripes. Barring genetic abnormalities, ratios tend to be pretty static, within a fairly small variance.

I mean, there's a reason that clothing comes off the rack and fits most people.

I gotta admit, I liked the gnoll that was depicted. Works for me.

Can't say I much agree with this (except I mostly like the gnoll). I don't think anyone might mistake a norseman for a chinaman (I'm talking beyond the clothing), and the same goes for other ethnicities. The differences don't have to be big, but humans don't all look like clones of Micheal J. Fox. I don't really like "this is THE image of orcs/gnolls/etc. we're going with" and they use the same exact model in every picture (as if it were an iconic, like Mialee).

That's mostly what I'm afraid of; the image they choose will be cloned into every future picture with no variation. I may be wholly mistaken about their intention, but I don't want them to clone the model for every future picture. Look, for example, how Pathfinder's goblin looks to be the same exact "model", with at best different clothing in every goblin picture. I don't want the art to become like that.

That's the sort of difference I'm asking for, mostly - at least with gnolls.

When you get to orcs (and other goblinoids), I'd love to see "no two look alike". Especially when you factor in how they've been so differently depicted over the life of D&D. Having them be a mutable species would be just like we have hundreds of breeds of dogs from terriers to great danes.

 

[Klaus]

Can't say I much agree with this (except I mostly like the gnoll). I don't think anyone might mistake a norseman for a chinaman (I'm talking beyond the clothing), and the same goes for other ethnicities. The differences don't have to be big, but humans don't all look like clones of Micheal J. Fox. I don't really like "this is THE image of orcs/gnolls/etc. we're going with" and they use the same exact model in every picture (as if it were an iconic, like Mialee).

That's mostly what I'm afraid of; the image they choose will be cloned into every future picture with no variation. I may be wholly mistaken about their intention, but I don't want them to clone the model for every future picture. Look, for example, how Pathfinder's goblin looks to be the same exact "model", with at best different clothing in every goblin picture. I don't want the art to become like that.

That's the sort of difference I'm asking for, mostly - at least with gnolls.

When you get to orcs (and other goblinoids), I'd love to see "no two look alike". Especially when you factor in how they've been so differently depicted over the life of D&D. Having them be a mutable species would be just like we have hundreds of breeds of dogs from terriers to great danes.

I expect that once an iconic look is settled upon, variations of it will be created by artists as they work on their individual pieces.

 

[Hussar]

Can't say I much agree with this (except I mostly like the gnoll). I don't think anyone might mistake a norseman for a chinaman (I'm talking beyond the clothing), and the same goes for other ethnicities. /snip

Meh, like I said, beyond skin pigmentation and hair color, very little distinguishes those two people. I mean, there were black haired norsemen weren't there? Give both of them a pretty healthy tan and there's not a huge difference there.

But, at the end of the day, I think I agree with Klaus. They'll have a sort of basic "template" for a monster and then everyone can put their individual stamp on them. It's not like they are creating iconics for classes - where the actual same individual is supposed to be in every picture. It's going to be more of a broad strokes kind of thing.

 

[Zaukrie]

In no recent version of the game has there been one version of any monster. I expect they will look consistent, not identical. I think you are worrying over nothing.