Daily Art Preview

I've been happy with the overall art so far. I like the Rakashasa pic, but I have to echo some of the others on here: Rakashasa are about as much of an answer for a cat-person race as a Bralani is for an elf (both have pointed ears!) or a sword archon is for a human.

Not that standard D&D NEEDS a cat-person race, just saying the rakshasa should not fill that role 's all. :area:
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Kamikaze Midget said:
Well, for the record, cats as shape-shifting evil has a very long and storied history not just in India.

Cats are sneaky little buggers that lurk in the shadows and pounce on you out of nowhere. They were witches familiars 'round the West, and as you scaled them up to tiger sized they got to be fiends in their own right (as they started being a direct threat to a lot of humans, instead of just some critter).

I mean, rakshasas are mythic beings, and though the D&D description of them is, as in most cases, amusingly off, they work for the role that they've been given. Tigers are creatures of stealth and power, of unknown danger lurking in the deep underbrush, of terror in the night. The backwards hands symbolize their "backwards actions," their propensity to evil, while giving them something distinctly alien.

They ain't typical "cat people" from fantasy lit, that's for sure. As prolific as the idea of uber-dexterous kitty women is, rakshasas are definately more than "evil humanoid tigers."

And if they do turn into that, I will be annoyed.

I'm content with various "predatory cat" forms, really. All kinds of big cat have had a pretty powerful effect on human mythic ideas, lions, tigers, jaguars..... all dangerous forest predators that leap out of nowhere and kill you, all experts at hiding (illusion, deception, shapechanging)....yeah...good stuff.
Yes, rakshasas aren't humanoid tigers as in "those beautiful, majestic creatures", but rather in a "what immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?" way. In the folklore of India, tigers aren't honorable or inspiring. They're pretty much the Devil's work, like flame and shadow (hello, Balrog!) congealed into a form that can strike you down and you won't notice until it is chewing out your soul.
 

I kind of like the new Rakshasa pic. Simple design and an inherent wrongness (at least if you have the slightest inking about anatomy) to it.
 

lutecius said:
As for the rakshasa, the art is not bad, but i wish they looked more like the demons or shapechanging ogres they were in mythology, something akin to the oni or efreet.

If they insist on making them animal people, they should mix it up a little: tigers with horns, apes with tusks and such.
Agreed.
 


Githyanki today.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview

[sblock]
20080424_114777_765fds_0.jpg
[/sblock]

@ DandD I think that's just lighting :)
 

Might be, but I think that would make it easier for everybody to discern them (somehow), the same as you can/should be able to tell a Drow from a normal Elf. Of course, I do wonder how you're going to differentiate an Eladrin from a normal Elf.
 



Hmm... I wish they had gone with a more exotic style of garb for the Githyanki to really emphasize their alien/planar nature. And further, each new edition seems to want to make them more and more human.
 

Remove ads

Top