Demogorgon: Lame or Awesome?

[Mercurius]

Demogorgon > Orcus

I've never fully gotten the Orcus fetish and have always preferred Demogorgon. I agree that the new picture is mediocre at best...it is too...Wild Kingdom, like the plaid-wearing safari version of a demon prince.

 

[Starsunder]

Ari, have you seen, or did you have anything to do with, the Demogorgon stat block? Not asking for any specifics if you have or did, just curious.

 

[catsclaw227]

The Andrew Hou's rendition is indeed awesome, as well as the one with him eating the Vrock. These images just seem... I don't know..... more serious.

The MM2 images is a bit cartoony, but admittedly, it matches the style of the previous books.

The Andrew Hou image, while superior, would look odd on the bookshelf next to the other 4e books.

 

[Shemeska]

The Andrew Hou image, while superior, would look odd on the bookshelf next to the other 4e books.

Since 3e's artwork got picked on by some as being Dungeonpunk*, we now need a name to slap on all 4e artwork in order to pick on it.

*admittedly, I really liked the so-called Dungeonpunk style

 

[chaotix42]

Demogorgon is pure awesome.

I like the MM2 cover, for what it's worth. It reminds me of a lot of the art Paizo used in their APs - Ben Wootten and Warren Mahy mostly. It's definitely... bright! Matches a lot of the other 4e art, which is very colorful.

 

[Woas]

Eh, I don't think your ultimate evil image really jives with chaotic evil or the themes of most demons. I think incongruous bestial animal features go well with a primal degenerate destructive malevolent force. Demogorgon fits well in a concept of Chaotic Evil for me.

A devil is classically closer to your image of evil smooth talkers but they still have bat and goat animal features, neither of which really summons up intelligence or smooth talking outside of the traditional image of devils as such.

Not so much for me. The ability to sow such convincing lies and be able to confuse people on a mass scale so that they destroy themselves from within and that around them is my idea of chaotic evil. Devil's are lawful so if they have to lie, I picture it more in double negatives and tongue twisters or legalize. Not silver tongued evils whispering such convincing lies and false promises in your ear...

Ce est la vie, I suppose.

 

[Nai_Calus]

Now see, the pictures of the thing in this thread are actually cool and 'oh crap that thing is going to eat me'-inspiring. The thing actually comes across as a credible threat instead of something they came up with to shove in MM5 to fill space.

I got a lot of flak in the rpgnet thread for my selective immersion in D&D lore that's led me to not really care about demons and to have the name Demogorgon not even ring a bell like the names Orcus or Graz'zt or Pazuzu or what have you do, and dismissed as being a 'player, not a DM' who wouldn't buy or read MMs anyway. (I am in fact actually getting a 3.5 campaign together right now and in fact am currently reading the MM I bought ages ago, ironically)

Which... To my mind is a perfect example of why it probably isn't a good idea to put that thing, particularly that picture of it, on the cover of it.

If you're the kind of experienced grognard who does in fact read the monster manual for fun who's going to recognize that hey, that's Demogorgon on sight... You were probably going to buy it regardless.

If you're a hardcore constant DM who runs games all the time... You were probably going to buy it regardless.

If you're a new DM who's looking at books to buy who isn't intimately familiar with all the old demons... That weird thing on the cover is a two-headed baboon tentacle thing with all the awesome appeal of the flumph.

Though to be fair, seeing something that silly-looking on the cover, I'd probably look through it to see what the hells that goofy thing is and what other ludicrous stuff they'd put in the book.

Still, though. It does reek to the uninitiated of 'oh gods it's the jobber monster book'. Whether it is or not, and whether or not Demogorgon is a jobber monster or not, is irrelevant - If you don't know what it is, that thing looks freaking silly. If you DO know what it is, it still looks freaking silly.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

The concept of Demogorgan is very, very cool.

A being with two heads each vying to be the soul possessor of one body, constantly subtly warring against each other with the brooding premise that should one of the two heads win, Demogorgan would be unstoppable force of destruction all the while projecting an air that the two personalities are in fact one, is awesome.

Then they gave this great idea two baboon heads and tentacled arms.

Sigh.

So much promise.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The concept of Demogorgan is very, very cool.

A being with two heads each vying to be the soul possessor of one body, constantly subtly warring against each other with the brooding premise that should one of the two heads win, Demogorgan would be unstoppable force of destruction all the while projecting an air that the two personalities are in fact one, is awesome.

Then they gave this great idea two baboon heads and tentacled arms.

Sigh.

So much promise.

Except you've got it backwards.

The Demogorgon of 1E had the baboon heads and tentacle arms. The notion of each head having its own personality, and vying with one another for superiority, is a much later addition. (Late 2E or 3E, I forget which.)

They gave the concept to the image, not the other way around.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Methinks that the people saying "throwing random animal parts together isn't very demonic" haven't paid much attention to demonic imagery from real-world occultism, or the average monster from Medieval bestiaries.