The artwork in the Book of Vile Darkness

[Kai Lord]

As a counterpoint to the almost universal complaints I've seen about some of the artwork in the BoVD, I for the most part was quite pleased. I flipped through the book for the first time in a store today, and thought the renderings of the various Demon/Devil lords were particularly well done.

I don't get the complaints against Asmodeus[sp?]. I'm not so sure that was his hair all horned shaped, I just think he has two sets of horns. Whether I'm correct or not is beside the point, his portrayal in the book gave a definite Darkness from "Legend" vibe. Tres cool.

And Demogorgon looked heavily influenced by John Carpenter's "The Thing." A huge tentacle-laden humanoid with two protruding canine heads. I dug it.

The gnoll-lord was quite impressive as well, and Orcus looked flat out wicked. Why some people are so closed to anything looking the slightest bit different from the charicatures in the 1E MM is beyond me, that simply isn't baggage I have to deal with.

The Demon/Devil lords have had ZERO history in any of my campaigns, but now I'm actually giving their inclusion some thought (and not just because of the nice art, the write-ups looked interesting as well.)

The one Demon Lord who everyone seemed to like but I actually didn't like was Graz'zt. I thought he was the only Demon Lord from 1E that actually looked cool, and here he just looks like a malevolent satyr with a giant McFarblade. Wasn't too impressed.

And for anyone who's heard that there's nudity in the book, don't get excited. The two examples I saw were a fat drider-looking chick and a succubus type creature who only had one breast. Definitely not a book you'll be taking into the bathroom at the sperm donating clinic.

There is, however, a pretty cool rendition of a father/daughter pair of Devil lords and the daughter is quite sexy. That is, until you read the descriptive text that hints at their incestuous relationship.

As for the gore, if you've seen any action scene in a comic book like Spawn then you know what to expect from the BoVD. All in all I found the quality to be on par with what you'd expect from WoTC's A-list art department. A pity we won't be seeing such collected efforts much longer.

 

[Crothian]

I found nothing wrong with the art, some was really good. I think they could have included more art, that woul;d have helped.

 

[Breakstone]

Did WotC put any of the art up on their web site?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Did WotC put any of the art up on their web site?

Not yet.

 

[Sir Edgar]

I haven't seen the Book of Vile Darkness yet, so I can't say what my opinion is. But I just wanted to know why people complain so much about the art in 3rd edition. Has it always been like this or has the art gotten worse? Personally, I prefer the art in previous editions. A lot of the art out there does seem to be not very appealing to me. In fact, I'm sorry to say but every time I look at the Monster Manual, I have to wince a bit. The art in the Monster Manual II did improve a lot, but some of it was really not to my liking to put it mildly. Anyhow, just curious what you all think about this. It just seems with all of these complaints there would be a greater effort to be careful about the art selection. I know everyone has different tastes, but it looks like most people don't like the art.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

But I just wanted to know why people complain so much about the art in 3rd edition. Has it always been like this or has the art gotten worse?

My biggest complaint about the art is that it doesn't vary too much; Previous editions had a wide range of art that represented many different aspects of the genre, while the current art all seems to be one flavor, and a flavor I'm not too keen on, to boot. Too neo-gothic for me.

As for the BoVD, I've not seen yet (my copy hasn't arrived). But the more I read about it, the more I look forward to it. Of course, I've always had "vileness" in my games, although until now, there was no quasi-official term for it.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I dig the art in BoVD. I think they did a great job on it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that its one of the most appealing 3rd edition books to date.

 

[Gothmog]

But I just wanted to know why people complain so much about the art in 3rd edition. Has it always been like this or has the art gotten worse?

IMO, the art has gotten a lot worse since 2E. There is only one style or art now in the books, and as someone else commented- it seems neo-gothic, with armor and weapons that could not stand up to the rigors of combat. Plus, I prefer a more "realistic" style of art- Halloway's old b/w drawings in the 1E MM2, and creature compendiums looked great, and you got a good impression of what something might actually look like. That said, there are a few artists that work on 3E I do really like- such as some of Lockwood's stuff (mostly the dragons), Easley, some of Wayne Reynold's stuff, etc. I DO wish that they had used a lot of Christopher Shy artwork in the BoVD- his art always has a very disturbing quality to me- much more fitting for the BoVD. The stuff Shy did for City of the Spider Queen was incredible, and his work for other companies such as Steve Jackson Games and WW has been very good. I drool at the thought of what Shy could have done with the demon lords and arch-devils.

 

[Gothmog]

Oh yeah, I also like Brain LeBlanc a lot- Necromancer uses his stuff for many of their modules. Good detail, atmospheric stuff.