The 'Wonderland'-Inspired Faces of the RAGE OF DEMONS

Take a peek at some of the art from D&D's upcoming Rage of Demons storyline. This art is by Richard Whitters, who is the art director for D&D and used to work as a concept artist for Magic: the Gathering. WotC's Chris Perkins has indicated that one of the influences on Rage of Demons was Alice in Wonderland, and I think the influence is clear when you look at the characters below.

OUGALOP, kuo-toa cave cricket catcher extraordinaire.

YUK YUK and SPIDERBAIT, goblin adrenaline junkies.

THE SOCIETY OF BRILLIANCE, the Mensa of the Underdark.

GLABBAGOOL, awakened gelatinous cube.

RUMPADUMP and STOOL, myconid followers.

PRINCE DERENDIL, a quaggoth who thinks he's elven royalty.

TOPSY and TURVY, svirfneblin wererat siblings.

THE PUDDING KING, svirfneblin devotee (i.e., flunky) of Juiblex the Faceless Lord.

D&D's "Legion of Doom." What a wonderful bunch of malcontents.
​

 

[JeffB]

Fun fact this is concept art.

Thats what they said about the halfling art pre-phb, too. And we know how that turned out.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Thats what they said about the halfling art pre-phb, too. And we know how that turned out.

They used different art and it was a in a different style from the concept art. Pretty much it's unlikely this art will be used in the book, It will likely look more like the cover. I like the new halfling art anyway.

 

[Abraxas]

Fun fact this is concept art.

Fun fact - this concept art doesn't inspire me or give me an alice in wonderland vibe - so it's a failed concept, for me at least...

 

[Hussar]

Fun fact - this concept art doesn't inspire me or give me an alice in wonderland vibe - so it's a failed concept, for me at least...

What's the difference between The Dark Crystal and Alice in Wonderland as far as whimsy goes? I'm thinking they're both in the same wheelhouse.

 

[Parmandur]

They used different art and it was a in a different style from the concept art. Pretty much it's unlikely this art will be used in the book, It will likely look more like the cover. I like the new halfling art anyway.

Don't care for PHB Halfling art...but partly because it is different from the concept art, so you are right.

 

[JeffB]

gigantic fat heads, teeny feet. Looks pretty much the same to me

View attachment 68304

 

[MonsterEnvy]

gigantic fat heads, teeny feet. Looks pretty much the same to me

View attachment 68304

The artists and art style are different. The big heads and tiny feet are how they look now and I like it.

 

[Leatherhead]

What's the difference between The Dark Crystal and Alice in Wonderland as far as whimsy goes? I'm thinking they're both in the same wheelhouse.

The difference between "the heroes journey" as played out by soft puppets and a grotesque fever dream.

 

[Rejuvenator]

Ultimate evil is such a tedious concept to me. I don't think it fits in a serious narrative. Characters who do stuff for the sake of being evil are cartoons. It's characters I can relate to doing evil things for human reasons that are really scary.

I agree that ultimate evil is often tedious, especially for mortal villians. On the other hand, I don't see Lucifer, Dracula, Grendel, or Sauron as being cartoony just because they are Ultimate Evil. It's a traditional fantasy of morality in black and white.

Yes, I have sometimes seen renditions of Satan (in fantasy, not religiously) in very dark shades of grey, protrayed as a narcissist who felt unfairly treated for getting kicked out of heaven and thus is somewhat humanized. That character portrayal is still evil and manipulative, but it also suggests he is still a victim of circumstance, instead of having evolved into absolute evil.

I guess, from a world-building perspective, if fiends are pure incarnations of evil on paper (as described officially in many monster manuals and accessories) and yet this meanders in actual play or Planescape whimsy, then where is the For Real Incarnate Evil? I mean, if Sauron and Satan are not ultimate evil and just slightly misunderstood, then who is Ultimate Evil in a classic D&D setting?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, I have sometimes seen renditions of Satan (in fantasy, not religiously) in very dark shades of grey, protrayed as a narcissist who felt unfairly treated for getting kicked out of heaven and thus is somewhat humanized. That character portrayal is still evil and manipulative, but it also suggests he is still a victim of circumstance, instead of having evolved into absolute evil.

Hell, if Paradise Lost counts, that's a treatment of Satan Hisself that's EXCEPTIONALLY relatable (but still, as it is a text written by a good Christian, in the wrong).

I mean, if Sauron and Satan are not ultimate evil and just slightly misunderstood, then who is Ultimate Evil in a classic D&D setting?

In most of D&D, and probably in this adventure, the demon lords are ultimate evil bad guys who are horrible people and also kick puppies or whatever. D&D is like pulp adventures or Star Wars, its villains aren't exactly nuanced, even when they're grandiose and compelling in their awfulness, and you know who the Bad Guys are. But likely in this adventure, characters like goblins and derro and perhaps even the occasional mind flayer or ooze or kuo-toa or whatever are not just there to be monstrous, but there to be characters you interact with. It's an adventure taking place in the underdark, not everything you meet is going to want to kill you, probably. So a little more "character" in the "monsters under the earth" (that in many games are irredeemably evil and corrupt monsters).

In Planescape, the fiends are not just there to be monstrous, but are there to be characters you interact with, since it's a setting that uses hell itself as a stomping-ground on occasion. Because these are in most D&D games the epitome of debased, horrible evil, using them as shopkeeps (A'kin), patrons (Shemeska), informants (Rule-of-Three), whatever, and by depicting them not as all Gothic horror and HR Geiger unsettling weirdness, but as DiTerlizzi's "dark whimsy"...that's part of how PS tweaks D&D into something a bit morally greyer. Even an epitome of debased evil might not be such a bad dude....or maybe he is...it's really an individual consideration, and you can't approach them all the same way.

As others have said, it's not ALWAYS the most appropriate take - sometimes your mind flayers are not wizened old intellectuals, and your gelatinous cubes are not always awakened potential allies, and your fiends are not always shopkeeps. But it works for certain circumstances - like if your adventure is about madness in the underdark and the PC's are going to need to do something other than kill all humanoids, or if your campaign setting is about mortal morality in a world of angels and demons and the PC's are going to have to deal with a devil in a non-soul-risking capacity.

And in PS, at least, I'd say that the ULTIMATE EVIL is largely a matter of who your characters think it is, not who the game tells you it is.