TheRPGSite

Inspired by the idea that the Wayne Reynolds illustration on the cover of Paizo's "Burnt Offerings" made their goblins the breakout star of the Pathfinder line - do you ever find that there's a single illustration that originally formed or radically changed how you viewed a classic monster or used it in a game? If so, which monster, which illustration, and why?

Here's my first pick: Frost Giant, by Cary Nord from Dark Horse's Conan comic.

(http://www.comicsbulletin.com/news/images/0402/CONAN2.14.clrsm.jpg) (http://www.comicsbulletin.com/news/images/0402/CONAN2.14.clr.jpg)

Whereas before I had seen Frost Giants in RPG's as essentially large vikings, these guys, hunched and monstrous, make me think of their nonhuman traits - they are as much Frost as Giant, bursting out of the ice, and with those tusks, surely man-eaters as literally as their sister is figuratively so. In an adventure, the giants might be frozen in ice like mammoths since a prior age, waiting for something warm to devour, at which point they would struggle to shatter their way free. The little blue eyes make them seem very cruel and angry, almost like an undead creature.

This isn't really about my personal sense of a monster, but if I recall correctly, the illustration of the Rakshasa in the original AD&D Monster Manual had far reaching implications.  The text simply described them as Indian (!) shape shifters, but the picture of a tiger with bathrobe and pipe has been the true form of D&D (and other) Rakshasas ever since.  Does anyone know the history of that picture, and whether it was planned by Gygax or just thrown in by the artist?

Quote from: Esgaldil;437968This isn't really about my personal sense of a monster, but if I recall correctly, the illustration of the Rakshasa in the original AD&D Monster Manual had far reaching implications.  The text simply described them as Indian (!) shape shifters, but the picture of a tiger with bathrobe and pipe has been the true form of D&D (and other) Rakshasas ever since.  Does anyone know the history of that picture, and whether it was planned by Gygax or just thrown in by the artist?

My guess is that the tiger image is the work of the artist (Dave Trampier.)

(http://enrill.net/images/forump/rakshasa.jpg)

I think that because Gygax said his impetus for including the Rakshasa as a monster (and its blessed-crossbow-bolt vulnerability) was from an episode of Kolchak the Night Stalker, which depicts it as sort of a yeti type of creature.

(http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/etc/monsterart/rakshasa.jpg)

For whatever reason, even though I love the tiger image it didn't occur to me early on that they were all implied to look like that. I remember having three of them in an early D&D adventure I ran, where one had the head of a tiger like in the picture, but the other two were an ape and a rhinoceros. They were all in the smoking jackets, though, around a hookah.

There was an episode of Supernatural with a Rakshasa where he appeared as a Pennywise-like monster clown.

When they started to illustrate Kobolds as little lizard-men, rather than little dog-men.  I wouldn't say that really changed my perspective though, since to me they're still dog-men.

RPGPundit

Drizzt.

It seems like many pictures of drow or dark elves follow him, ever since.

Not my favourites, but diTerlizzi's art defined tieflings as an "odd" half-demonic race that exhibited some oddities, but could often pass as regular people with some difficulty. In 4e, a specific and more monstrous image seems to have taken their place.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/Melan/tdt_tiefling.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/Melan/4e_tiefling.jpg)

Of course, we can also mention the evolution of the common orc from its humble beginnings as some guy's sketch of an ugly human to pig-men to 3.0's hulking, muscular brutes (that greataxe damage can hurt! One of my PCs, a veritable combat monster, was confidently striding into battle with 22 out of his maximum 36 Hps remaining, until he was filleted with a critical hit that dealt [1d12+1]*3 damage, instantly bringing him down to -14. Ouch. :D).

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/Melan/odnd_orc.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/Melan/adnd_orc.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/Melan/dnd3_orc.jpg)

Mine was a picture of a Githyanki my cousin (an incredibly good artist with a huge slice of laziness thrown in) did. Torn ears as he was named was our nemesis for a year......

PS this is how good my cousin is (http://www.jibbajibba.com/amber/images/clara.jpg) )

Well on the tieflings, they also changed backstories from being part devil or demon, to being just guys who had a pact with same. Odd that the illustration and the backstories go in opposite directions - the guys who were actually demonic look less monstrous.

More often I find the backstory influences how I perceive the image more than the other way round? For instance, dragonboobs in 3.5 didn't bother me when dragonborn were demihumans who had undergone a specific ritual, while in 4.0 when they were a specific reptilian race they did.

Also - I have to mention displacer beasts (going from 6 legs to 4 and back again) though I wouldn't say the number of legs is defining for the monster, at least for me. I assume the original creature in Van Vogt's "Black Destroyer" had 6 legs, and someone then decided 'lets just make it a panther. With tentacles.'

I don't know why but pathfinder goblins just zing. They just have this chaotic evil kender feel to them.

Drrzt is a good example; Drow were something completely different before he came along.  Of course, a lot of that is as much in the character than in the illustration of the character.

RPGPundit

the MtG Minotaur.

(http://www.2atoms.com/images/game/magic/wallpaper/magic_wallpaper_red4.jpg)

The MtG Minotaur:

(http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/1e/Hurloon_Minotaur.jpg)

I love Elmore's style and the art of DragonLance was very influential on my mental images of creatures from 1e AD&D.  

• Lord Soth made Death Knights fucking scary to me.
• The various dragon images brought dragons to life for me and differentiated the various dragon species.
• The Draconians brought clarity to my mental images of anthropomorphic dragon humanoids.
• Minotaurs were cool and bitching now rather than some weird, oddball creature.

Quote from: RPGPundit;438310When they started to illustrate Kobolds as little lizard-men, rather than little dog-men.  I wouldn't say that really changed my perspective though, since to me they're still dog-men.

RPGPundit

I am a big fan of the Kobold, one of D&D's signature monsters. Its identity has much more to do with D&D lore than its adopted folktale name by this point. Gygax has said that he envisioned more of a traditional shabby goblin, and that the little scaly dog-men were entirely the fancy of artist Dave Sutherland. But personally I was first introduced to Kobolds by Erol Otus's illustration in the 1981 basic set and for me it is still the definitive image:

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5428886453_9dfa70c217.jpg)

I think it is mostly the rabid viciousness of that little guy. He has a nasty glee at skewering that snake. The dangers of kobolds as I've run them is part their  numbers, and part pure meanness. Like DCSIII's, Otus's Kobold is a chimerical beast that is mostly canine, but definitely has reptile features with his lizard like "crest," pebbly hide, and weird scaly underbelly.

However I recently played in a campaign where the DM presented kobolds as more of obsequious, deceitful goblin types, probably related to gnomes. They preferred to call themselves "the Happy People." They were a "favorite" opponent in the game and the DM commissioned this illustration by Russ Nicholson:

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5428884385_19ee63dd12.jpg)

One of the Kobolds once told my PC,

"Our language has thirteen words for 'cute' and none for 'hatred.'"

I have always associated Dragonewts with Glorantha, especially as they were on the front cover of RuneQuest, but Lisa Free's Dragonewts really sell it for me.

(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3690/dragonewtxn6.jpg)

Quote from: two_fishes;438559The MtG Minotaur:

(http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/1e/Hurloon_Minotaur.jpg)

Good one - I was not a Magic player but that image did stand out to me as part of the RPGs-and-friends big picture. It gave me the idea of minotaurs with strange mystical powers, an idea I like to revisit from time to time. I've talked to a number of other players who've said much the same.

Quote from: Darran;438725I have always associated Dragonewts with Glorantha, especially as they were on the front cover of RuneQuest, but Lisa Free's Dragonewts really sell it for me.

(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3690/dragonewtxn6.jpg)

That is awesome. I still have the issue of Tatou this comes from, if I'm not mistaken. :)

The same way, Guillaume Sorel's art depicting Broos sold them to me.

Quote from: Benoist;438736The same way, Guillaume Sorel's art depicting Broos sold them to me.

Do you have any examples?

Quote from: Benoist;438736That is awesome. I still have the issue of Tatou this comes from, if I'm not mistaken. :)

The same way, Guillaume Sorel's art depicting Broos sold them to me.

Okay. Warning, this is really graphic. Link to a Sorel Broo piece. (http://enrill.net/images/broos-graphic.jpg)

Quote from: Benoist;438742Okay. Warning, this is really graphic. Link to a Sorel Broo piece. (http://enrill.net/images/broos-graphic.jpg)

That is graphic, alright. His illustration style's really good though.

What sold me on broos were the Slime Broos and Lord Ralzakark from Dorastor.

That minotaur piece is great, there was one that made me view them differently for some games.


Was this one:
(http://dragonlance.vanhardeveld.com/lance66.jpg)



Interestingly enough, I hate modern Kobolds, the little lizard chihuaha, and see more the 1E Monster Manual ones, I've not seen something that SHAPED my opinion of a monster so much. (As opposed to the old knocker like Kobolds.)

Quote from: Silverlion;438774That minotaur piece is great, there was one that made me view them differently for some games.

That one reminds me of the Dragonlance minotaurs, which was certainly a way of using them I had never seen before, and liked. But with the DL minotaurs, it wasn't so much any image that took me, but the idea of them itself, although I do think I first saw them in some old DL comic books.

Quote from: Silverlion;438774That minotaur piece is great, there was one that made me view them differently for some games.

Where'd it come from?

Seanchai

Quote from: Silverlion;438774That minotaur piece is great, there was one that made me view them differently for some games.

I also found the 3e monster manual Minotaur by Sam Wood very striking, with its blending of human and bull features rather than assembly of them. It struck me as a creature that might have been found in Theseus' labyrinth and been a real figure of horror when he had expected something like the above picture instead.

Tangentially, the "evolved" designs of the 3e monsters sometimes didn't work, and sometimes did, but this is one I thought hit right to the jugular:

(http://roberthinderliter.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/manticore.jpg)
It has a voracious, hateful, and deformed quality that I think conveys the fears that inspired the creature of myth.

Compare this more typical manticore : (http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/daily/stf/stf117_conqueringMan.jpg)

While it definitely looks powerful and threatening, it's not really that different from the native menace of a lion or a tiger. It's a beast where the Sam Wood version is a monster.

Quote from: Seanchai;438780Where'd it come from?

Seanchai

Minotaurs of Taladas for Dragonlance 2e, I think.

Quote from: Seanchai;438780Where'd it come from?

Seanchai

Cover of the Minotaurs of Taladas or just Taladas if I recall correctly, yes, definately Dragonlance.


And yes the different monster art can make things beautiful or fascinating, I didn't care much for the art of diTerlizzi art for a lot of things--it worked for Planescape, but I didn't care for regular monsters displayed in the MC/MM (although it also worked for the Fey things, which I was alright with.)

Quote from: Cole;437928do you ever find that there's a single illustration that originally formed or radically changed how you viewed a classic monster or used it in a game? If so, which monster, which illustration, and why?

The attached image is how I always imagine kobalds to look.

These changed how I viewed certain D&D monsters:

(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG113.jpg)

(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG29.jpg)

Here is the 3.5 Monster Manual minotaur, which I also liked:

(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG189a.jpg)

Quote from: John Morrow;438900The attached image is how I always imagine kobalds to look.

These changed how I viewed certain D&D monsters:

That gargoyle, definitely! Something about that jack-o-lantern grin/grimace. I always imagine gargoyles chuckling now. One of the earliest things I ran for 3e was an adaptation of an old 1e homebrew dungeon a friend of mine wrote that included a "playful" gargoyle who had written a message in blood on a wall, and that particular illustration really made that dungeon room "click" in a way it hadn't before.

I also like that minotaur, for reasons I commented on upthread.

The DCSIII kobolds always look a little weird to me; it's a striking image but I saw the the Otus one first and it gave me a certain sense of their personality. Maybe the DCS ones have too much pathos? But you've got to credit the guy as the originator!

What does the kobold image say to you about what Kobolds are like? :)

Here's another one - a Mind Flayer, by the great George Barr, from an issue of Dungeon Magazine. His elongated, sort of mannerist rendering, and the huge white eyes give the Flayer an ethereal quality that depicts it as an eerie being of great psychic strength, more enigmatic and frightening than a standard-issue tentacle monster might be:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_N3M_8hZVwH4/TL412A1Ib8I/AAAAAAAABAU/1TLHUPR4hGM/s400/MindFlayer.JPG)

My other favorite is this guy:

(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/alumni_20101213_2.jpg)

 very much the opposite of the misty mystic above, but still an paradigm-busting "advanced being."

Quote from: John Morrow;438900The attached image is how I always imagine kobalds to look.
[/img]

I wish I could get a better copy of that picture to show a friend.

I've my own sketch of Kobolds derived from that for SMITE!
(Where they are lazy sewer, and other similar "dirty" jobs for the most part.)

Quote from: Cole;438675However I recently played in a campaign where the DM presented kobolds as more of obsequious, deceitful goblin types, probably related to gnomes. They preferred to call themselves "the Happy People." They were a "favorite" opponent in the game and the DM commissioned this illustration by Russ Nicholson:

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5428884385_19ee63dd12.jpg)

One of the Kobolds once told my PC,

"Our language has thirteen words for 'cute' and none for 'hatred.'"

I don't know about the picture, but that description is the best and most interesting redefinition of a monster type I have read in a long time. Sounds lik ae really cool gm. I almost wish I had a fantasy campaign running, so I could use the idea.

For me the art gives me an idea of what a monster looks like but I don't always go exactly by a picture.

"This is exactly what the monster looks like!"   I use it as a basis and if I need to I change to fit my needs.

So the art doesnt really effect much for me.  I know art is more important to certain people then it is to others.

Quote from: Cole;438903That gargoyle, definitely! Something about that jack-o-lantern grin/grimace. I always imagine gargoyles chuckling now.

The main thing I got from it was big horns, big legs, big arms, big teeth, small cranium.  It's a beast.  

Quote from: Cole;438903What does the kobold image say to you about what Kobolds are like? :)

Small.  Feisty.  Somewhat civilized.  Not a primate and probably not a mammal, either.

For me, the definitive goblin was David Trampier's version:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/3777965533_5dd1b76e42.jpg)

It's a simple, clean B&W drawing and it is absolutely perfect.

Quote from: Elfdart;439769For me, the definitive goblin was David Trampier's version:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/3777965533_5dd1b76e42.jpg)

It's a simple, clean B&W drawing and it is absolutely perfect.

I like the illustration a lot on the aesthetic level; I think there is a pathetic quality to the goblin that kept me from using them for a while. He looks very scared of whatever he is charging at; it's as if he's more of an ugly halfling.

Warhammer's Night Goblins rehabilitated goblins as monsters for me. I can't think of a specific illustration, though. More the miniatures, I suppose.

That George Barr mind flayer is awesome. I've never seen the pic before, but it should be the one in the MM.

For me the definitive image of goblins probably comes from the Fighting Fantasy books.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;439873For me the definitive image of goblins probably comes from the Fighting Fantasy books.

RPGPundit

Good call - here's a good Russ goblin...

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_N3M_8hZVwH4/TF4n1m2J30I/AAAAAAAAAzM/Es8ANK3HebM/s1600/Russ+Goblin.png)

FF influenced my idea of how goblins function in the world, and in adventures as well. "Insiders" to the workings of the underworld, maybe, would be the idea of it.

Quote from: Cole;439878Good call - here's a good Russ goblin...

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_N3M_8hZVwH4/TF4n1m2J30I/AAAAAAAAAzM/Es8ANK3HebM/s1600/Russ+Goblin.png)

That is a great goblin! Close to what I imagine about them.
Mine would be shorter mostly, with a few exceptions like this, but that is damn close.

I'm currently thinking Sahuagin ought to look a little more like :

(http://i.imgur.com/QvbX4.png)

source?

Quote from: Aos;459365source?

"The Technopriests

Written by Alejandro Jodorowsky

Art by Zoran Janjetov & Fred Beltran

Published by Humaonids/DC Comics"

Quote from: Cole;459368"The Technopriests

Written by Alejandro Jodorowsky

Art by Zoran Janjetov & Fred Beltran

Published by Humaonids/DC Comics"

Ah, I lost interests during the Metabarons series.

Quote from: Aos;459374Ah, I lost interests during the Metabarons series.

I have really only skimmed those. Though I like the movie El Topo. Not enough westerns have mole people.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;438333Also - I have to mention displacer beasts (going from 6 legs to 4 and back again) though I wouldn't say the number of legs is defining for the monster, at least for me. I assume the original creature in Van Vogt's "Black Destroyer" had 6 legs, and someone then decided 'lets just make it a panther. With tentacles.'

When I played BECMI, displacer beasts were one of my favorite monsters. With 3E, however, the sub-par illustration apparently had a sub-conscious effect and I ended up never using them.

He had a whole bunch of spec drawings (http://www.google.ca/search?q=jodorowsky+dune&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivnsu&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=CQDWTeGkK8vAtgfF45CNBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=935) done by Moebius for a Dune movie that was never made that changed how I saw Dune for the better, though his description of how the movie would have gone (Salvador Dali as the Padishah Emperor, with a body double for him being shown pissing and shitting into toilets shaped like mouths) sounds less so.

Talislanta had a ton of defining monsters, but one of my favorites is the Vasp picture by Ron Spencer
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KzO4-RuhvQw/S73hmKWaEMI/AAAAAAAAAVM/7bhD-skNUkc/s320/Talislanta+-+Vasp.bmp)

The ogre mage is a big one for me. It used to be more of a celt type thing I think, but I like the Pathfinder change to an Oni.

I wish there was still an evil ogre fairy race, but I've used the new Oni version of it in sections of my Pathfinder game that were in L5R and it fit in great. I RARELY use store bought monsters, but the ogre mage is a new one I like.

Strangely, to this day whenever I hear "Ogre Mage" I imagine a big, dumbass-looking Ogre wearing a little wizard-hat.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Cranewings;459414The ogre mage is a big one for me. It used to be more of a celt type thing I think, but I like the Pathfinder change to an Oni.

I wish there was still an evil ogre fairy race, but I've used the new Oni version of it in sections of my Pathfinder game that were in L5R and it fit in great. I RARELY use store bought monsters, but the ogre mage is a new one I like.

I'm not sure what you're picturing when you say a celt type thing. Visually, I mean.

Quote from: RPGPundit;459797Strangely, to this day whenever I hear "Ogre Mage" I imagine a big, dumbass-looking Ogre wearing a little wizard-hat.

RPGPundit

I owned the gazetteer "The Orcs of Thar" before I owned the first monster manual; there wasn't an illustration but because of that book I thought of an Ogre Mage as being like a witch doctor with a mask and a grass skirt and a cauldron.

Cole, I'm not an expert on Celtic myth and I don't have my book handy, but I think there was a fairy race that fought with the Daoine Sidhe called Formorians or some such thing. Anyway, they were magic ogres that moved around in darkness.

Quote from: RPGPundit;459797Strangely, to this day whenever I hear "Ogre Mage" I imagine a big, dumbass-looking Ogre wearing a little wizard-hat.

RPGPundit

- True Story - I, Tyrant 2e Module

"Mongo have spell book. Mongo wizard now. Mongo stay in back of party."

Quote from: Cranewings;459800Cole, I'm not an expert on Celtic myth and I don't have my book handy, but I think there was a fairy race that fought with the Daoine Sidhe called Formorians or some such thing. Anyway, they were magic ogres that moved around in darkness.

OK, that makes a lot of sense.

Quote from: Cranewings;459801- True Story - I, Tyrant 2e Module

"Mongo have spell book. Mongo wizard now. Mongo stay in back of party."

Wait, was this one of the PCs or is this like a scripted event in the module?

Now that would be a must have miniature.

(http://www.umberhulk.com/graphics/umberhulk-3rd-edition.jpg)

Quote from: Cole;459823Wait, was this one of the PCs or is this like a scripted event in the module?

No, it really happened. The guy playing the INT 7 ogre barbarian decided his character was not only dumb enough to think you could cast spells because you had the book, but that he resented always taking point.

The guy playing the halfling wizard spontaneously played along, claiming his character though it was funny, so when the ogre made like he was casting, he cast.

Remarkably, I think they knocked it off when time came to deal with the Beholder ;)

Is it true that the Beholder changes it's look with every edition?

If so is there a handy "evolution of the Beholder" pic out there?

They flattened them out and made them more ovoid, and now they always draw them screaming.

No question: this one (http://premium1.uploadit.org/Thrakkorzog/quiz/Tarrasque.jpg)

Now THAT'S a Tarrasque!

Quote from: Nightfall;459934Now THAT'S a Tarrasque!

I know the picture but it looks like this too:
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110511005661/fallout/images/thumb/9/9c/Deathclaw.png/240px-Deathclaw.png)

I always preferred the turtle-dragon look myself.

Eh. I still like Jeff Easley's because it WAY more scary looking.

Anything from the third edition is right out. I wouldn't dare display any of that even the attempt to redo the manticore (shown above) based on a woodcut was non-dungeonesque. Something lacking that sets the flavor. The second edition may have had some choice well illustrated images in their binder add-ons at first but as the time wore on they got really poor by the time it got to the planes and the orient. It was basically the same guy that did a lot of the B&W interiors of DARK SUN (Baxa?). Sloppy shit. The attempt to repair this inky mess with random artists of the time like Brom and DiTerlizzi while technically good just drove the imagery into something that didn't quite spell "dungeon adventure". All that said even the choice images from the binders first run (pre-MONSTROUS MANUAL) just reminded you of the inferior MONSTER MANUAL II images that couldn't "float a million ships" like the original. Call the original MM's art inferior or call it whatever you like but that is the stuff that drove a lot of imaginations and still does.

I went over art evolution a while back and the worst cases that i found were the mezzodaemon starting with a mohawk and ending up as a beetle and the nycadaemon starting as a round-headed ogre and ending up as a puppy.

Quote from: Gene Weigel;460249Call the original MM's art inferior or call it whatever you like but that is the stuff that drove a lot of imaginations and still does.

It didn't drive my imagination. I still liked the Compendiums and the artwork. And while some of the DS overlap wasn't great, it didn't hinder my enjoyment of their work. Mostly I just wanted (and still want) Jeff Easley work.

And btw 3.0 artwork isn't 'out' just not as good as anything that wasn't done by Lockwood and/or Reynolds.

anything by Easley is imagination kryptonite at my table. His (and Elmore's)stuff reminds me of giant mountains of nothing.

NB: I drew my high level character in that style (1985 or so) with mountains all over and I showed it on the internet a few years ago for a laugh. And people actually liked it even though I think it was heinous. Someone asked if I could still draw like that too! Heh, to each his own!

Quote from: Gene Weigel;460252anything by Easley is imagination kryptonite at my table. His (and Elmore's)stuff reminds me of giant mountains of nothing.

The hell?! Look I can see why some might not like watercolors...but mountains of nothing?! What you think D&D monsters should be drawn by cubists!?

Quote from: Nightfall;460255The hell?! Look I can see why some might not like watercolors...but mountains of nothing?! What you think D&D monsters should be drawn by cubists!?

Yes, nothing but gelatinous cubes for Gene, except maybe some of those strange winged circles from the bad art thread.

(I can't understand the mountains of nothing either, or the imagination kryptonite)

Quote from: Nightfall;460255mountains of nothing?!

Mountains of Nothing is a good name for a weird fantasy setting adventure locale.

Quote from: The Butcher;460265Mountains of Nothing is a good name for a weird fantasy setting adventure locale.

The inhabitants are all bulbous and mostly in earth-tones.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;460263Yes, nothing but gelatinous cubes for Gene, except maybe some of those strange winged circles from the bad art thread.

Well it's certainly more understandable that his explanation...

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;460263(I can't understand the mountains of nothing either, or the imagination kryptonite)

Yeah that one just left me going :confused:

Quote from: The Butcher;460265Mountains of Nothing is a good name for a weird fantasy setting adventure locale.

Or a spoof on Cthulhu's mythos...

Quote from: Cole;460266The inhabitants are all bulbous and mostly in earth-tones.

And probably have square heads.

'Imagination Kryptonite' works for me... at least in terms of Elmore... looking at his stuff just makes me want to go mow the lawn or something... certainly doesn't fire me up to play games.
A 'mountain of nothing' would be preferable... at least it's a blank slate that I can hang my own images on... not actively discouraging.
It's a taste thing.

AD&D Trolls:

(http://www.deigames.com/G3BW.JPG)

(http://www.splotchy.com/images/blog/monstermanual.jpg)

As well as the image of the troll following the string behind the adventurers. Also the succubus, although I'd guess I'm not alone here:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/298950481_b0d8251141.jpg)

Quote from: Simlasa;460274'Imagination Kryptonite' works for me... at least in terms of Elmore...

I'll grant you that he's very much more "effect image" orient than "action image" oriented. I am, however, not completely convinced Elmore is "Imagination Kryptonite".

Heh, I can understand the thrill of Easley but I was around when the guy was doing schlock comic magazine covers with no regard for the content so I see the mercenary nature first thats in a lot comic material. I can't say I didn't try to get into it but enough is enough. His work is too associated with bland fantasy product on top of everything. "Menzzobarranzen", etc. (Geez, talk about a mountain of nothing! Sheesh!) I remember buying a TSR calendar in the late 80's and none of his pictures matched anything in any product.

I seem to recall some pretty good pen and ink sci-fi stuff from Elmore in Dragon. His painting work turned into something like the D&D equivalent of Thomas Kinkade, though.

Boris Vallejo is another painter whose work turns me off, even though it has been very commercially successful.

Quote from: Phillip;460317I seem to recall some pretty good pen and ink sci-fi stuff from Elmore in Dragon. His painting work turned into something like the D&D equivalent of Thomas Kinkade, though.

Boris Vallejo is another painter whose work turns me off, even though it has been very commercially successful.

early Boris is good but a lot of his later stuff is bizarre. I think it was all the pumping iron that fried his "good fantasy gland" into a "bedroom fantasy penis". ;)

Just because not everything aligned with the articles, doesn't make Easley work "a mountain of nothing." For every one of the things you site, I still recall Easley's awesomeness with skeletons, dragons (especially dragons), and wizards. I wouldn't say he did everything right. But to me, his work is evocative of the time when I was in D&D and stuff was literally being churned towards DMs and PCs with great aplomp.

I understand the appeal it just ran out for me. Easley's scaling boggled the vision once too often (check the BATTLESYSTEM and MONSTER MANUAL covers for a quick example of weird scaling). Games are mostly about scaling this or that don't forget. So it irked slowly at first then began gnawing... ;)

I decided to dig out my Boris t-shirt (geez, I look old...):

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v175/geneweigel/DSC00479.jpg)

Thats an exceptional Boris pic. You have to be very selective with him or its "body oil time". ;)

BTW, speaking of background detail in pictures that piece of wood nailed to the wall does have a face on it. Its not just you...

Anyway that dragon in this Boris picture really cuts through whole "screw on head dragon" culture that has absorbed the Western mindset. Its somewhat reptilian and on the other hand subscribes to some medieval ideas of it being an amalgam of creatures which really is refreshing. (Thats the one thing that annoyed me to tears is that movie REIGN  OF FIRE they didn't even research the looks (as well as mythology) of dragons that well so it looked like they got the idea from a modern children's book or a flowery concession stand at the mall which is bizarre considering it was a violent film.) This Boris picture doesn't look anything like those standard dragons (of pewter & crystal, etc) and yet its compelling.

Like the way I brought it back to evolution of D&D monsters? ;)

Anyway, the original dragon of the namesake originally was depicted as a monsterized mega-snake. It wasn't until later that comparative mythology started junking all dragon-like creatures into a universal mish mash to give the medieval dragon of heraldry some kind of pedigree. The original concept of a dragon from the greek called drakon makes them seem not so different from nagas and therefore cobras. The wings the ancient Greeks mention are obviously describing cobra hoods but tell that to the medieval European guy who has never seen a cobra as they were all killed off.

So the way I see it there is three evolutions:
A) classical drakon (monster head snake),
B) medieval dragon (amalgam of beasts from heraldry) and
C) modern slick screw-on-head dragon of the 80's pewter crystals (revised "realistic" interpretation)

"C" is probably the direct responsibility of Gary Gygax's attempts to diversify the dragons by breath in Chainmail for:

A)Future Product identity
B)Game variety
C) and last but not least to make up for naysayers who cite the effects of Beowulf's northern "dragon's"* nasty breath attack (which in a different way inspired Tolkien's black breath [not appearing in any film soon]) [*NOTE: My belief is that this creature was not a dragon but interpreted as such by the Christianization process of the work.]

Quote from: Gene Weigel;460326early Boris is good but a lot of his later stuff is bizarre. I think it was all the pumping iron that fried his "good fantasy gland" into a "bedroom fantasy penis". ;)

The early Boris stuff is great. the one on Gene's tee-shirt and a bunch of other stuff from the late 70s early 80s.
Then he just gets obsessed with the whole erotic fantasy thing and no more use. He was always a lot more static than Frazetta though. Boris's interplay of light upon a surface though is remarkable. So there is a picture from that dire book he co-wrote with his wife Doris (I know you couldn't make it up) of a Bronze idol and the detail and colouring is peerless.
Has to be said his pencil work is also amazing.

That image of the trolls is definitely iconic for me.  It basically defined how I always imagine the D&D troll.

RPGPundit

Back to the daemons redefining that I mentioned.

If you want to note the redefining of their look it was:

VAULT OF THE DROW: Sutherland: cover for nyca; towards the back for nyca & mezzo
FIEND FOLIO: Russ: entry for each, heaps on his trademark too much, horned hands becomes horned body, nyca looks too fringed and picks up furrinessAD&D Monster cards: Otus: "de-russ-ification" sort of with nyca (not enough!)
2e Outer Planes Monstrous Compendium binder add-on: Baxa: ignores Otus "fix" and reinterprets Russ more dog-like. Daemon suffix changed to "loth"
2e Planescape Box (Planes of Conflict?): Diterlizzi: portrays the nyca as a chubby adorable bull dog and the mezzo as a Russ-sourced chicken-legged flat head humanoid who is at peace with himself it seems.
3e Manual of the Planes: Reynolds: depicts the nyca as a "manlier doggy" but with 4 arms and mezzo looks like a total beetle

Its totally weird that the Sutherland one remains the most defiining to me and I won't even use the Otus as an example.

Don't get me wrong about Sutherland either I don't like how his interpretations of orcs look piggish. Not that they do but it can be misjudged as such. (SEE D&D CARTOON). Trampier's interpretation is much more interesting as a weird snout.

Githyanki - If it weren't for the original Fiend Folio art, they would have been a completely forgettable vanilla race.  As with the Rakshasa, I wonder if the artist and the writer even spoke to each other, since nothing in their description suggests their appearance.

Quote from: Esgaldil;460800Githyanki - If it weren't for the original Fiend Folio art, they would have been a completely forgettable vanilla race.  As with the Rakshasa, I wonder if the artist and the writer even spoke to each other, since nothing in their description suggests their appearance.

More likely than not, they didn't, since most of the FF monsters were based on reader submission. The Githyanki, along with a few other creatures, were created by SF writer Charles Stross.

the Trampier Lizardman is exactly how I envision them:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41584679@N00/3777964467/

love that pic.  i'm sure that there are fancier ones, executed with far more complexity, but that is my favorite.

Kuo-Toa:

(http://enrill.net/images/GDQ/pics/D2-800.jpg)

Thats one of the things that continues to amaze me that I disliked the constant usage by DMs of the death knight (especially for nazgul), the githyanki, the slaad and the githzerai and later found out they were conceived by a 14 year old boy. In particular, the young Stross plagiarized the glossary of a 1977 George R.R. Martin book for the name and general idea of a "soul suck" slave race githyanki who were mistaken for demons.

NOTE: the artist Russ gave the Githyanki its distinctive mummy bandages as a mistaken identity for banded armor.

Thats just too weird not to mention.

Quote from: RPGPundit;438310When they started to illustrate Kobolds as little lizard-men, rather than little dog-men.  I wouldn't say that really changed my perspective though, since to me they're still dog-men.

To me they are still small dwarves that hang out in mines.

isnt that picture of suahagin not kuo toa?

Quote from: Cranewings;459800Cole, I'm not an expert on Celtic myth and I don't have my book handy, but I think there was a fairy race that fought with the Daoine Sidhe called Formorians or some such thing. Anyway, they were magic ogres that moved around in darkness.

The Fomhoire , often anglicized as "fomorians", were described in the Irish Book if Invasions as the primitive and brutal original inhabitants of the isle, one of two races that the Tuatha De Danann defeated. The other, the FirBolg, (lit. "bag-mean", described as giants), were completely subjugated. The Fomhoire, after the coming of the De Danann, set up outposts on a number of islands surrounding Ireland, most significantly Tory Island, where Balor, the one-eyed leader of the Fomhoire, had his crystal palace.

The Fomhoire were gods, like the De Danann, but most were mis-shapen, monstrous and cruel (but not all...Bres, Balor's son, was considered quite beautiful and seduced a De Danann princess or two). Metaphorically they represent the indigenous tribes of Pictii and proto-Norse raiders. The Fomorii were presented as civilized, if evil, and like the De Danann's, they had their own Druids or spellcasters, though I'd very much hesitate to use the term "magic ogres".

Modern fantasy tends to cast them in the role of demons that are a reoccurring threat to the "good" faeries. Warhammer Fantasy 1st Edition used them as the inspiration for the Fimir. In White Wolf, what a Fomor was depended entirely on what book you read, though they first showed up as genetic mutations in W:tA.

In the original legends, the Fomhoire are utterly defeated at the 2nd Battle of Magh Tuired and never heard from since. Then the humans come and defeat the Tuatha, driving them into the underground hills ("sith" or"sidhes" in Gaelic).

Regarding mythology specifically, I'd say Fomorians are the closest things to orcs to exist in folklore before Tolkien.

Quote from: TristramEvans;462421The Fomhoire , often anglicized as "fomorians", were described in the Irish Book if Invasions as the primitive and brutal original inhabitants of the isle, one of two races that the Tuatha De Danann defeated. The other, the FirBolg, (lit. "bag-mean", described as giants), were completely subjugated. The Fomhoire, after the coming of the De Danann, set up outposts on a number of islands surrounding Ireland, most significantly Tory Island, where Balor, the one-eyed leader of the Fomhoire, had his crystal palace.

The Fomhoire were gods, like the De Danann, but most were mis-shapen, monstrous and cruel (but not all...Bres, Balor's son, was considered quite beautiful and seduced a De Danann princess or two). Metaphorically they represent the indigenous tribes of Pictii and proto-Norse raiders. The Fomorii were presented as civilized, if evil, and like the De Danann's, they had their own Druids or spellcasters, though I'd very much hesitate to use the term "magic ogres".

Modern fantasy tends to cast them in the role of demons that are a reoccurring threat to the "good" faeries. Warhammer Fantasy 1st Edition used them as the inspiration for the Fimir. In White Wolf, what a Fomor was depended entirely on what book you read, though they first showed up as genetic mutations in W:tA.

In the original legends, the Fomhoire are utterly defeated at the 2nd Battle of Magh Tuired and never heard from since. Then the humans come and defeat the Tuatha, driving them into the underground hills ("sith" or"sidhes" in Gaelic).

Regarding mythology specifically, I'd say Fomorians are the closest things to orcs to exist in folklore before Tolkien.

Good stuff.

Quote from: Broken-Serenity;462420isnt that picture of suahagin not kuo toa?

Nope, it's the cover from the Hidden Shrine of the Kuotoa and the lobster babe in the background is the Kuotoa goddess Biliboopip.  I think there was an earlier monochromatic version but I'm not sure.

ah ok my mistake.

Quote from: David Johansen;462443Kuotoa goddess Biliboopip.  

Now, see, that belongs to some new thread about words/descriptive details that redefined monsters.  Because really, I've always thought that name was awesome, specifically because it was something that sounded so absurd, rather than dark and ominous, to our human ears.  That made it better than if it had been some kind of intentionally scary-sounding name.

RPGPundit