And honestly it's kind of shallow.
It's the designs. My favorite fiends (abishai, balors, imps, succubi, and maybe vrocks/Type I demons if I'm in a boschy mood or horned devils once in a while) all have something in common: They look like devils and demons. They feel as though they belong on the cover of heavy metal albums. Demons that look like this:
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs49/i/2009/198/2/4/Imp_by_VegasMike.jpg)
(http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs20/f/2007/259/3/7/Playing_whit_the_Devil_by_GENZOMAN.jpg)
(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/225/9/e/succubus_by_arsenal21-d5b0r51.jpg)
(http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/dcwhbbca.gif)
(http://images.wikia.com/disney/images/9/9d/Chernabog_7.PNG)
One of D&D's great strengths, in my opinion (and here I go blaspheming the OSR party line again) is that it's usually familiar and easy to grok. Even its original monsters (what's a rust monster? a weird animal that makes stuff rust. what's a mind flayer? tentacle alien that eats brains. what's an owlbear? exactly what it sounds like.) are pretty simple. But a lot of demons and devils just feel like Gary (or others) just assembled random stuff out of their bitz box and called it a day.
I like the Warhammer Daemons, they're very thematically connected and interesting while not descending into the 'just another monster' trap. There's also a whole deep mythology skillfully woven between real world myths and their colourful creations. What would you consider a unique collection of unholy hellbeasts?
At least back in Eldrich Lizardry, most of the demons were swiped from medieval popular theology. Most medieval pictures of demons show them being assembled from bits and pieces.
Quote from: The Traveller;691166I like the Warhammer Daemons, they're very thematically connected and interesting while not descending into the 'just another monster' trap. There's also a whole deep mythology skillfully woven between real world myths and their colourful creations. What would you consider a unique collection of unholy hellbeasts?
I don't know that unique is really a big aim for me. But I'll agree with you that Warhammer's daemons tend do work well with my artistic sensibilities.
Quote from: Old Geezer;691169At least back in Eldrich Lizardry, most of the demons were swiped from medieval popular theology. Most medieval pictures of demons show them being assembled from bits and pieces.
Oh sure, I know they do. I just don't find a lot of them particularly aesthetically satisfying.
As an experiment, I'm now poking through deviantart trying to see whether there are takes on similar demons that work better for me and what makes it so. And there are-- a post with some of them may yet be forthcoming.
You can, of course, make your own. There's a "dial-a-demon" method of constructing your own infernal critters in the back of the Dungeon Masters Guide (originally appeared in The Strategic Review or a very early issue of The Dragon), and a similar set of tables in Monster Manual 2.
Interestingly enough in that volume are some decidedly weird D(a)emons, like Anthraxux (Oinadaemon), an upright, rotting cow, the Ultradaemon (which looks like - no lie - Ultraman) and the Piscadaemon that looks like an 80/20 hybrid of crawdad and chicken. I wonder if Gary wasn't inspired by the lunch menu at Popeye's* for that last one.
...
*=A bar & grill on Lake Geneva that sells seafood and "bar food", not the chain restaurant that sells chicken & biscuits.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;691172You can, of course, make your own. There's a "dial-a-demon" method of constructing your own infernal critters in the back of the Dungeon Masters Guide (originally appeared in The Strategic Review or a very early issue of The Dragon), and a similar set of tables in Monster Manual 2.
Oh aye. It's just the illustrations of the existing ones put me off them, I think.
Do you have links to what demons look like 'now' that you object to? Because the images you posted are along the lines of what I imagine as well.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;691200Do you have links to what demons look like 'now' that you object to? Because the images you posted are along the lines of what I imagine as well.
Here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG57.jpg) are (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG53.jpg) 3.5's core (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG52.jpg) devils (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG51.jpg).
And (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG43.jpg) here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG41.jpg) are (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG48.jpg) its demons (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG45.jpg).
And I don't usually like how the equivalent ones looked in AD&D, 2e, or 4e either, for the most part.
And here are the results of me looking for art I liked: Demons (http://rachelghoulgamestuff.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-overcoming-my-problem-with-demons.html) and Devils (http://rachelghoulgamestuff.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-overcoming-my-problem-with-demons_14.html)
I pretty much agree, and I blame the random demon table approach for the crappy designs. Demogorgon for me, as well as the Type III and IV demons (and Type I, a little bit,) represent that step too far towards ridiculous blender design aesthetic.
Quote from: talysman;691210I pretty much agree, and I blame the random demon table approach for the crappy designs. Demogorgon for me, as well as the Type III and IV demons (and Type I, a little bit,) represent that step too far towards ridiculous blender design aesthetic.
Those are definitely the two I have the biggest problem with. I don't mind the type I too much, but I'm not at all a fan of the type II.
Those are 10 years old. I haven't seen the art for 4th edition or Next (except Halflings) so that's what I thought you were talking about.
I wasn't much of a fan of the monster designs for most of 3.x. I'm even less of a fan of monster names. I mean, who goes around naming a creature a 'digester'?
Quote from: LibraryLass;691211Those are definitely the two I have the biggest problem with. I don't mind the type I too much, but I'm not at all a fan of the type II.
The Type II are the toad-demons, which show up in a couple swords & sorcery tales and in medieval imagery, so I'm OK with them. The Type V is from Harryhausen, and Type VI is a balrog in disguise. All of those fit into my conception of demons built from literature and media, which is why I'm OK with them. And the thing is, they each have a coherent "feel", a very simple combination of two things with a little symbology drawn from our common culture. But those Type III and IVs? Just a jumble of stuff slapped together to seem weird.
In so far as the more humanoid-like fiends are the personification of human fears/sins, I am cool with thinking of the more mish-mash fiends as the personification of non-human fears/sins.
What is it that would make a mimic howl in fear during the night?
Quote from: Old One Eye;691281In so far as the more humanoid-like fiends are the personification of human fears/sins, I am cool with thinking of the more mish-mash fiends as the personification of non-human fears/sins.
What is it that would make a mimic howl in fear during the night?
Cool idea, and re. mimic: something like a beholder; all eyes. "I see you, you can't hide from me."