# New marilith/balor pictures



## kenjib (May 7, 2003)

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rs/20030506a

I assume the fiend pics at the bottom will be in the revised monster manual.  What do you think of them?

I think the balor is absolutely fantastic but the marilith just ruins the monster completely compared to how cool the 1e edition one was.


----------



## ph34r (May 7, 2003)

I like em both.


----------



## Gothmog (May 7, 2003)

I love the balor- it looks menacing, evil, and very pissed off.

I despise the marilith- I can't tell what her face looks like, she is too frail looking, and just looks awkward and poorly done.  Her face also looks really scrunched up.  I have yet to see a marilith done that I really like though.  I think one that is sitting atop a pile of bones and broken bodies, covered in the blood of her enemies would make an awesome pic though.  She should have a wild look in her eyes, hair matted and tangled, and have a more serpentine pose.  Anyone want to try that?


----------



## Pants (May 7, 2003)

Balor - Great, awesome, uber cool.  Me likey  

Marilith - Pretty piss poor, although it is hard to tell at this point, but it still looks bad.


----------



## caudor (May 7, 2003)

I'm very impressed with the work.  Very.


----------



## Gez (May 7, 2003)

I really don't like either. The balor is technically well made, but I find his horns really silly. And the Marilith looks like a famished little girl (with 6 arms and a snake tail, OK).


----------



## Sejs (May 7, 2003)

Balor:  Body good (needs more clothes/accessories), Head _BAD_

Marilith:  Body bad (too waifish.. they're frickin' generals!), head bad (no devious glint in the eyes.. wheel's spinning, hampster's dead), weapons good.


----------



## Alzrius (May 7, 2003)

I think the balor looks pretty cool, but those huge side-of-the-head horns aren't that asthetically pleasing. They should go.

As for the marilith...what is it with modern WotC art having certain monsters look all emaciated? I know the "thin" look is in, but this is taking it too far...first that poor displacer beast, now the marilith.


----------



## bwgwl (May 7, 2003)

i thought the marilith looked pretty darn cool, but the balor was just ... bleeah.


----------



## Eldorian (May 7, 2003)

I thought the 2e marilith was fine.  Sort of a plumply pretty woman, with an expression of sheer rage, with 6 arms wielding wicked looking weaponry, and faint demonic features, with that snake tail provided a certain amount of contrast between the humanity and the demonic nature.  I mean, you noticed her demonic nature right off, after a good look, her human features made the demonic parts you saw earlier even more harsh.  The contrast made the monster.  Hell, the evil party I played in 2e had one stuffed and put in the entry hall of their keep, cause we thought she was sufficiently impressive.  This new one wouldn't get stuffed, I'll tell you that. 

This new one looks dumb.  Her weapons are weaker looking, she looks far to inhuman, so I am able to distance myself from her, ie, I don't relate to the human part only to be repulsed by the demon part again.  And even for a new monster, she looks pretty badly done.  She's too skinny, her head is huge.. Shes not really threatening looking.. looks like she deserves pity.  Poor little sick monster.  I wouldn't even know that was a marilith if I didn't read the caption.

The balor looks pretty standard tho..  Man I hope they go back to a more traditional looking Vrock.  Just ruining the demons for me.  I've always been a fan of demons, especially in 2e when they were dangerous, mainly cause we fought them at lower levels.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Sejs (May 7, 2003)

> .. looks like she deserves pity.




"Somebody give that poor girl a sandwich!"


----------



## Eldorian (May 7, 2003)

Sejs said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "Somebody give that poor girl a sandwich!" *




Remember to eat slowly when recovering from anorexia.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Syunsuke (May 7, 2003)

I know only some(small) part of you like anime-style art, but I can't resest 

Samurai Marilith 

Mage Marilith 

Psionist Marilith 

Shinobi (ninja) Marilith 

Defender Marilith 

Group shot 

Group Shot 2 

(It's not me drawn them.)


----------



## LGodamus (May 7, 2003)

Though the pic is to small for me to comment on the details...the technical skill appears to be there , but the conceptual design on the marilith is lacking from what has been in the past, but the balor looks pretty bad azz....


----------



## Gez (May 7, 2003)

Hello Syunsuke!



			
				Syunsuke said:
			
		

> *I know only some(small) part of you like anime-style art, but I can't resist  *




They are too cute to be demons! And only the shinobi one looked adult...


----------



## daTim (May 7, 2003)

I agree, it is too small to tell any real details about the Marilith. Perhaps the artist wanted it too look like a young sickly girls body, so it would just be that much more repulsive (hopefully). 

As far as the Balor, I couldnt have imagined it much better, although I always envisioned them wreathed in flames.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

Hi all! 

Balor. 

Marilith. 

Always liked this Balor sketch though:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mm_gallery/TypeVIDemon.jpg


----------



## kkoie (May 7, 2003)

I think its rather amusing that the illustrator copied a lot of the visual qualities of the Balrog from LOTR when he did the Balor.  IF you notice, it looks a heck of a lot like him.  Change the horns, and more body flames, and we have a shorter version of the Balron.

As for the Marilith, I think it looks cool.


----------



## The_Gneech (May 7, 2003)

kkoie said:
			
		

> *I think its rather amusing that the illustrator copied a lot of the visual qualities of the Balrog from LOTR when he did the Balor.  IF you notice, it looks a heck of a lot like him. *




The _balor_? A copy of the _balrog_, except with a non-lawsuit-generating name?

Couldn't possibly be!

   -The Gneech


----------



## SimonMoon5 (May 7, 2003)

I also am not fond of the new marilith. Imho, it looks like the illustrator chose to add serpentine qualities to the face to make a more integrated creature (rather than a somewhat unrealistic patchwork monster), like those illustrators who give centaurs horselike facial features.


----------



## War Golem (May 7, 2003)

Don't care for either of the new renderings too much.   

I can live with the Balor, but the Marilith is not to my liking at all. I much prefer the "classic" D&D look.

I thought this module cover had one of the best color pictures of a marilith I've see yet:  Black Ice Well Cover


----------



## Voadam (May 7, 2003)

I don't like either of the the new ones.

Of those anime ones the mage is pretty cool, and the mariliths in cutesy dresses are pretty funny.

I like Simon Moon's Avatar best though.


----------



## Gregor (May 7, 2003)

I like the Marilith that Helm is fighting in Faiths and Pantheons.  The new one on the WOTC site just looks strange....almost like a Yuan-Ti.  The art is still cool though.  I wish I could draw.

Cheers


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 7, 2003)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> *I think the balor looks pretty cool, but those huge side-of-the-head horns aren't that asthetically pleasing. They should go.
> 
> As for the marilith...what is it with modern WotC art having certain monsters look all emaciated? I know the "thin" look is in, but this is taking it too far...first that poor displacer beast, now the marilith. *




It is interesting to me how much of D&D's history is denying Tolkien's influence (e.g., halflings - hobbits in the first printing, orcs, treants).  I have never considered the balor a rip-off of the balrog (pretty quintessential demon), but does anyone else see any resemblence between this and Peter Jackson's vision of them in the LotR movies?


----------



## Voadam (May 7, 2003)

Balor is a nemesis figure from Celtic myth, he has a giant evil(baleful) eye.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 7, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> *Balor is a nemesis figure from Celtic myth, he has a giant evil(baleful) eye. *




Quite so, and I believe he had to have his eyelid held open in battle by a staff - a little different than the Type-VI Demon.


----------



## WizarDru (May 7, 2003)

The Balor of celtic myth is a Formorian wizard, eventually slain by the Demon-God Crom-Cruach.  He doesn't bear much resemblance to the D&D Balor/Type VI demon.  The D&D balor, however, resembles the Balrog in spades.

It's not that D&D 'stole' from Tolkien...it's just that they absorbed material from many different sources, sometimes the same as Tolkien, sometimes from Tolkien himself and often times from unrelated sources.  The magic was from Vance, obviously, the races borrowed from Tolkien, many world setting concepts from Howard and Lieber, and so on.

The only time it sounds silly is when they try to deny any influence at all, or even only just a tangential relationship.  LotR was a major influence, and many things in D&D come straight from it.  But it helps to keep in mind that many other things don't.


----------



## JeffB (May 7, 2003)

Well, the Balor * IS* a "rip-off' of the Balrog. Ever since the order from Tolkien Enterprise back in '75 or '76 that told TSR they couldn't use the word "Balrog". 

That being said, I noticed the similarity to Peter Jackon's, but  that basic image has been around for decades in various pieces of art depicting the LotR. 

Oh, and to the question...

Balor good

Marilith very bad..

The cover of Necromancer Games' Demons & Devils or the pic of that MonkeyGod Module are much better representations to my eyes.

{mild rant}I really don't understand why WOTC is trying SO HARD artistically to tear the classic images down..the images that were pioneered by D&D....That would be like Lucas re-doing Darth Vader "Yes, I know he USED to be all black, and had a big helmet, but now he's sorta-kinda blue, and has just a small helmet where you can actually see his eyes and face!.. Cool huh?"{end mild rant}

Sigh...


----------



## Arnwyn (May 7, 2003)

Big thumbs-down on the Marilith, IMO.


----------



## Samnell (May 7, 2003)

The pics don't bother me that much, but I wonder about the marilith's pose. It looks like she's sitting on the toilet. Now there's an encounter that could only come off a random roll.

00: Marilith sitting on a toilet reading the reptile issue of Zoobooks.


----------



## Davelozzi (May 7, 2003)

The balor looks pretty good.

I don't like the marilith at all.  I prefer the one on the cover of Necromancer Games' _Demons and Devils_.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 7, 2003)

I h ave more qualms with the Balor than the Marilith.

That loincloth on the balor totally throws me off. Big red gargoyled with flames!....but he's embarassed to show his wee-wee.....if Balors wore clothes, they should be the clothes crafted of the souls of innocents, not something they wrap themselves in like some Tarazan from Hell....

The Marilith is fine...but I have no idea why she's carring a spear that she can't even wield without dropping a weapon, really. I've got no qualms with the thinness, as it leads to a more exotic, foriegn, unhealthy, unnatural look to the creature, and her head does look more bestial, but who's to say that's a bad thing?

I actually like her better than the Marilith in the DMG, a lot. Definately more monster-ish.

So, yeah, explain the Balor's Loincloth to me, and why Marilith is weilding something she can't actually wield, and I'll be content.


----------



## Gez (May 7, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *The Balor of celtic myth is a Formorian wizard, eventually slain by the Demon-God Crom-Cruach.  He doesn't bear much resemblance to the D&D Balor/Type VI demon.  The D&D balor, however, resembles the Balrog in spades.*




Balor's name was ripped for the "Balrog-like" demons because the name sounded close. Balor himself was then ripped for Gruumsh, the god of orcs, who has an evil cyclopean eye too, and wield a spear too, and is the divine leader of a whole race of rather monstrous and somewhat misshappen humanoids with great strength too.

The orc/elf antagonism similarly echoes the fomorian/tuatha de danaan one.


----------



## Jeremy (May 7, 2003)

I don't like either for some reason.  Neither evokes fear or awe or anything in me.  They look like I'd expect poor quality animation to look (i.e. low detail, easy to produce quickly and easily).


----------



## Richards (May 7, 2003)

Originally posted by JeffB:







> {mild rant}I really don't understand why WOTC is trying SO HARD artistically to tear the classic images down..the images that were pioneered by D&D....That would be like Lucas re-doing Darth Vader "Yes, I know he USED to be all black, and had a big helmet, but now he's sorta-kinda blue, and has just a small helmet where you can actually see his eyes and face!.. Cool huh?"{end mild rant}



You should see what Marvel Comics is doing to Doctor Doom over in recent issues of _Fantastic Four_...

Johnathan


----------



## kenjib (May 7, 2003)

I think I have a better grasp on why I dislike the Marilith now.

1.  It used to be a very distinctive monster, a six armed woman with a snake's torso.  It was very unique and the only monster that looked like that.  Very memorable.  Now it's just another random scaly/spiky creature like all the others.  It no longer stands out or is distinctive in any way.

2.  The tension between sex and repulsion  in earlier versions of the Marilith was part of what made it so great.  Making it now have almost no resemblance to a human ruins this completely.

In all, a cool old creature that used to have an exotic Indian Weird Tales era vibe is now just another generic creature along with destrachans, renders, ethereal filchers, and all the others that are supposed to be strange but end up all being "strange" in exactly the same way.


----------



## Voadam (May 7, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Balor's name was ripped for the "Balrog-like" demons because the name sounded close. Balor himself was then ripped for Gruumsh, the god of orcs, who has an evil cyclopean eye too, and wield a spear too, and is the divine leader of a whole race of rather monstrous and somewhat misshappen humanoids with great strength too.
> 
> The orc/elf antagonism similarly echoes the fomorian/tuatha de danaan one. *




Eh, I always thought of Gruumsh as a dumbed down Odin, another one eyed spear wielding pantheon leading war god.

Odin fought a war against the Vanir, from whom came Frey god of the elves.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 7, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *I think I have a better grasp on why I dislike the Marilith now.
> 
> 1.  It used to be a very distinctive monster, a six armed woman with a snake's torso.  It was very unique and the only monster that looked like that.  Very memorable.  Now it's just another random scaly/spiky creature like all the others.  It no longer stands out or is distinctive in any way.
> 
> ...




This post managed to perfectly sum up my feelings.   Bravo!

I think the art director for the 3e books must have been a really skinny guy who had a lot of tats and piercings.   Since that seems to pretty much sum up the art style to me.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 7, 2003)

Richards said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by JeffB:You should see what Marvel Comics is doing to Doctor Doom over in recent issues of Fantastic Four...
> 
> Johnathan *




Beyond Walt Simonson's short run on FF it died after Byrne left.   Anything after that should be looked at with horror and revulsion!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 7, 2003)

I guess I see this with the eye of a rising artist rather than that of a gamer. I love both of those pictures. Its a state of detail I find myself never able to get to, and seeing it just makes me want to keep trying harder. I don't really see them as "bad" or "wrong", I just see them as very very well drawn and colored. Maybe its a good thing I can't seem to get past that.


----------



## Chauzu (May 7, 2003)

Both look great!


----------



## Kweezil (May 8, 2003)

Personally, I like them. 

*Balor*
Very good, very demonic and firey. IMHO, it resemble the version from Neverwinter Nights more than it does the Balrog, though with less of a skull-like face. Though I have to agree with Kamikaze Midget, the loincloth does look a bit off. Perhaps a slight change in the pose to cover the offending area instead would have fitted the creature better

*Marilith*
It could be the size of the picture (it looks compressed) but her face and hair colours are just a little too similar, giving her a stange look. There's some inspiration taken from movie Mystique (the way her hair flows back, like it's an extension of her skin rather than something seperate).

About the change in her appearance, perhaps this is what mariliths really look like, and the human-like appearance was just a facade to play with the mortals' minds? The more serpentine appearance and similarity to Yuan-ti fits perfectly with my homebrew world, so I can't help but like it.


----------



## Olive (May 8, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *I think I have a better grasp on why I dislike the Marilith now.
> 
> 1.  It used to be a very distinctive monster, a six armed woman with a snake's torso.  It was very unique and the only monster that looked like that.  Very memorable.  Now it's just another random scaly/spiky creature like all the others.  It no longer stands out or is distinctive in any way.*




you mean it was yet another half human/half animal creature?


----------



## kreynolds (May 8, 2003)

Balor = Balrog? Man, I'm not seeing the resemblance at all.


----------



## kenjib (May 8, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *
> 
> you mean it was yet another half human/half animal creature? *




Yeah, I thought of that.  With what they've done to creatures like the manticore though, there are far fewer straight half animal creatures now than there are spikey emaciated ones.  You've got a great point though.  I think it was the whole Indian feel that really made it stand out for me though, rather than being half animal half human.  By invoking deific imagery (the destroyer aspect of Shiva in particular), she really brought out a sense of power, majesty, and mystique well befitting one of the most powerful and terrible of the demons.  The new one just doesn't have this same depth of iconic imagery.


----------



## demiurge1138 (May 8, 2003)

It's been said before, but I'll say it again; the neo-marilith is way too yuan-ti like. I do like that suggestion about the more human appearance being a facade for dealing with mortals.

I think I might be able to explain the loincloth on the balor. It could be pseudo-reflective of the savage but intelligent nature of the balors. They wear long, flowing robes, dress plate, etc, when just posturing, leading troops from the back, engaging in toadying to Demogorgon, etc. But when the silk gloves come off, so does the rest of it, leaving the balors free and manuverable.

Or maybe it's because balors had loincloths in 1st and 2nd edition. 

Demiurge out.


----------



## Angcuru (May 8, 2003)

Balor pic good.  *adds lotsa flames, removes loincloth* Balor pic GOOOOD!  
By removing the loincloth and adding pubic flame, we cover the offending area.

Marilith pic not good.
Marilith pic actually quite bad.
Marilith look like pre-pubescent bulemic naga with 6 REALLY skinny arms.

I think the pics of Mariliths on the cover of Rappunnathuk are the best fitting of the monster.


----------



## s/LaSH (May 8, 2003)

Well, considering that (by comparison to a 12-foot balor) the marilith must be around 7 feet tall in that shot, I wouldn't say she's particularly skinny at all... her head is huge, she's disproportionate, but she's not going to be weak with those proportions.

I agree with the people who suggest that demons have limited shape-changing powers - it's not all that great a power to alter your skin colour, but it makes them cooler and weirder, and if you can quote all the aspects of a manifestation of pure chaos and evil there's something very wrong with the game.

And it occurs to me that the yuan-ti could very well have ties to this new development. After all, they speak abyssal. Why? They have no plane-shifting abilities. Could it be, perhaps, that they're the mortal agents of Something Else?

If that's the case, then the marilith doesn't look like yuan-ti - the abominations look like her. Only, probably not purple. Unless they're using their chameleon power to change the way they look. Wait, did someone say mariliths can change their rough coloration too?

Conspiracy! Yuan-ti agents of abyssal powers! Bleeargh!

*Runs screaming from room*

*Comes back to hit 'submit reply'*


----------



## Davelozzi (May 8, 2003)

Kenjib, I think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis.


----------



## The Serge (May 8, 2003)

Here we go again with people whining about transitions in art and concept between editions.  Oh, the renewed stench of misplaced nostalgia.

The fact of the matter is that the illustrations in 1ed MM and most other 1ed products (MM II was an exception) were _extremely_ simplistic and almost universally cartoonish.  For the most part, they lacked inspiration as well.  

Now, on to these two images.

The Balor is okay.  Love the head and the horns.  The interesting thing here is that the artist actually looked at the image of the Balor in 1ed MM and used that hideous picture as a springboard.  That Balor had the same horns and general build.  Hell, I think that the weapons are even in the same hands.  What I don't like about the Balor is its coloring and the loinclothe.  It's an evil spirit... why the Hell is it wearing a loinclothe?  The artist (Sam Wood I think, who's usually very good) should have simply surrounded the Balor with flames, thereby hiding the feet, legs, and groin.  Problem solved.  As far as the coloring, I've always seen Balors in the same light as the Balrogs upon which they're based:  Shadows that barely contain the flames of rage and evil that burn within.  I would have tried to capture that kind of an image rather than the more "traditional" reddish demon look.  

The Marilith is okay.  First, to all these people whining about it being emaciated, you're comparing her to a 12 foot tall Demon.  Take that into consideration first.  Second, she's a DEMON!  She's not a beauty queen, and she's not a model.  Her appearance maintains the general description from all three D&D editions with an added degree of sensibility.  I've never understood why every Marilith looked like some middle-eastern or Indian belly-dancer.  Just because the base-model is based upon Kali doesn't mean that they all have long hair, tons of jewels, and are drop dead gorgeous (if you like girls).  This image is hideous and otherworldly, precisely what these Demons are.  

I will say that I saw that image of the huge Marilith from a recent D&D module and I liked it.  However, I thought it was rather lackluster because it looked like virtually every Marilith out there.  This one looks like a disgusting Demon with the silhouette of a good looking, slender woman.  Her strength to carry those weapons have _nothing_ to do with "natural" strength, but with the strength conferred by her evil and status in The Abyss.

So, can people please back off the nostalgic nonsense.  I swear, all it does is limit their ability to consider and explore new things.  And makes them look shortsighted and conservative besides.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 8, 2003)

The Serge said:
			
		

> *So, can people please back off the nostalgic nonsense.  I swear, all it does is limit their ability to consider and explore new things.  And makes them look shortsighted and conservative besides. *


----------



## JeffB (May 8, 2003)

The Serge said:
			
		

> *Here we go again with people whining about transitions in art and concept between editions.  Oh, the renewed stench of misplaced nostalgia.blah blah blah...
> 
> . *




  Here we go again with another person who equates "change" with "better".

And I detected more whining in your first and last paragraphs than all other posts on this thread combined.


----------



## Grazzt (May 8, 2003)

Well- I am in agreement with a lot of the other posters to this thread:

The Balor looks nice. The marilith just doesnt do it for me.

And it has nothing to do with nostalgia.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 8, 2003)

The old, "This is better becuase it's new!" line.   Please.  I look through the 3e art and see dungeonpunk monsters and characters with tats and piercings and that look of a junkie who hasn't eaten in 2 weeks.   I find that bad for more reasons than nostalga.  3e and it looks like 3.5e art doesn't even have bad character, it has no character at all!   All IMO and all that.


----------



## nimisgod (May 8, 2003)

I kinda liked both pics. Wierd enough, they seemed to have a nostalgic 1E feeling to them. Except they were far better than the art of old, IMO. I guess, I like the art of the new editions better than the old, sparse art. For one thing, the art in 3E usually has something to do with the texts its with.  

Hehe. The Balor looks like a Scarran (from Farscape)

As for D&D stealing from TolkienL If one thinks about it, Tolkien took stuff from many sources as well. Such as the Nibelung (spelling?) for the one ring, Fafnir (and other dragons) for Smaug, Elves (Alfs) and Dwarves (Dvergar) from Celtic Lore.

I love the man's work but its not like he was Mr. All Original himself.


----------



## The Serge (May 8, 2003)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *Here we go again with another person who equates "change" with "better".*




Most interesting...  I don't think the word "better" is mentioned once in my post.  In fact, I even pointed out that one 1ed product had decent art (MM II).

Read the post.



			
				JeffB said:
			
		

> *And I detected more whining in your first and last paragraphs than all other posts on this thread combined.
> *





Of course you do.  That's because you agree with the sentiments that support the ludicrous position that the "original" concepts in 1ed -- particularly those related to images in this case -- were "good" and that these new images are a bad "departure" from these "landmark" images.  



People would be more honest if they just said they didn't care for the interpretation rather than jumping on that "nostalgia" bandwagon that perpetuates the belief that the "original" was "better" and the new and current is "bad."  Compare the current image to the current description and leave it at that.

Most earlier visual concepts were poorly done... and childish to boot.  They were back then as much as they are now, so there's no comparison with those images with these newer ones on my part.  They served their purpose if one wants to compare them to the text, but they're not, and weren't, inspiring or inspired artistic efforts (and I could say the same thing for quite a few current images... by comparing the image to the description.  My comments on the Balor serve as a case in point).

Get off the nostalgia bandwagon.  Like the many of the older 1ed images, it's crickety and rotting.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 8, 2003)




----------



## kenjib (May 8, 2003)

The Serge said:
			
		

> *
> People would be more honest if they just said they didn't care for the interpretation rather than jumping on that "nostalgia" bandwagon that perpetuates the belief that the "original" was "better" and the new and current is "bad."  Compare the current image to the current description and leave it at that.
> *




People are only honest if they agree with you?  Interesting, but I suppose it must be true since your opinion is always, indeed, pure fact.


----------



## JeffB (May 8, 2003)

Actually you should read your own post. You have implied throughout it that any of us who prefer the originals are only waxing nostalgic. That the old art is NOT as good as the new art, and the only reason we like these images is because of nostalgia. Utter Bull$hit. That is an *opinion* that you are trying to lay down as absolute fact. In my opinion I prefer many of those original images as art. I find them highly imagination-provoking and inspiring. If you do not, that’s fine, don’t tell me how to think, or that I’m wrong.

Are the new artists more talented? Perhaps technically, but that does not make them a better artist. I happen to think the original artists show much more talent by taking nothing but a verbal description and turning it into an image that has endured for over two decades, rather than a current artist who is doing little more than adding detail and color to update an image that someone else created.  

I think you should be honest too, and ask yourself if it’s really doing your position any good by insulting everyone who does not feel the same as you do.


----------



## kenjib (May 8, 2003)

nt


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 8, 2003)

I do think a lot of these 'They're skinny and emaciated!' or 'I hate spikey armor!' complaints are quite....well....silly. 

Mostly because you either agree with the sentiment or don't and there's no real logical reason for either...it's all personal preference. It kinda gets annoying when either side dresses up their opinion as the 'most logical choice.'

Some people don't like spikey armor. Some people do.

Some people don't like skinny monsters. Some people do.

Neither is any better or more right than anything else, and suggesting that it IS is slightly insulting, IMHO. There is no reason WotC's art HAS to agree with your tastes, and no reason the paid artist can't draw a lioncloth on a balor if he wants (for instance). So you don't like it. Okay, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that everyone who likes it has inferior tastes. That doesn't mean the choice is stupid. That doesn't mean that the artist is a complete idiot who can't draw a compelling monster.

It just meanst that your tastes are obviously different from the artists. Regardless of what the art looks like, no one is forcing your balors to have down-turned horns or your mariliths to be eerily thin or your armor to have a Picasso-inspired design or your blink dogs to look wicked or your blackguards to be fat. So the best thing to do is maybe say 'it's not for me,' and accept that just because you don't like it doesn't mean people have to agree with you.

We're lucky we get art, IMHO, especially by people who can draw better than stick figures. Just because I think the DMG blackguard looks goony doesn't mean that it's a worthless picture or that those who like how he looks are philistines. All of these artists are paid, and a lot of thought goes into their work. They obviously see some reason for 'dungeonpunk,' and us lamers on a message board aren't really fit to call it stupid. Call it 'not for me,' sure. Everyone has a right to their own tastes. But insulting someone else's hard work is in no way a positive thing.

Just because I think the balor would've looked better without a loincloth doesn't make it true. There's obviously a reason for it being there, the artist took time to draw it, and I have no right to call them a moron who's trying to push some 'Evil = Savage' negative culturalist stereotype on the game.

Come on. Everyone has a right to their own personal preferences, but that doesn't mean that those who don't agree with them are evil, stupid, nostaligic, or wrong.


----------



## The Serge (May 8, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *People are only honest if they agree with you?  Interesting, but I suppose it must be true since your opinion is always, indeed, pure fact. *




No.  

I happen to disagree with those who think the Balor is fantastic.  I think it's serviceable.  I'm not attacking their opinion based upon their critique of the image in and of itself.  I'm not even getting into stylistic preferences.  I am attacking the idea that 1ed material is the standard upon which all images are/can be measured.  In virtually every reference to 1ed art made in this thread (and in general to D&D) there's this attitude that it's "better" because it was first.  Nonsense.


----------



## LGodamus (May 8, 2003)

Well I for one love the new dungeon punk look and I like spikey armor and emaciated monsters...with that out of the way...I still like the old marilith pics better.so, NYAH. Seriously though, although the technical aptitude is there in the art I dont like where the concept has gone with the marilith. She is just a reptilian monster with vaguely feminine parts, but she used to have an interesting juxta pose of alluring and revolting that gave her a certain mistique and charactera and made the marilith one of the most unique of the demons, not so this new one.


----------



## Gez (May 8, 2003)

She looks angry but weak.






There, she's an awe-inspiring fury.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 8, 2003)

The Serge said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In virtually every reference to 1ed art made in this thread (and in general to D&D) there's this attitude that it's "better" because it was first.  Nonsense. *




It's better because it's not going for the Medival Spawn look.


IMO...for those who will think that i'm posting this as fact, when every single post here is IMO and I shouldn't have to call attention to that.


----------



## The Serge (May 8, 2003)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *Actually you should read your own post. You have implied throughout it that any of us who prefer the originals are only waxing nostalgic. That the old art is NOT as good as the new art, and the only reason we like these images is because of nostalgia. Utter Bull$hit. That is an opinion that you are trying to lay down as absolute fact. In my opinion I prefer many of those original images as art. I find them highly imagination-provoking and inspiring. If you do not, that’s fine, don’t tell me how to think, or that I’m wrong.*



Did not say "any" or "all."  I said those suffering "misplaced nostalgia."  

And, I'm not implying anything.  I stated quite clearly that I've never liked the concepts from MM I (or the _Fiend Folio_ for that matter) but that I'm not comparing them to current works.  I never liked them in and of themselves.  I can see where the implication comes across, but that's not what I'm doing here.  If that's the way it comes across (and I can appreciate such being the case), then so be it.

As for preferring certain pieces just based upon their own standard, that's fine; there's nothing wrong with that.  It's when you compare them to other images and then drag out that whole nonsense about 1edbeingignoredinfavorofsomenewflawed3edparadigmandowthisisclearlyfurtherindicationofhow3edissomeproblematicgame, blah, blah, yakety, smakety.



			
				JeffB said:
			
		

> *Are the new artists more talented? Perhaps technically, but that does not make them a better artist. I happen to think the original artists show much more talent by taking nothing but a verbal description and turning it into an image that has endured for over two decades, rather than a current artist who is doing little more than adding detail and color to update an image that someone else created.*



As I said, I would rather someone make comparisons about the art based upon the text rather than trying to draw comparisons between two time frames.

As for this idea that the current artist is just "updating..."  Oh, so are we saying that's it's no longer good to use the "original" visual concept as a springboard?  I thought that's what a lot of people wanted?  And to this "enduring" idea, I don't see how either image shatters visual concepts for either the Balor or the Marilith.

Just say you don't like it and be done with it (as a number of people have done).  If you're going to draw comparisons, don't drag that "nostalgic 1ed is an undying standard that cannot be replaced and has been ruined by 3ed" nonsense into the mix.     



			
				JeffB said:
			
		

> *I think you should be honest too, and ask yourself if it’s really doing your position any good by insulting everyone who does not feel the same as you do.  *



Insulting?  I don't think it's any more insulting than the those who say they think an image stinks.  It's a position.  I just want those who are constantly dragging their nostalgic angst to recognize their predicament for what it is.

If people are insulted, I'm sorry they are.  But, I stand by my position and comments.


----------



## The Serge (May 8, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *
> She looks angry but weak.
> 
> There, she's an awe-inspiring fury. *




What Gez is doing is fine (not that he's asking for my permission).

He's not suggesting that an entire edition concept is "bad" or "flawed."  He's comparing two images and leaving it at that.

Yes, this is an expansion of earlier comments I made, but it falls into line with what I said earlier.

Anyway, as I said before, I like the conceptualization of the former image, although I think the latter image is pretty intense and... awe-inspiring.


----------



## kenjib (May 8, 2003)

The Serge said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No.
> 
> I happen to disagree with those who think the Balor is fantastic.  I think it's serviceable.  I'm not attacking their opinion based upon their critique of the image in and of itself.  I'm not even getting into stylistic preferences.  I am attacking the idea that 1ed material is the standard upon which all images are/can be measured.  In virtually every reference to 1ed art made in this thread (and in general to D&D) there's this attitude that it's "better" because it was first.  Nonsense. *




Who are you talking about?  Name names.  I mentioned preference for the 1e artwork but I also adequately clarified why I preferred it without even hinting at nostalgia -- or does the Hindu religion count as nostalgia?

If nobody knows who you're talking to, it's kind of hard for them to respond.  Perhaps if you quote people or put down names in your responses instead of saying something to the effect of "all you people" and there will be less confusion.

Who, other than yourself, has tried to tell other people what they should think?  Give us quotes so those particular people can respond.


----------



## MinscFan (May 8, 2003)

First Edition art was (for the most part) of a lower quality. They had a small budget, and for the most part fewer artists to choose from. 

But, I can see where some might wax nostalgic -- whether they mean to or not. For most of us oldies who grew up playing 1st edition, these WERE the monsters and beings that made PCs quake in fear. 

Many of those 1st ed. images set the tone because they were some of the first. Have they been improved on over time? I would say, for the most part, yes.

But, I can also vividly remember the first picture of Demogorgan. While I think the BoVD art for him (them?) is better in terms of quality and style, I still fondly remember that first picture I saw.

Anyway, I like the new balor but dislike the new mari. I do like the 3rd party cover rendition posted by Gez very much.

--M


----------



## Shemeska (May 8, 2003)

Hmm... maybe it's just me, but I think the Marilith in the new WotC picture is kinda hot. But again, maybe it's just me. *cough* 

And besides, no matter the artist, no Tanar'ri is going to even match the sly, manipulative, and darn it all, HOT factor of an Arcanoloth. Speaking of which they better get around to doing a decent picture of one to replace that atrocity of ink in the MMII. *indignant shudder*


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 8, 2003)

I like them both.  

I think part of the problem is that the Marilith is in the same picture with Balor, color, image, scale are against each other.  You don't focus on the Marilith but on the red of Balor.


----------



## The Serge (May 8, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *Who are you talking about?  Name names.  I mentioned preference for the 1e artwork but I also adequately clarified why I preferred it without even hinting at nostalgia -- or does the Hindu religion count as nostalgia?
> 
> If nobody knows who you're talking to, it's kind of hard for them to respond.  Perhaps if you quote people or put down names in your responses instead of saying something to the effect of "all you people" and there will be less confusion.*




Well, for starters, I rarely like to single out individuals since it's not the individual I'm attacking so much as the concept the person's putting forward (I know, to most people it sounds like I'm attacking the person; in my mind, I have no qualms with the person since I don't know them.  I have qualms with ideas presented.  Otherwise, the issue becomes to "personal").

Secondly, I'm addressing a trend that I've seen for almost three years now; this topic just happened to capture my ire.

Anyway, although I think this is fruitless:

*kenjib:  I think the balor is absolutely fantastic but the marilith just ruins the monster completely compared to how cool the 1e edition one was.*

Granted... perhaps this wasn't intended as some kind of comparison between 1ed and 3ed (and even 2ed), but it opened to door.  There's another post that compares the "cool old creature with the Indian garb" etc.  Again, in and of itself, it doesn't drag into the whole nostalgic thing, but it does feed into it.  Frankly, I don't have a problem with this statement (I don't agree with it, though); I would have had an issue with it if I got into what the next one gets into.  As it stands, it _does_ feed into the entire 1ed vs. 3ed debates.  You do get into this thing about "emaciated" and "spikey" images, again inferring that 1ed was a better concept (you use the manticore in this case).

*JeffB*: {mild rant}I really don't understand why WOTC is trying SO HARD artistically to tear the classic images down..the images that were pioneered by D&D....That would be like Lucas re-doing Darth Vader "Yes, I know he USED to be all black, and had a big helmet, but now he's sorta-kinda blue, and has just a small helmet where you can actually see his eyes and face!.. Cool huh?"{end mild rant}

Huh?  I don't see how any "classic images" are being torn down.  Many of these "classic" images are in greater force than ever before because 3ed has tried so hard (to its benefit sometimes, to its detriment other times) to maintain the feel of 1ed.  From the names of creatures, to book titles, 3ed really has regularly nodded to 1ed.  As for comparing this to Star Wars and Vader...  The Marilith is still feminine, still serpentine, still has six arms, still wields a whole bunch of dangerous gear.  This comparison holds no water because it's inaccurate.

*Flexor the Mighty*:  I think the art director for the 3e books must have been a really skinny guy who had a lot of tats and piercings. Since that seems to pretty much sum up the art style to me.

The funny thing is that I often read and laugh at Flexor's comments because they're funny (in a good way).  Sometimes I agree with them.  But Flexor tends to come across as some kind of D&D reactionary.  I don't want to get into specifics because I'd have to go through and dig up the numerous diatribes he's put out there about how 3ed is so far removed from 1ed and I don't have time for that.  Old/original isn't any more meaningful than new/redesigned, but a lot of the comments Flexor's made would seem otherwise.




			
				kenjib said:
			
		

> *Who, other than yourself, has tried to tell other people what they should think?  Give us quotes so those particular people can respond. *



I freely accept responibility for getting on a soapbox.  And I don't apologize for it.  However, this is supposed to be a freeforall rather than a debate with four people.  Furthermore, I felt (clearly I was incorrect) that a general statement would not have been as harsh as singled out quotes; I miscalucated as there was no difference.


----------



## The Serge (May 8, 2003)

MinscFan said:
			
		

> *But, I can see where some might wax nostalgic -- whether they mean to or not. For most of us oldies who grew up playing 1st edition, these WERE the monsters and beings that made PCs quake in fear.*



I too played 1ed.  For about three years before 2ed came out.  I hated pictures in the MM then probably more than I do now.  The descriptions were so much more intense than the images could hope to convey... 



			
				MinscFan said:
			
		

> *But, I can also vividly remember the first picture of Demogorgan. While I think the BoVD art for him (them?) is better in terms of quality and style, I still fondly remember that first picture I saw.*




I despise the BoVD Demogorgon and not so much because of the hyena heads.  I despise it as much as I despise the 1ed image... if not more.  At least with 1ed, he seemed to have some sort of power about him rather lank the appearance of being made out of rubber.

But, not taking the position that one concept was better because it's from a certain edition and because there's been some sort of huge paradigm change.  

Pish.  

Posh.


----------



## Jeph (May 8, 2003)

The balor looks okay. The marrilith is just off. They're supposed to look at least _somewhat_ human.


----------



## Aeolius (May 8, 2003)

The 1e Mm spoiled me. I expect all mariliths to be buxom supermodels on the top and lithe serpents below. Granted, 3e also redefined the medusa, which also had a more human torso in 1e. If it were up to me, harpies would also have beauteous human-like upper torsos.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 8, 2003)

Okay, must be time to chime in here.  There are two ways to look at this picture.  

The first way is to say "Does this stay true to it's 1E counterparts, is this a true and good re-interpretation of the horrors I lived so dearly in 1E?"  If I ask myself that question, the answer I get is "The Balor comes close, the Marilith was a good try that failed badly"

The second is to say "Are these creatures well-rendered in and of themselves?"  And, that's where I'm going to put the meat of this post, because as an artist I feel that to do any illustration justice you have to ask this question seperately of the first.

Now, I try to keep in mind (because I suffer from it as well) that artists have good days and bad days.  Even the best artists put out crap, and the worst put out nice pieces on some days.  Deadlines don't distinguish between pics you're proud of, and pics you wish you could just re-start, sadly.  That being said, these are my impressions of the Balor and Marilith...

BALOR:  From the neck up this guy looks pretty good.  Well-rendered, good anatomy, very good use of a single color-family without losing it all in similar shades that just look flat.  Nicely done there.  The wings are good too, they look like they should, and are about the right size.  The loincloth..  I personally would have opted for a bronze-ish hanging armor-esque piece that added some decoration to the issue of a Balor's clothing choices as well as fitting into the brimstone and hellfire motiff of a Balor, and helped protect his infernal naughty-bits to boot. .  The tattered cloth thing really was a mistake, I feel.  And I swear if I see one more lightning-shaped sword I'll retch. 
The head...  had a good start.  It's shape is good, it's monstrous and demonic (although if it had been bigger (not the displayed pic, but the size he likely drew it at) he might have been able to give it more horrific facial features, but you can only ask for so much.  It's the horns, the horns..  the horns throw the entire thing off for me, because I can't stop looking at them, and I dislike them.  They look like they sprout from the top of his neck, and they just aren't going to be helpful to him.  In fact, the only thing those horns *are* likely to do is prevent him from having a full range of motion with his head.  He'll likely never be able to gore with them.  That aside, this is a pretty darned good Balor.  I'd have liked to see the whip (I am sure I remember Balor's having firey whips) too.

MARILITH: Where to start, this thing was a nightmare.  From pelvis to collarbone, she's a very shapely lass who'd turn a lot of eyes in sillhouette.  She is, actually, not skinny - that's an illusuon, partially fostered by the fact that her head is too big for her torso (unless she's built on the model of a 10 year old girl).  The choice of which weapon is in which hand appears to have been given no thought whatsoever on our right side, because those weapons are in the wrong hands.  Spear-scimitar-katar would be logical (spear in top hand, it needs room to maneuver, scimitar in middle hand, where it threatens the most, and katar in bottom hand, where it needs the least amount of movement to be effective).  On our left, the worst I can say is that that is the stupidest flail-design I've seen lately.   But at least she's holding her weapons in some logical order on that side. 
Her head..  is just silly.  There's obviously a *strong* push (perhaps from the AD?) to extend her snakelike resemblance up to her head, which I feel is a mistake.  Yes, overall this is just a very impressive 6-armed Yuan-Ti woman and doesn't say Marlith to me at all, and I think it's because of the spreading snake-ness.  From head to tail-tip she's entirely purple.  And while I adore purple, it's too monochromatic (body-wide) here, where the Balor's use of a single color-family (red) worked for him.  I have to squint very hard to even notice she HAS hair, or a nose.  But, I think where the artist really droppe the ball on his foot was the snake tail.  Not I can say all I want about 3E art being too cavalier about itself, and not trying hard enough to maintain it's own internal quality consistency, but many of the snake-like tails I've seen in 3E art have been excellent.  This one, is poor.  It's technique is poor, it's rendering is poor.  I have the suspicion that if the artist were here, he'd tell us he didn't like that tail.    If this is Sam Wood's work, then I think he must have either been having a bad art day when he did the tail, or was just bored of the pic by then.  To really see the problems with it, you have to see the outline of it, not the texture and color.  Visually reduce it down to just an outline, and it's really little more than an inconsistant, blobby tendril.  The attempt to do it right was made, but not maintained throughout, and by the time it had been finished, you can see that it'd been lost.  Somewhere in the initial sketch stages, I'll bet you that was a fairly alright snake tail.
And, lastly...  what in god's name happened to that spear?!?!?    It looks like it's been run over by a few semi-trucks. hehe

It's good work, it's just not excellent work because of some glaring problems that keep me from appreciating the rest of it.  And I think the marilith completely lost the "idea and feeling" of what a marlith is.


----------



## Gothmog (May 8, 2003)

Just a couple of comments:

* Yeah, the Demogorgon from the BoVD REALLY stinks.  The original MM Demogorgon looked weird and alien, but somehow still imposing.  The new one just looks, well...all droopy, rubbery, and lame.

* As for the dungeon-punk look, I don't like it and never have.  Its just not practical gear from an adventurer's point of view.  If I ran into a sorcerer with piercings all over, first thing I would do is yank several out- voila!  No more spellcasting (just try making a Concentration check with a piercing ripped out).  Also, the spiky armor is a big liability.  A smart opponent would stike at the end of the spike on someone's helmet or shoulderplate.  The torque from striking at the end of a fulcrum would dislocate a shoulder or snap a neck- and no more adventurer.  Yeah, I know D&D isn't supposed to be realistic, but the some of the gear I have seen drawn is ridiculous.  Historical armor and weapons looked the way they did because they were the most effective with that design.

Ok, mild rant over.


----------



## kenjib (May 8, 2003)

Thanks for the clarification Serge!  It is much more clear what you are referring to now.  As regards what you addressed to me...



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *
> kenjib:  I think the balor is absolutely fantastic but the marilith just ruins the monster completely compared to how cool the 1e edition one was.
> 
> Granted... perhaps this wasn't intended as some kind of comparison between 1ed and 3ed (and even 2ed), but it opened to door.  There's another post that compares the "cool old creature with the Indian garb" etc.  Again, in and of itself, it doesn't drag into the whole nostalgic thing, but it does feed into it.*




If you keep the statements in context, they are referring to this one, single monster and a comparison of why I like the old one better with several concrete reasons why -- the tension between sensuality and repulsion and the invocation of apocolyptic Hindu imagery both present in the old one and not in the new one.  I'm not feeding into anything unless you define "feeding into" as liking a single thing in1e better than in 3e.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *
> Frankly, I don't have a problem with this statement (I don't agree with it, though); I would have had an issue with it if I got into what the next one gets into.  As it stands, it does feed into the entire 1ed vs. 3ed debates.*




I'm unclear as to what your purpose is in regards to bringing up this example.  You seem to imply that I'm responsible for things other people say after me.  I don't understand why.  I suspect that your "feeding into" argument is simply a way to misattribute what other people have said to myself.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *
> You do get into this thing about "emaciated" and "spikey" images, again inferring that 1ed was a better concept (you use the manticore in this case).
> *




Okay, I see your point here.  However, if you look back at the context of that comment it was said for a very specific reason.  Here is the quote:



> Originally posted by Olive:  you mean it was yet another half human/half animal creature?
> 
> My reponse:  Yeah, I thought of that. With what they've done to creatures like the manticore though, there are far fewer straight half animal creatures now than there are spikey emaciated ones. You've got a great point though.




The context of this reference is in regard to the number of half human/half animal creatures in D&D -- not the quality of the work.  There is no judgement in this statement regarding the manticore other than what you read into it yourself.

Anyways, hopefully I've made my point more clear now and alleviated some of your concerns.


----------



## The Serge (May 8, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *Thanks for the clarification Serge!  It is much more clear what you are referring to now. *




You're welcome.  And thank you for asking.



			
				kenjib said:
			
		

> *If you keep the statements in context, they are referring to this one, single monster and a comparison of why I like the old one better with several concrete reasons why -- the tension between sensuality and repulsion and the invocation of apocolyptic Hindu imagery both present in the old one and not in the new one.  I'm not feeding into anything unless you define "feeding into" as liking a single thing in1e better than in 3e.*



Right.  I was trying to make it clear that I didn't think _your_ comment was part of that whole "1ed is God" complex.  The comment was a reference to one image and you drew a parallel between the two images.  However, I do think that because you brought up the 1ed image, it sort of opened up the door for that debate to rear its head.

I'm not suggesting that you're to be held accountable for anything.  I'm just pointing it out.

As far as your comments about the Hindu thing (and I'm getting off the 1ed/3ed topic for a moment), I think that getting rid of or at least reducing that imagery is a good move.  I think this because Mariliths are Chaotic evil.  I don't see them as having any sort of commitment to any one culture.  It is clear that Gygax (or whoever can be credited with the D&D concept of the Type V Demon) was greatly influenced by the image of Kali or the destroyer aspect of Shiva (or even one of those old Sinbad movies), but I've never thought that Mariliths would adhere to any cultural atmosphere.  As to your tension/repulsion comments, I generally agree with your assessment... although not necessarily for the same reasons.

Anyway...



			
				kenjib said:
			
		

> *I'm unclear as to what your purpose is in regards to bringing up this example.  You seem to imply that I'm responsible for things other people say after me.  I don't understand why.  I suspect that your "feeding into" argument is simply a way to misattribute what other people have said to myself.*



As I said above, I wasn't clear in my comments.  You aren't responsible.  The comment did just sort of set a 1ed vs. 3ed tone, but that was not your intent.  Sorry about how I communicated that.

As far as the whole anthropomorphic monster discussion, I tend to agree with the attitude that some of the images in 3ed have taken liberties with the "classic" representations of various monsters.  When I say "classical" I mean myth, not D&D.  However, I like the departures largely because they reinforce two attitudes I agree with:

1.  The beings of myth resemble human beings and the monster they're crossed with rather than being a clear dual monster.  It's sort of like the mermaid and the manatee; to the sailor spying from the distance, he thought he saw a gorgeous woman from an rather large shapeless sea-faring mammal related to elephants (I think that's what they're related to...).  But, these are just resemblances.  It's like the rhino, elephant, or brontosaurus.  Totally different creatures with similar physiologies to the casual observer.

2.  The new images capture an "otherworldiness" that I don't think was every really captured by trying to create these monsters strictly as human/beast melds.  Adding spikes, giving them haggard human appearances, frizzy hair, strange eyes, whathaveyou capture this otherworldliness well.  There were some images like this in 1ed as well as 2ed and 3ed and I've always liked it.

Anyway, thanks for responding.


----------



## kenjib (May 8, 2003)

Good points The Serge.


----------



## Gez (May 8, 2003)

The Serge said:
			
		

> *Compare the current image to the current description and leave it at that.*




I don't know if they will get changed in the revision, but here are the current description of the balor and marilith:

"A balor is a repulsive, towering humanoid (about 12 feet tall) with dark red skin and massive, clawed hands. Its huge wings can propel it trough the air with unnatural speed, and its body is often wrapped in lurid flames."

From that description, the pic is OK, however the red isn't dark enough IMHO. (And I still don't like his horns, but there's nothing in the desc about horns or lack thereof, just that they're repulsive and towering.)

"Mariliths appear as giant snakes from the waist down, with green, scaly coils, and attractive female humanoids above the waist. Besides their half-snake bodies, mariliths are distinguished by their six arms, each one holding some exotic weapon and sporting many bangles and jewels. Mariliths stand about 7 feet tall and measure about 20 feet from head to tip of tail."

Green scaly coil ? She's purple. Attractive female humanoid ? Only if you're into underage Roswell aliens (except that Roswell aliens are grey, not purple). All that IMHO off course.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 8, 2003)

Some thing people seem to forget is that EVERY artist has thier own style. It is nearly impossible to make something look exactly like another artist's without just borrowing thier style, and I hate seeing that. I love when things are adapted to the artist's particular style. It leads to different interpretations of things, and allows a wide view. Instead of a creature having to always look like one thing, its nice to see variety in appearance.
I'm tempted to just use the Marilith description to draw one in my own style...it will probably look completely different from any other interpretation because that's simple what it is...an interpretation. It kind of gets to me to see people argue that something is horrible just because it doesn't "look like its supposed to". *shrug* Just had to rant, thank you for ignoring me.


----------



## Pants (May 8, 2003)

Hmm, I think that the color of the Marilith is one of the that I don't like the picture that much.  It's a pinkish purple and not much else, kinda boring and not very aesthetically pleasing IMO.
And besides, as Gez pointed out, unless the Marilith's description is changed in 3.5, they are supposed to be beautiful from the waist up.  That doesn't look too beautiful to me.  

Wolv0rine:
Balors have usually been described as having 'lightning bolt shaped swords.'  Just thought I'd point that out


----------



## The Serge (May 8, 2003)

I've been waiting for someone to actually draw a Balor _holding_ a bolt of lightning.  That's how I describe them in my short-stories and in game sessions.  Now that would look cool if drawn properly.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 8, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> *HmWolv0rine:
> Balors have usually been described as having 'lightning bolt shaped swords.'  Just thought I'd point that out  *




*laughs*  I go on for a few pages of carefully worded art critique, and this is my response.    I know, I know, it's in there..  but it's silly!  They look ridiculous every time, it's just not possible IMHO to depict a lightning-shaped sword that doesn't look stupid.


----------



## Pants (May 9, 2003)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> *
> 
> *laughs*  I go on for a few pages of carefully worded art critique, and this is my response.    I know, I know, it's in there..  but it's silly!  They look ridiculous every time, it's just not possible IMHO to depict a lightning-shaped sword that doesn't look stupid.  *



I just like to pick at nits


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 9, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> *
> I just like to pick at nits  *




Oh I grok it, I hate them lil nits, myself.


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (May 9, 2003)

Balors don't wear loincloths

Mariliths don't have purple scaly heads


and further more


Demogorgon does not have spindly legs or wolven heads

Orcus does NOT have a six-pack


And while I'm at it, what up with the Maelephant? It looks to me like Baxa's submission was rejected by the art director, and he just haphazardly stuck an elephant head on it and sent it back...


----------



## s/LaSH (May 9, 2003)

My points:

I like the idea that the artist is getting at. As a demonic creature, the marilith looks cool, and I see no reason not to use the idea expressed therein.

I think the artist screwed up with a couple of things - the head is too big, the spear is held really weird, humanoid features often include a _nose_.

I think the 'old' version is valid too.

I was thinking about this last night so I decided to draw a somewhat more 'traditional' marilith. I'm only going to link to it from here because it's distinctly non-Grandmotherly (that is, she doesn't have any strategically placed swords). I think it hits all the 'nostalgia' bases, and presents the demon with the right attitude, while giving it a bit of a retro makeover. I'll colour it later if I can find the time (and maybe the software; I have an idea I'd like to try out).

If you have the fortitude, then, try this: http://dungeondamage.keenspace.com/images/Marilith.jpg (Moderators, if this is too risque even for a link I'll understand if it gets taken down. Kiddies, get parental permission before clicking.)

Thoughts?

I might draw a more 'technically apt' version of the bigheaded marilith if I can find the time, just to see if people like it 'done right'. Sort of a horrific counterpart to the attractive version. (And has anyone else noticed that you can see knees in the bigheaded marilith's snake tail? The legs are quite clearly defined down to the ankles; it's like a picture of a woman in a marilith suit.)


----------



## Demogorgon (May 9, 2003)

BigFreekinGoblinoid said:
			
		

> *
> Demogorgon does not have spindly legs or wolven heads
> 
> *




Word to your mutha, be-atch!


----------



## Gothmog (May 9, 2003)

Yep s/LaSH, I like your version a lot better than the one on the WoTC website.  She does look alien, but the big head still doesn't seem quite right to me somehow.

Unfortunately, I am a crappy artist, and I have an image in my head of a marilith that would be SOOOO cool to see depicted.  I simply don't have the talent to render it.  Imagine this:

A long serpentine body coiled on top of a mound of skulls, some fresh, others stripped to the bone by abyssal scavengers.  Atop the sinewy serpent's trunk is the upper body of a woman, with six arms, each holding an implement of death.  Her face is framed in a mass of tangled hair, and her face would be beautiful if it were not contorted into an expression of hatred and murderous rage.  Her lips pulled back in a feral sneer, bearing sharpened teeth, and to look into her eyes is to tempt madness and death.

Thats a marilith.


----------



## kenjib (May 9, 2003)

I really like it s/LaSH.  You've got a lot of talent.


----------



## Scarbonac (May 9, 2003)

Not bad, not bad at all, s/LaSH. I definitely wouldn't mind seeing it colored. The only qualms  I really have about it are: 


1) the odd way her top right arm and middle right arm cross; I might have drawn it with the top right arm in the position held by the middle arm and vice versa. I'd  probably have switched the weapons in those hands, too, now that I think about it;


2) I can't for the life of me make out what the weapon in her top left hand is supposed to be -- I'd have tried to show it in more of a three-quarters view;


3) w/o color, it looks, well, a bit _light_; I wouldn't mind seeing a more rendered B&W version with shadows and visual textures to give the piece more weight. -- but then, I'm a sucker for strong B&W graphic illustration techniques.


----------



## Gez (May 9, 2003)

s/LaSH said:
			
		

> *Kiddies, get parental permission before clicking.*




You know, boobies are made specifically for little kiddies.

And by the way, your pic is nice, but her boobies are placed too high. There's the distance of one hand between the clavicle and the breast.

They are not Mariliths, but they looks rather like them, the Naga  from Heroes of Might & Magic:


----------



## reiella (May 9, 2003)

The Balor isn't too memorable for me.

The Marilith I like.  The 2e Marilith and 2e Yuan-Ti looked similiar as well.  I like the variety of weapons shown (one weapon with reach, and 5 without is mean ).  I like the more purple/white color pattern (as it does help diffierenate it from the artwork of the other Snake-critters ).  The thing that irks me right now is the hair, and that's probably just from the image quality, it looks soooo greasy, that or exposed brain.

Is it just me though, or have just always wrongly assumed that Marilith's were about the same size as Balor?  Might have been the 2e art that set that falsehood in my mind (Ah the pic Gez shows agrees a bit, that's a giant Marilith, or well, a Giant Evil Snake Lady ).

And since someone brought up Demogorgon.

http://www.interplay.com/bg2throne/images/demowall.jpg

The best picture I've seen of Demogorgon yet .  Although I have to say.  The Demogorgon in BoVD is actually the first one to freaking abide by the original text description, to which I give alot of credit (although I still perfer the two headed mandrill to the two headed hyena).


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 9, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't know if they will get changed in the revision, but here are the current description of the balor and marilith:
> 
> ...




Do these artists even read the descriptions before they draw?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 9, 2003)

reiella said:
			
		

> *
> And since someone brought up Demogorgon.
> 
> http://www.interplay.com/bg2throne/images/demowall.jpg
> ...




In the MM1 Demongorgon is listed as having the heads of Hyenas?   I'm not so sure about that.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 9, 2003)

I dunno about that Demogorgon pic, myself.  He looks like a mellow drunk guy (disposition-wise), there's no evil to him, visually.  And those heads look like lion heads wearing baboon masks. 
And no, there was no mention of hyenas at all in demogorgon's 1E entry, I'm entirely sure of it.


----------



## s/LaSH (May 10, 2003)

Scarbonac said:
			
		

> *Not bad, not bad at all, s/LaSH. I definitely wouldn't mind seeing it colored. The only qualms  I really have about it are:
> *




Coloured version is on the way. It'll take me a few days, though.



> *2) I can't for the life of me make out what the weapon in her top left hand is supposed to be -- I'd have tried to show it in more of a three-quarters view;*




Just a big, curvy knife...



> *3) w/o color, it looks, well, a bit light; I wouldn't mind seeing a more rendered B&W version with shadows and visual textures to give the piece more weight. -- but then, I'm a sucker for strong B&W graphic illustration techniques. *




That's how it seemed to me too. I normally work for computer colour, and my own colouring methods don't like grayscale-rendered pieces too much. I'll be using a heavy hybrid style when I colour it (the mockups I did looked promising), which should give it a lot more depth.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *You know, boobies are made specifically for little kiddies.
> 
> And by the way, your pic is nice, but her boobies are placed too high. There's the distance of one hand between the clavicle and the breast.*




True, and true. Although there's a little bit of displacement due to her having a triple helping of pectoral muscles, and she's leaning back slightly, thus making my error not so noticable. I'll try to use shadows to make it even less obvious when I colour.


Hm, it looks like nobody hates it... maybe next week I can start a petition to get WotC to use my work instead of their highly-paid, experienced artists... heheheh.


----------



## Klaus (May 10, 2003)

I have my own images for devils and demons (which I'll have to explain some day in a Dragon's Breath column) but suffice to say that I see Balors like Darkness (Tim Curry) in the Legend movie, to have them be really different from Pit Fiends.

As for Mariliths, I like the 1e2e versions, as can be seen from my Demons & Devils wallpaper (Marilith on the left, Glabrezu on center, Nalfeshnee on right), here .


----------



## Arken (May 10, 2003)

I like them both. I say since they're supposed to embody pure chaotic evil I don't mind if all the pictures of them are variations on a theme, beings that powerful shou;d be able to somewhat shape what they look like even if they have to keep within certain parameters (e.g. a female torso on a snakes body)

The more different interpretations I'm given in art the the greater my options in using the image to describe a particular individual Maralith. I wouldn't expect all maraliths to look the same. Hence this one is fine even if it doesn't embody the exact look of ones previous.


----------

