# Demogorgon: Lame or Awesome?



## JoeGKushner (Feb 13, 2009)

Over at RPG.net, there is some debate about the wisdom of putting Demogorgon on the cover.

What do the folks at old En World think?

Is Demogorgon a sign that WoTC has it right and he's aweosme or is his two headed baboon nature working against him and he's lame?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 13, 2009)

Not only is Demogorgon awesome, but anyone who thinks otherwise is having BadWrongFun and should put their books down and go take up knitting. 

Okay, that's a bit of an exageration, obviously, but I think Demogorgon is one of the coolest "mega-fiends" the game has ever had, second only to Anthraxus.

Certainly cooler than Orcus.


----------



## Stoat (Feb 13, 2009)

Aameul = Lame 
Hethradiah = Awesome

That's why it hates each other.


----------



## darjr (Feb 13, 2009)

Demogorgan is awesome.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 13, 2009)

Plus he will probably have two sets of actions in 4E for extra cool effect.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 13, 2009)

The picture of Demogorgon is quite lame.


----------



## Woas (Feb 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The picture of Demogorgon is quite lame.




This sums up my feelings on Demogorgon. Being that Demogorgon is considered the definition of ultimate-evil, trying to describe him to someone and having them laugh their head off at the description really doesn't give Demogorgon much awesomeness.

"Well, this ultimate evil being that rules parts of the freaking Abyss! He's got... two baboon monkey faces and some tentacle hand things..." "What's he do? Fling his poo at you? lol what a dweeb"

When I think ultimate evil, I don't think of two headed monkeys. I think of intelligent, smooth talking plotters who utilize psychological warfare and are very patient and will wait years to get some hero to screw themselves over in the long run cause of the massive pleasure s/he gets from the schadenfreude of watching it all unfold.

So my vote is for lame.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 13, 2009)

Thumbs up.


----------



## Oni (Feb 13, 2009)

Demogorgon = awesome

Though the depiction on the cover in question is not my favorite.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 13, 2009)

Woas said:


> When I think ultimate evil, I don't think of two headed monkeys. I think of intelligent, smooth talking plotters who utilize psychological warfare and are very patient and will wait years to get some hero to screw themselves over in the long run cause of the massive pleasure s/he gets from the schadenfreude of watching it all unfold.
> 
> So my vote is for lame.




Eh, I don't think your ultimate evil image really jives with chaotic evil or the themes of most demons. I think incongruous bestial animal features go well with a primal degenerate destructive malevolent force. Demogorgon fits well in a concept of Chaotic Evil for me.

A devil is classically closer to your image of evil smooth talkers but they still have bat and goat animal features, neither of which really summons up intelligence or smooth talking outside of the traditional image of devils as such.


----------



## Minigiant (Feb 13, 2009)

The picture of ultimate and pure chaotic evil.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon = awesome

I even like the pic on the 4E MM2!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 14, 2009)

Holy Bovine said:


> I even like the pic on the 4E MM2!




You're not alone; I do, too. I don't think people realize just how brutal and dangerous baboons can be.

And BTW, apropos of nothing, I'd really like to see a thread that consisted of nothing but you--Holy Bovine--and Keith Baker--"Hellcow"--in an extended debate. But then, I'm easily amused that way.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon is awesome. However, the picture that they are using is, imo, lame.   They should have used the one from Dragon (or was it Dungeon) from a few months back.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon is not even close to being the ultimate chaotic evil AFAIK. Pale Night could kick his ass


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 14, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Not only is Demogorgon awesome, but anyone who thinks otherwise is having BadWrongFun and should put their books down and go take up knitting.
> 
> Okay, that's a bit of an exageration, obviously, but I think Demogorgon is one of the coolest "mega-fiends" the game has ever had, second only to Anthraxus.
> 
> Certainly cooler than Orcus.




Get ready to burn me for heresy, but the most awesome picture of Demogorgon ever was the art order screwup in the BoVD that gave him hyena heads. That picture rocked in so many ways, and it removed the mild 'on a basic level that's kinda silly' twin mandril heads he otherwise has.

And Mydianchlarus was cooler than Anthraxus if we get into the 'loths. But perhaps Rip's story about the former gives him an edge in my mind. Daru Ib Shamiq was cooler than both of them though.


----------



## Oni (Feb 14, 2009)

So....longnecked Demogorgon or shortnecked Demogorgon?



I prefer the longnecked variety myself.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Feb 14, 2009)

Agreed that Demogorgon is awesome, but the picture on the cover of the MMII isn't very good. Andrew Hou's rendition from the cover of Dragon Magazine was superior:


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 14, 2009)

Shemeska: I like a lot of what Planescape did. But considering that I'm a firm believer in the notion that Planescape _woefully_ mishandled the fiends (even if it was partly not the writers' fault), and that _no_ fiend original to Planescape can hold a candle to those who came before (or many who came since, for that matter), I do not think this is a discussion in which you wish to engage me.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 14, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Shemeska: I like a lot of what Planescape did. But considering that I'm a firm believer in the notion that Planescape _woefully_ mishandled the fiends (even if it was partly not the writers' fault), and that _no_ fiend original to Planescape can hold a candle to those who came before (or many who came since, for that matter), I do not think this is a discussion in which you wish to engage me.




Oh, I'd take that nerd fight anytime. Anytime. Especially with shots. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Pale Night.
Mydianchlarus.
Bel.
Levistus.
Xenghara.
Daru Ib Shamiq.
Etc.

So much awesomeness. But like a bag of holding in a portable hole, this is an argument capable of forming astral rifts that will have to wait for another time, or another thread, or something.


----------



## Starsunder (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon is completely awesome, yes. Cant wait to see his stats. 

Anthraxus is my favorite fiend, and I would love to see him stated in 4th Ed.


----------



## Minigiant (Feb 14, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Demogorgon is not even close to being the ultimate chaotic evil AFAIK. Pale Night could kick his ass




Eeew Pale Night.


The real problem with the MM2 pic is that it's too close up to his head and to one side. You can't see his lower half well. He looks too much like a regular magical beast at first glance.


----------



## op1983 (Feb 14, 2009)

He reminds me of a platypus. Just a bunch of parts thrown together haphazardly.


----------



## crash_beedo (Feb 14, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Over at RPG.net, there is some debate about the wisdom of putting Demogorgon on the cover.
> 
> What do the folks at old En World think?
> 
> Is Demogorgon a sign that WoTC has it right and he's aweosme or is his two headed baboon nature working against him and he's lame?




WOTC has it right.  Demogorgon is a better poster monster for the new Abyssal cosmology than Orcus.  Usurping the Raven Queen's dominion and gaining power over all undead?  Lame.  Where's the mindless destruction, the thirst for total entropy and returning the world to it's primordial state?

Two-tentacled Double-headed Baboon rage is where it's at.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 14, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> Pale Night.



 Eh. Never found her appealing. I much prefer the more recently created obyriths, such as Obox-ob (some of the best material to come out of a great book), even if she was added to that group after the fact.



> Mydianchlarus.



 A pale and feeble usurper. Anthraxus is far cooler and more interesting.



> Bel.



 Meh. Just a pit fiend who made good. He's not a _bad_ character by any means, but he's not especially appealing.



> Levistus.



 Again, by no means a _bad_ character, but I'd rather have kept Geryon, to be honest.



> Xenghara.



 I'll cop to ignorance on this one.



> Daru Ib Shamiq.



 You're kidding, right?  The entire notion of some great power being manipulated to grant all fiends across the multiverse their teleportation powers was one of the _silliest_ aspects of Planescape's flawed conception of the fiends. The sooner that entire element, and everything associated with it, are forgotten, the better.



> this is an argument capable of forming astral rifts that will have to wait for another time, or another thread, or something.




Yeah, it probably should, at that.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 14, 2009)

Haha Daru Ib Shaqim. Wow was that a WTF of an adventure. I mean beyond the improbability of sneaking into Dis of all places in the multiverse, trusting in the beneficence of a fiend not to crash land into the styx? As I said, WTF?!


----------



## doppelganger (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon is far from lame. The image may not be the best, but Demogorgon on the cover and the promise of a good write-up of it (them?) and associated demon and mortal servants has me eagerly awaiting the arrival of the book. Old school superbad beasties for the win!


----------



## Klaus (Feb 14, 2009)

demiurge1138 said:


> Agreed that Demogorgon is awesome, but the picture on the cover of the MMII isn't very good. Andrew Hou's rendition from the cover of Dragon Magazine was superior:



Demogorgon, as shown by this picture, is indeed awesome.

The MM2 cover, otoh, not so much.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 14, 2009)

doppelganger said:


> The image may not be the best, but Demogorgon on the cover and the promise of a good write-up of it (them?) and associated demon and mortal servants has me eagerly awaiting the arrival of the book.




They've got some seriously big shoes to fill given FC:I's material on Demogorgon published not too long ago. Fairly or not, the 4e material will be judged with that comparison in mind I think. Will be interesting to see how much they attempt to remake Demogorgon for 4e, or if all cows being sacred in 4e if some sacred cows are more sacred than others. We'll see.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2009)

Yeah, I don't like that picture. The Dragon Magazine cover is friggin' badass, and this:






creeps me the hell out every time I look at it. 

This statue:






...also fittingly of a very eerie beast.

This image is a little bit S&S, but the detail and the screeching can be heard:






The cover image, for me, is too generic and cartoony. He's some monster, I guess, but I don't get the impression that he's horrible ancient madness and destruction incarnate.


----------



## ronin (Feb 14, 2009)

demiurge1138 said:


> Agreed that Demogorgon is awesome, but the picture on the cover of the MMII isn't very good. Andrew Hou's rendition from the cover of Dragon Magazine was superior:




Demogorgon is and always has been awesome. The cover above is by far the best image I've seen of him. He always been my favorite demon lord, all others pale in comparison!


----------



## arscott (Feb 14, 2009)

My thoughts:

1) Demogorgon is great--he's visually unique and a great exemplar of the destructive nature of Demons in 4e.

2) That MM2 picture is really, really bad.  Those mandrill heads should be much more feral looking and much less orange.  As is, he manages to look like a cartoon character.

3) I would pay money to see Mouse and Shemmie debate about fiends.


----------



## Wrathamon (Feb 14, 2009)

LOVE ME SOME DEMOGORGON

I tried to find the picture from the old Dungeons & Dragons coloring book... but no luck.











the Hyena version... just wrong


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 14, 2009)

Ok, I finally took a look at the MM2 cover image, and he looks like the end result of Pale Night's poorly judged one-night-stand with Jackalman from the Thundercats.






The color and the fluff around his head and neck.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 14, 2009)

My vote is for lame.

Of course, I think that Orcus and Grazz't (or however you spell that) are lame too. The traditional demon princes of D&D are just a big collection of lameness. This is a result of the fact that traditional D&D depictions of the Abyss itself are equally lame.

Look at Demogorgan's domain, Abysm. It's a jungle surrounded by a briny sea, that is populated by mortal races like lizardmen, yuan-ti, and troglodites, and the native threats include dinosaurs, dire apes, and demonic monkeys. _What the heck are these tame threats doing in the middle of the Abyss?_ The Abyss is supposed to be a swirling mass of absolute chaos and destruction that is slowly eating up the entire universe. It is the most dangerous region in the entire cosmology, where only the most powerful and epic of heroes dare tread. Yet, traditional descriptions of locals in the Abyss are surprisingly hospitable to lowly Heroic and Paragon tier heroes. I just don't get it. 

It made sense in Planescape, where planar adventures were something you can build an entire 1-20 campaign around. In 4E though, locations like Abysm just don't seem to belong, and old demons like Demogorgon just don't seem to fit.

The thing is, I can easily imagine Demogorgon being a very powerful and malevolent Primal Spirit or Feylord, with Abysm being his domain in the Feywild. Thanatos actually makes more sense as a particularly dark and dangerous realm of the Shadowfell, with Orcus as its Dark Lord. But, I just don't thunk those two work as demons.

When I think of a demon, what comes to mind is something like Ragu O Ragula, from the Wild ARMs series of videogames. This is a pretty good video of it in action:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krAZelLnHiM"]Ragu O Ragula[/ame]


----------



## demiurge1138 (Feb 14, 2009)

Wrathamon said:


> LOVE ME SOME DEMOGORGON
> 
> I tried to find the picture from the old Dungeons & Dragons coloring book... but no luck.
> *snip*



Ooh. Where'd you get that one of Demogorgon eating a vrock? I don't recognize it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 14, 2009)

arscott said:


> 3) I would pay money to see Mouse and Shemmie debate about fiends.




Nah, save your money. Ultimately, it would just come down to two geeks yelling "No, my favorites are cooler!" "No, _my_ favorites are cooler!" 

I mean, it's not like I can factually _prove_ he's wrong, even though he is.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 14, 2009)

Yeah, I think that new MM2 pic is pretty lame. Demogorgon being bright orange makes him look like he's an Abyssal plush toy. Sorry, but the older images posted here have a much more "Demon Lord" feel to them.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Feb 14, 2009)

I also say that Demogorgon, along with most of the traditional D&D archfiends, is pretty lame. The entire list is a giant mass of lameness.

Demogorgon in particular suffers horribly from the way it is just a random collection of parts from different animals. Baboon heads aside, the reptile legs and tentacle arms are just weird. This is particularly true since "looks like a big mutant animal" doesn't even really work well as a concept for a demon.


----------



## Elphilm (Feb 14, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Demogorgon, as shown by this picture, is indeed awesome.
> 
> The MM2 cover, otoh, not so much.



Hey Klaus, how about you try your hand at drawing him?


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon > Orcus

I've never fully gotten the Orcus fetish and have always preferred Demogorgon. I agree that the new picture is mediocre at best...it is too...Wild Kingdom, like the plaid-wearing safari version of a demon prince.


----------



## Starsunder (Feb 14, 2009)

Ari, have you seen, or did you have anything to do with, the Demogorgon stat block? Not asking for any specifics if you have or did, just curious.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 14, 2009)

The Andrew Hou's rendition is indeed awesome, as well as the one with him eating the Vrock.  These images just seem... I don't know..... more serious. 

The MM2 images is a bit cartoony, but admittedly, it matches the style of the previous books.

The Andrew Hou image, while superior, would look odd on the bookshelf next to the other 4e books.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 14, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> The Andrew Hou image, while superior, would look odd on the bookshelf next to the other 4e books.




Since 3e's artwork got picked on by some as being Dungeonpunk*, we now need a name to slap on all 4e artwork in order to pick on it. 

*admittedly, I really liked the so-called Dungeonpunk style


----------



## chaotix42 (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon is pure awesome.

I like the MM2 cover, for what it's worth. It reminds me of a lot of the art Paizo used in their APs - Ben Wootten and Warren Mahy mostly. It's definitely... bright! Matches a lot of the other 4e art, which is very colorful.


----------



## Woas (Feb 14, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Eh, I don't think your ultimate evil image really jives with chaotic evil or the themes of most demons. I think incongruous bestial animal features go well with a primal degenerate destructive malevolent force. Demogorgon fits well in a concept of Chaotic Evil for me.
> 
> A devil is classically closer to your image of evil smooth talkers but they still have bat and goat animal features, neither of which really summons up intelligence or smooth talking outside of the traditional image of devils as such.




Not so much for me. The ability to sow such convincing lies and be able to confuse people on a mass scale so that they destroy themselves from within and that around them is my idea of chaotic evil. Devil's are lawful so if they have to lie, I picture it more in double negatives and tongue twisters or legalize. Not silver tongued evils whispering such convincing lies and false promises in your ear...

Ce est la vie, I suppose.


----------



## Nai_Calus (Feb 14, 2009)

Now see, the pictures of the thing in this thread are actually cool and 'oh crap that thing is going to eat me'-inspiring. The thing actually comes across as a credible threat instead of something they came up with to shove in MM5 to fill space.

I got a lot of flak in the rpgnet thread for my selective immersion in D&D lore that's led me to not really care about demons and to have the name Demogorgon not even ring a bell like the names Orcus or Graz'zt or Pazuzu or what have you do, and dismissed as being a 'player, not a DM' who wouldn't buy or read MMs anyway. (I am in fact actually getting a 3.5 campaign together right now and in fact am currently reading the MM I bought ages ago, ironically)

Which... To my mind is a perfect example of why it probably isn't a good idea to put that thing, particularly that picture of it, on the cover of it.

If you're the kind of experienced grognard who does in fact read the monster manual for fun who's going to recognize that hey, that's Demogorgon on sight... You were probably going to buy it regardless.

If you're a hardcore constant DM who runs games all the time... You were probably going to buy it regardless.

If you're a new DM who's looking at books to buy who isn't intimately familiar with all the old demons... That weird thing on the cover is a two-headed baboon tentacle thing with all the awesome appeal of the flumph.

Though to be fair, seeing something that silly-looking on the cover, I'd probably look through it to see what the hells that goofy thing is and what other ludicrous stuff they'd put in the book.

Still, though. It does reek to the uninitiated of 'oh gods it's the jobber monster book'. Whether it is or not, and whether or not Demogorgon is a jobber monster or not, is irrelevant - If you don't know what it is, that thing looks freaking silly. If you DO know what it is, it still looks freaking silly.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Feb 14, 2009)

The concept of Demogorgan is very, very cool.  

A being with two heads each vying to be the soul possessor of one body, constantly subtly warring against each other with the brooding premise that should one of the two heads win, Demogorgan would be unstoppable force of destruction all the while projecting an air that the two personalities are in fact one, is awesome.

Then they gave this great idea two baboon heads and tentacled arms.

Sigh.

So much promise.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 14, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> The concept of Demogorgan is very, very cool.
> 
> A being with two heads each vying to be the soul possessor of one body, constantly subtly warring against each other with the brooding premise that should one of the two heads win, Demogorgan would be unstoppable force of destruction all the while projecting an air that the two personalities are in fact one, is awesome.
> 
> ...




Except you've got it backwards.

The Demogorgon of 1E had the baboon heads and tentacle arms. The notion of each head having its own personality, and vying with one another for superiority, is a much later addition. (Late 2E or 3E, I forget which.)

They gave the concept to the image, not the other way around.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 14, 2009)

Methinks that the people saying "throwing random animal parts together isn't very demonic" haven't paid much attention to demonic imagery from real-world occultism, or the average monster from Medieval bestiaries.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon = Awesome!  I think most people use his cult of followers more often than the bad boy himself, but either way he's baadasssss.


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon is prett cool. For the record the long neck version is the way to go.


I do have to say that he's no Juiblex though.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 14, 2009)

Sir Osis of Liver said:


> I do have to say that he's no Jubilex though.




Neither is Jubilex, since it's actually spelled "Juiblex."

And yes, I realize I'm just being pedantic, now.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon always seemed to me to be the result of the Random Demon Features article from old Dragon magazine. Boring and needlessly baroque.

I may find a place for him in my 4e campaign---provided he gets a whole lot of love (and retcon) in Dragon. Until then, Orcus is far more compelling (if only because he's fat and brings a ton of undead to the party.)


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 14, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> You're not alone; I do, too. I don't think people realize just how brutal and dangerous baboons can be.
> 
> And BTW, apropos of nothing, I'd really like to see a thread that consisted of nothing but you--Holy Bovine--and Keith Baker--"Hellcow"--in an extended debate. But then, I'm easily amused that way.












Anyway, the 4e picture isn't horrible, but I vastly prefer Shou's picture as well.


----------



## Elphilm (Feb 14, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Methinks that the people saying "throwing random animal parts together isn't very demonic" haven't paid much attention to demonic imagery from real-world occultism, or the average monster from Medieval bestiaries.



That would be what I was thinking. Perhaps people would prefer something like King Bael?


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Feb 14, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Neither is Jubilex, since it's actually spelled "Juiblex."
> 
> And yes, I realize I'm just being pedantic, now.





I don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Cas Liber (Feb 14, 2009)

Loved Demogorgon as Orcus' foil. At least these guys have inspiring names, and not some mush with lots of Z's and apostrophes. I always hated Graz'zt and Fraz Urb'luu (and Merenzobernezobaran or whatever the drow place was called)

Like the cover as an itneresting interpretation of Demo. I haven't played for 15 years until I just bought 4e so completely missed 3e stuff. I didn't much like the tone of Planescape either.

My biggest praise is that at least the MM2 isn't some shade of brown-grey-green muted tone - all the friggin' 4e books look too similar to me in colour!

Cas


----------



## Phaezen (Feb 14, 2009)

Starsunder said:


> Ari, have you seen, or did you have anything to do with, the Demogorgon stat block? Not asking for any specifics if you have or did, just curious.





More importantly, after that Bane article, did you having anything to do with the fluff for Demogorgon in 4e.  



Spoiler



Quote from Firefly for yes


----------



## TwinBahamut (Feb 14, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Methinks that the people saying "throwing random animal parts together isn't very demonic" haven't paid much attention to demonic imagery from real-world occultism, or the average monster from Medieval bestiaries.



Just because Asmodeus has three heads (one of a man, one of a bull, and one of a ram) and a serpent's tail in the _Lesser Key of Solomon_ doesn't change the fact that it is lame. 

I honestly blame these weird descriptions on the fact that some poor sap had to come up with descriptions for 72 different demons in order to fill out the Ars Goetia, and that isn't even the full list of the beings described within the _Lesser Key of Solomon_...


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Feb 14, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Except you've got it backwards.
> 
> The Demogorgon of 1E had the baboon heads and tentacle arms. The notion of each head having its own personality, and vying with one another for superiority, is a much later addition. (Late 2E or 3E, I forget which.)
> 
> They gave the concept to the image, not the other way around.




Ah.  I own up to that then.

I started playing DnD during the AD&D 2nd Ed days, so that's the only Demogorgon I know.

Props to whoever came up with the backstory to that portrait, that was inspired.


----------



## Elphilm (Feb 14, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> Just because Asmodeus has three heads (one of a man, one of a bull, and one of a ram) and a serpent's tail in the _Lesser Key of Solomon_ doesn't change the fact that it is lame.



Sure, but if you accept the premise that art design that emulates the popular mythology of the medieval period is a desireable goal in a fantasy role-playing game, then the D&D depiction of Demogorgon is quite awesome indeed -- or, at least the image in the AD&D Monster Manual is. To quote James Maliszewski: "I've always found medieval demonic images to be far creepier than modern ones, precisely because they have some atavistic connection to aspects of my cultural memory. Modern demons are just imaginary creatures; they're not _monsters,_ if you catch my meaning."


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 14, 2009)

Hey all! 

Demogorgon is cool, cooler than Orcus and probably one of D&D's most iconic villains/monsters.

Demons always make for a much cooler bad guys simply because visually they were more varied in appearance than say devils, or even daemons.

I hear a lot of people saying otherwise in this thread without suggesting something better...and yes I read Shemeska's list...it was laughable.

...and I agree with Mouseferatu, Anthraxus is much cooler than Mydianchlarus. 

I do wonder who will be on the cover of future Monster Manuals though? I mean Vecna is in Open Grave, Tiamat was in the Draconomicon. Of the great iconic D&D monsters there can't be many left.

I do like the idea that perhaps the third book would have a three headed monster (Cerberus?) and so on. Though with Tiamat out of the picture for Monster Manual 5 I don't see that idea gaining much mileage.

As to the cover of MM2 itself, I like the visual look of Demogorgon, but it does seem as if he's posing for the 'camera' rather than about to lay a smackdown on someone. So for something so threatening, he doesn't appear very threatening. Still a nice cover though...but Demogorgon shouldn't be nice.


----------



## Obergnom (Feb 14, 2009)

hmm, as with Grazzt I just have a hard time grasping what he is about. Are there any iconic Demogorgon adventures, plots or places?

(Orcus is easier to grasp for me, thanks to Necromancer Games Adventures)


----------



## Sammael (Feb 14, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> You're kidding, right?  The entire notion of some great power being manipulated to grant all fiends across the multiverse their teleportation powers was one of the _silliest_ aspects of Planescape's flawed conception of the fiends. The sooner that entire element, and everything associated with it, are forgotten, the better.



I'm a huge fan of Planescape and I have to say that I fully agree with this statement. That particular concept (and the adventure written to support it) is so horribly silly and lame that I wish it had never been made. It even tops _Faction War_ and _Die, Vecna, Die_ for silliness.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 14, 2009)

Elphilm said:


> Hey Klaus, how about you try your hand at drawing him?



Oh, I'll probably do a two-headed tentacled baboon when the time comes to make COunter Collection 4e: Epic 2. And I'll call him Gorgodemon. 

Much like I did the Demonic Prince of Undeath:


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 14, 2009)

Obergnom said:


> hmm, as with Grazzt I just have a hard time grasping what he is about. Are there any iconic Demogorgon adventures, plots or places?
> 
> (Orcus is easier to grasp for me, thanks to Necromancer Games Adventures)




Yes.

In 3.5, towards the end, Savage Tide in Dungeon and the follow up pieces in Dragon.


----------



## Obergnom (Feb 14, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Yes.
> 
> In 3.5, towards the end, Savage Tide in Dungeon and the follow up pieces in Dragon.




uhh... kinda forgot about the savage tide  To me it was more about pirates than Demogorgon... never played it though.


----------



## JeffB (Feb 14, 2009)

I'll go along with the Demogorgon> Orcus thing too- always been my fave named demon though I don't feel any depiction has truly captyured the way I imagine him. I imagine him alot less "colorful" and not completely  baboon -ish as depicted in many recent renderings. Instead I imagine him being alot more slimy, dripping/oozing,festering,mucus-y,deep-sea-ish  and a little more alien or cthulhu mythos-esque. He would be various hideous shades of green,grey,black, & dark mustard.

Thats just me though.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 14, 2009)

Demogorgon as an image is usually silly. His portfolio though is delightfully evil


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2009)

I remember being befuddled by the original image and trying to figure out how he managed _without any hands_. Then eventually I realized that a two-headed baboon with no hands somehow ruling over all demonkind was somehow fitting. I came into the game from Basic D&D, so a lot of the swords-and-sorcery tropes were unfamiliar to me and I was unacquainted with how weird D&D could be on the outside. 

Demogorgon embodies all the proper demon qualities: bestial characteristics, biological improbability, incongruity, and a strange mix of brutishness and unfathomable intelligence. 

I like, too, the idea of these anatomically assorted, Medieval fiends ruling over the conquered realms of ancient, Cthulhoid entities. It's kind of cool to realize that demons themselves, the embodiments of the Abyss's CE nature, are in rebellion against ultimate chaos, that in some respects they are contrarily Lawful.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 14, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I like, too, the idea of these anatomically assorted, Medieval fiends ruling over the conquered realms of ancient, Cthulhoid entities. It's kind of cool to realize that demons themselves, the embodiments of the Abyss's CE nature, are in rebellion against ultimate chaos, that in some respects they are contrarily Lawful.



Very Zelazny-esque.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 14, 2009)

JeffB said:


> I imagine him alot less "colorful" and not completely  baboon -ish as depicted in many recent renderings. Instead I imagine him being alot more slimy, dripping/oozing,festering,mucus-y,deep-sea-ish  and a little more alien or cthulhu mythos-esque. He would be various hideous shades of green,grey,black, & dark mustard.




*grins* That's how I prefer him depicted too, which is probably why I liked the BoVD picture as much as I did.


----------



## glass (Feb 14, 2009)

arscott said:


> I would pay money to see Mouse and Shemmie debate about fiends.



Me too! Well, I wouldn't because working in the Construction industry, I don't know how much longer I'll have a job, but do it anyway!



Nai_Calus said:


> That weird thing on the cover is a two-headed baboon tentacle thing with all the awesome appeal of the flumph.



What, so shed loads? 

Anyway, DG cool, MM2 cover, not so much. As many have said.


glass.


----------



## Elphilm (Feb 14, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> *grins* That's how I prefer him depicted too, which is probably why I liked the BoVD picture as much as I did.



I too prefer Demogorgon serpentine, slimy, and hideous, but the mandrill headed version feels a lot more evocative than yet another hyena demon. The image below hits the right notes for me, and is probably my second favorite picture of Demogorgon after the AD&D depiction:


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 14, 2009)

Starsunder said:


> Ari, have you seen, or did you have anything to do with, the Demogorgon stat block? Not asking for any specifics if you have or did, just curious.




Sorry, somehow missed this question the first time around.

I've seen an early version of the stats (that have likely since changed), as part of a bunch of files I got as background for [PROJECT NAME CENSORED]. But I had nothing to do with writing it in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 14, 2009)

Elphilm said:


> I too prefer Demogorgon serpentine, slimy, and hideous, but the mandrill headed version feels a lot more evocative than yet another hyena demon. The image below hits the right notes for me, and is probably my second favorite picture of Demogorgon after the AD&D depiction:




And I have a new favorite image of demogorgon. Same slimy, emaciated, alien-looking physique as the BoVD picture, but they put back the mandril heads. Very awesome.


----------



## James Jacobs (Feb 14, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Neither is Jubilex, since it's actually spelled "Juiblex."
> 
> And yes, I realize I'm just being pedantic, now.




(speaking of being pedantic) Depends if you're talking about the closed content version in the FC1 or the open version from Tome of Horrors, actually. 

Oh... and Demogorgon > Orcus.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 15, 2009)

James Jacobs said:


> (speaking of being pedantic) Depends if you're talking about the closed content version in the FC1 or the open version from Tome of Horrors, actually.




Well, yes. 

I thought about mentioning that, but I figured that we're probably better off just sticking to "official" sources for this particular discussion.



> Oh... and Demogorgon > Orcus.




Yep.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 15, 2009)

BTW, James, since you're here and since it's somewhat relevant...

Whose _initial_ idea were the Obyrith? I don't mean specifics, I mean the basic concept of using FCI to detail a more alien form of precursor demon? Was that something you and/or Erik came up with and pitched, or was that something Ed asked you to do?

Not that it matters, I'm just curious.


----------



## Taureth (Feb 15, 2009)

_mod edit: we have a rule around here - no real world politics.  Please save yoru political commentary for other boards.  Thanks._

 I once might have agreed ol' Demogor was the very quintessence of D&D evil.  Now, I'm not certain whether those pictures make me want to laugh hysterically, cry or do both.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 15, 2009)

Demogorgon isn't one of my favorites (although there's some interesting potential in the Immortal Set version of him), but D&D's demon lords and archdevils really don't resonate with me that much.  I blame overexposure in the 3.5/Paizo era, in part.

  He's better than an divinized scribal error has any right to be, though , and at least he's not horribly inaccurate like D&D's Asmodeus. 

  The MM2 cover reminds me of Beast Man; I don't have a problem with that, but given who Hasbro's biggest competition is . . .


----------



## Starsunder (Feb 15, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Sorry, somehow missed this question the first time around.
> 
> I've seen an early version of the stats (that have likely since changed), as part of a bunch of files I got as background for [PROJECT NAME CENSORED]. But I had nothing to do with writing it in any way, shape, or form.




Project name censored huh?! Grrrr....lol. 

By the way, since he's been mentioned a few times throughout the thread, im curious as to what level and role you'd place Anthraxus at? And do you think we'll ever see him officially stated in 4th Ed.?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 15, 2009)

Starsunder said:


> Project name censored huh?! Grrrr....lol.








> By the way, since he's been mentioned a few times throughout the thread, im curious as to what level and role you'd place Anthraxus at? And do you think we'll ever see him officially stated in 4th Ed.?




Well, on a purely personal basis--this is just what I'd do, not any sort of "official statement"--I'd probably make him a level 33 or level 34 solo controller. That is, just _barely_ below the level of the weakest gods we've seen, and with powers that are a little more subtle and, well, controllery than what we've seen from Orcus and his ilk so far.

As to the likelihood of seeing him again... As much as I'd dearly love to, and have actually suggested a few different ways of reintroducing him for the 4E mythos and cosmology, so far it doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, if at all.


----------



## Starsunder (Feb 15, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Well, on a purely personal basis--this is just what I'd do, not any sort of "official statement"--I'd probably make him a level 33 or level 34 solo controller. That is, just _barely_ below the level of the weakest gods we've seen, and with powers that are a little more subtle and, well, controllery than what we've seen from Orcus and his ilk so far.
> 
> As to the likelihood of seeing him again... As much as I'd dearly love to, and have actually suggested a few different ways of reintroducing him for the 4E mythos and cosmology, so far it doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, if at all.





Dude, that sucks. Hopefully, someone from WotC has taken your ideas to heart and we'll see him introduced into 4E someday....hope springs eternal, right?

And yes, im officially jealous of your super secret book info...

And while your here (so to speak lol), I wanted to praise you on your Bane article. Really really awesome stuff; if WotC was smart, they'd put you on some more of those articles (with stats next time!!!!).


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 15, 2009)

For some reason I think he means the Planes Below. I mean that would fit.


----------



## Starsunder (Feb 15, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> For some reason I think he means the Planes Below. I mean that would fit.




Methinks that as well.

Of course, we're probably wrong and he's laughing at us from in front of his monitor right now


----------



## Runestar (Feb 15, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> And I have a new favorite image of demogorgon. Same slimy, emaciated, alien-looking physique as the BoVD picture, but they put back the mandril heads. Very awesome.




And the funny thing is that it appeared as a random picture in dungeonscape. The article in question didn't even have anything to do with demogorgon.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 15, 2009)

Elphilm said:


> I too prefer Demogorgon serpentine, slimy, and hideous, but the mandrill headed version feels a lot more evocative than yet another hyena demon. The image below hits the right notes for me, and is probably my second favorite picture of Demogorgon after the AD&D depiction:




To each their own. I don't care for it (yet, it is still, imo, better than the MM2 cover).


----------



## James Jacobs (Feb 15, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> BTW, James, since you're here and since it's somewhat relevant...
> 
> Whose _initial_ idea were the Obyrith? I don't mean specifics, I mean the basic concept of using FCI to detail a more alien form of precursor demon? Was that something you and/or Erik came up with and pitched, or was that something Ed asked you to do?
> 
> Not that it matters, I'm just curious.




I was the primary architect of the obyriths, but I based them very heavily on concepts Erik had already explored in Green Ronin's "Armies of the Abyss" with the qlippoth. I would have actually embraced the qlippoth in FC1 if I were able, since they've got a real-world mythological origin, but that wasn't an option. So instead I decided to turn up the Lovecraft and reinvent the qlippoth as obyriths, and in the end, I actually prefer the obyriths (it all comes down to the Form of Madness trait versus the Fascinate trait between the two for me), but both are pretty much the same concept and can be used interchangeably in a home game, I think.

The loumaras were more solidly of my own invention (although I only used real-world evil spirit myths for the actual individual loumaras, like the dybbuk and the guecubu and the manitou—there was also going to be a horla as well, based on the ghostly monster in Guy de Maupassant's short story of the same name). These were invented to give the demons a For Real race of demonic possessors, and the name was based off of the French word "loumerottes" (which I learned from Ethan Ham's excellent Dragon article from issue #158: "Also Known As... The Orc."), which in that article was listed as an alternate name for a will-o'wisp. I had to fight a little to keep the name "loumara" actually, since some folk at WotC thought the name was too "frilly" for a race of demons... thankfully, they let me keep the name, because it really works quite well.

An early draft of FC1 actually had yet another race of demons; a race of Abyssal constructs built from the cast-off body parts of dead demons and bits of raw Abyssal power. These guys got cut pretty early, alas, before they even had a name, due to space constraints.

Ed and the folk at WotC were actually really REALLY easy to work with on this book; they pretty much let Erik and I write whatever we wanted after giving us only a pretty bare outline of what they thought might be cool for the book. Good times!


----------



## Lancelot (Feb 15, 2009)

Demogorgon > Orcus

Demogorgon's probably my favorite demon lord, on account of three factors: 

1) 1e MM. 200hp? Whoa!

2) Less played out than the other Big Two. Orcus and Graz'zt have appeared in countless modules and supplements each, whereas Demogorgon is really only notable for Savage Tide.

3) Baldur's Gate II ...and not just for the ToB expansion. There's a lost shrine to Demogorgon in the original game, with an old statue... and some inscriptions... and maybe a sacrifice. The beauty is that the statue is immediately recognizable. If it was a statue to Orcus or Graz'zt or Pale Night (yuck) or nearly any other demon lord... then it could be nearly anyone. You'd have to look pretty closely to see Orcus's wand or Graz'zt's six fingered hands. But Demogorgon is instantly recognizable, and creepy.

...but having said all that:

Devils > Demons


----------



## James Jacobs (Feb 15, 2009)

Runestar said:


> And the funny thing is that it appeared as a random picture in dungeonscape. The article in question didn't even have anything to do with demogorgon.




I suspect that, since Jason Bulmahn wrote part of Dungeonscape's art order, he threw in a picture of Demogorgon as a nod to Savage Tide, which was pretty much on all of our minds 24-7 at Paizo at the time. I might have even asked him if he could sneak a Demogorgon into the book, although that was YEARS ago and I can't quite be sure...


----------



## Evilhalfling (Feb 16, 2009)

I'm another big fan of Demogorgon, way back from when I had the coloring book.  This puts me solidly behind the Mandrill-headed version. 
I also loved reading the end of savage tide, and picked up the last three issues just to see how it turned out.  

oh and thanks for the background James, I had wondered where the new demon races came from.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 16, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> Demogorgon > Orcus
> 
> I've never fully gotten the Orcus fetish and have always preferred Demogorgon. I agree that the new picture is mediocre at best...it is too...Wild Kingdom, like the plaid-wearing safari version of a demon prince.



Agreed.  Demogorgon is easily my favorite official "power" (really the only one that makes much of an appearance IMC).  Orcus always struck me as a kinda lame also-ran.  I just don't get the love for Orcus -- actually, I don't get even giving Orcus a second look.

The picture on the MM2 is kinda lame, though.


----------



## Drowbane (Feb 16, 2009)

I dig Demogorgon.  His image might be funny looking on paper, but I don't believe any of us wouldn't piss ourselves if we ran into that in a dark alley. 

Since he has been mentioned, I dig Orcus also.  Not too into Grazzt though.  IMC, Orcus is "twice fallen" (to use Wyrish terminology).  He was once one of the Nine.


----------



## balard (Feb 16, 2009)

Demogorgon > Orcus

Orcus is a loser. Pazuzu, Pale Night and Grazz't are much cooler than he is. And Demogorgon(with long necks) is teh awesome.

And now after this thread I see him chaotically changing forms as he thrashes your party. Like little twig. Than eat your soul. Snapping it in the middle...


----------



## D.Shaffer (Feb 16, 2009)

I like to entertain the idea that Demogorgon, being a primordial being of chaos, doesnt really have a completely set form. Sure, there's a constant over all form of this lanky humanoid with two heads an tentacle arms, but the exact make up changes from moment to moment, melding into new permutations.  So...all those pictures we see of him are what he really looks like, it just depends on when you saw him.  It'd explain why he sometimes had hyena heads and sometimes baboon heads too.


----------



## fletch137 (Feb 17, 2009)

Hunh.  I happen to really like the MM2 covergirl version of Demogorgon.  I won't say it's *better* than any other version I've seen, but it's really nice to see some glimmer of intelligence in his eyes.  On the surface, he's immediately recognizable as something that will eat you alive, but that added level of intelligence makes it all the more frightening.

Plus he has clothes on.


----------



## HazardCatcher (Feb 17, 2009)

This one doesn't have the long necks, but, I think really, it's what a lot of you were looking for, even if you didn't know it yet.




Because Steve Prescott is badass.

BTW I really like the MM2 cover, and think the bright colors make it standout out over the drab MM1 cover.

Even if I minded something looking a little cartoony, which I really don't, I'm  just glad it doesn't look computer generated, which is  terrible for Dungeons&Dragons art.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 17, 2009)

HazardCatcher said:


> This one doesn't have the long necks, but, I think really, it's what a lot of you were looking for, even if you didn't know it yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's nice, I'd just like it more if the "composite elements" of Demogorgon's appearance (mandrill heads, scaly tentacles and dinosaur legs) "bled" or "mixed" into each other (add patches of fur to the legs, add scales to the heads, etc).


----------



## an_idol_mind (Feb 17, 2009)

I like Demogorgon. At the same time, I'm having a really hard time trying to convince my wife that a two-headed baboon with tentacled arms and reptilian feet is cool, so it doesn't look like he'll show up in my games any time soon.

As to the cover of the MMII, it's not the best art I've seen, but I think it's pretty good. That kind of weirdness is a perk of the D&D game, in my opinion, and I support putting it out as a representative of one of the core books.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 17, 2009)

Demogorgon gets thumbs up from me, he's my favorite demon lord, ever since 1e.  I just think the baboon heads and tentacles are genuinely creepy.  As for the MM2 cover, i don't hate it, but this thread has about half a dozen pictures that are better.  Which is a shame. Still, i like the MM2 cover better than the MM1 cover.


----------



## avin (Feb 17, 2009)

Demogorgon > Orcus.

I'm using a (Neil Gaiman's) Sandman approach for the powerful creatures of the Planes. Every culture, religion or race see them in a different way. 

Gnolls probably think them as two headed Hyenas. Maybe for some catfolk Demogorgon looks like a giant two headed cat.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 17, 2009)

HazardCatcher said:


> Even if I minded something looking a little cartoony, which I really don't, I'm  just glad it doesn't look computer generated, which is  terrible for Dungeons&Dragons art.



Amen.  1000 times Amen.

If I can tell it came off a computer, it's got no business anywhere near D&D (or any other RPG, IMO).  I'd rather have stick figures than computer graphics.  This is my biggest concern with the Character Visualizer and why I fully expect it to be worthless to me.  Even Pixar doesn't do computer graphics good enough for me to want them on my character sheet.


----------



## Anthraxus (Feb 17, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Okay, that's a bit of an exageration, obviously, but I think Demogorgon is one of the coolest "mega-fiends" the game has ever had, second only to Anthraxus.




I'll agree with that! 

Cover looks pretty good. There is something fierce about the monkey. Especially a two-headed, tentacled one.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 23, 2009)

Definitely awesome!


----------



## Thanael (Feb 24, 2009)

Another pic from The World of D&D Anthology #5 cvr B   comic by Devils Due.
It shows the summoning of Demogorgon from the Dragonlance short story “A Stone’s Throw Away”.


----------



## chaotix42 (Feb 24, 2009)

Wow. Epic pic. 

Is there a bigger version anywhere?


----------



## Oni (Feb 24, 2009)

Thanael said:


> Another pic from The World of D&D Anthology #5 cvr B   comic by Devils Due.
> It shows the summoning of Demogorgon from the Dragonlance short story “A Stone’s Throw Away”.




I think we've found my new favorite Demogorgan pic.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 24, 2009)

That's a great pic, but I agree that my group finds all the mega-fiends to be full of lameness... I don't think the cover will change their minds.


----------



## grickherder (Feb 25, 2009)

Thanael said:


> Another pic from The World of D&D Anthology #5 cvr B   comic by Devils Due.
> It shows the summoning of Demogorgon from the Dragonlance short story “A Stone’s Throw Away”.




Note to self-- summoning demogorgon is a bad idea.  Don't do it.


----------



## KingSoft (Feb 25, 2009)

Well this thread has became an post your art Demogorgon I thought i would post one of my fav picks of him. 












[FONT=&quot]The artists name is Jeff Russell.  He has a lot of dnd themed pics, and some other sci-fi and fantasy art.  Heck, he even did a very good  [/FONT][FONT=verdana,helvetica,arial]picture of Cthulhu[/FONT]  Waring some of the pics are NSFW.  

Jeff Russell - Illustrations and Sketches


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2009)

I like Demogorgon and I like that picture.  I actually collect digital versions of Demogorgon pics when I can.  Thanks for posting, guys!  I found one or two in this thread that I hadn't seen before.


----------



## chaotix42 (Feb 25, 2009)

@ KingSoft - I have that same pic saved on my computer; didn't even think to post it! Gotta love the look - Demo has a very cohesive feel, where you can see how someone describing him would liken his different parts to creatures they were familiar with, yet he doesn't just look like a cut & paste monster.


----------



## Oni (Feb 25, 2009)

The Jeff Russell pic is by far and away the best character design I've seen of Demogorgon.  I've actually been looking for that image since I first saw this thread, but I couldn't remember who the artist was.


----------

