I don't know why it took so long for this to register with me, but I've recently noticed that there are a lot of bugs associated with the Golarion deities. Desna and Urgathoa outright use insects as their holy symbols, Calistria has a thing for wasps, Achaekek is a mantis, and Rovagug's associations with insects and arachnids are made quite explicit during Legacy of Fire.

I can think of various aesthetic and philosophical reasons for using insects as holy symbols, but I fear I am reading too much into it, and was curious if there was a complex explanation or simply that somone on the Paizo staff really likes bugs.

So I have to ask, is all this entomological idolatry an intentional design decision? Is there a particular Paizo employee pushing some insidious insectile agenda? Is this just a relic of James Jacobs' Baria setting being brought forward into Golarion? Inquiring minds (and mindless vermin alike) want to know!

Robert "Content To Wait For The Answer In Due Time" Ranting

Erik is a Grissom-fan... there's nothing more mysterious to it -- or maybe it's a conspiracy invented by those buglovers from Osirion?

My answer - which is no where near official, is that insects are much more mysterious than say, reptiles.

There is no "insidious insectile agenda". Carry on. ;)

::clacks his mandibles and scratches his thorax::

For game purposes all animal species are of equal intelligence. Perhaps gods are so highly evolved they see no significant distinction between insects and "intelligent" or "civilized" races. :)

Insects are far more efficient and elegant beings and I, for one, welcome our new insectoid overlords.

Humans are bot fascinated and repulsed by insects, often at the same time. I can't help but wonder if that is part of it.

I for one welcome our new Insect Overlords!

I also welcome our insect overlords, with bug spray!

I for one welcome our new Insect Overlords!

I also welcome our insect overlords, with bug spray!

There's a reason the devil was called the Lord of the Flies.

I for one welcome our new Insect Overlords!

I for one welcome our new Insect Overlords!

It's true that all of those deities you list are from my campaign setting, Baria, and carried with them their delicious bugs... I mean, their insectoid symbols. The 1st edition Deities & Demigods had a really nifty chart that not only listed all of the gods in that book by pantheon with their areas of concern and holy days and sacred colors, but also their sacred animals. That's something I did for all of the gods in my world too, back in the day, and as it worked out there was a pretty strong presence for bugs and birds in that list because I happened to like them better than, say, most mammals.

To round things out as I recall them and working mostly from memory (note, some of these associations may not have carried over to Golarion, and I'm skipping deities that I didn't invent or use lots in my homebrew)...

Abadar: Monkey (lemur)
Asmodeus: Goat
Calistria: Wasp
Desna: Butterfly
Erastil: Elk
Gorum: Bear (I think...)
Gozreh: Sea gull
Lamashtu: Hyena
Norgorber: Raven
Pharasma: Whippoorwill
Rovagug: Scorpion
Sarenrae: Dove
Urgathoa: Fly
Zon-Kuthon: Beetle (I think...)

Achaekek: Mantis
Besmara: Big mean dog
Ghlaunder: Mosquito
Groetus: None
Milani: Wren
Sivanah: Bat
Zyphus: Worm

It's true that all of those deities you list are from my campaign setting, Baria, and carried with them their delicious bugs... I mean, their insectoid symbols. The 1st edition Deities & Demigods had a really nifty chart that not only listed all of the gods in that book by pantheon with their areas of concern and holy days and sacred colors, but also their sacred animals. That's something I did for all of the gods in my world too, back in the day, and as it worked out there was a pretty strong presence for bugs and birds in that list because I happened to like them better than, say, most mammals.

To round things out as I recall them and working mostly from memory (note, some of these associations may not have carried over to Golarion, and I'm skipping deities that I didn't invent or use lots in my homebrew)...

Abadar: Monkey (lemur)
Asmodeus: Goat
Calistria: Wasp
Desna: Butterfly
Erastil: Elk
Gorum: Bear (I think...)
Gozreh: Sea gull
Lamashtu: Hyena
Norgorber: Raven
Pharasma: Whippoorwill
Rovagug: Scorpion
Sarenrae: Dove
Urgathoa: Fly
Zon-Kuthon: Beetle (I think...)

Achaekek: Mantis
Besmara: Big mean dog
Ghlaunder: Mosquito
Groetus: None
Milani: Wren
Sivanah: Bat
Zyphus: Worm

Yeah but when do we get the god who's animal is the platypus, that's the important question.

lastknightleft wrote:

Yeah but when do we get the god who's animal is the platypus, that's the important question.

His name is Perry, God of Secret Agents.

KaeYoss wrote:

I for one welcome our new Insect Overlords!

I thought that Proteans hated Formians.

There is no "insidious insectile agenda". Carry on. ;)

::clacks his mandibles and scratches his thorax::

KaeYoss wrote:

I for one welcome our new Insect Overlords!

Finally!

Yeah but when do we get the god who's animal is the platypus, that's the important question.

Poison Spur on its hind leg
Lays eggs
It has no nipples but secretes milk
has reptilian and mammalian DNA
Electro magnetic sensors in its bill
Eat Thoughts (Su):can drain psionic power points with a successful melee touch attack. Each touch drains 6 power points from the opponent
Psi-Like Abilities
At will—detect psionics, distract (DC 13), precognition, psionic daze (DC 13*); 3/day—thought shield.
Ethereal Jaunt (Su)

I would really dissuade the continuation of this line of questioning. The bug world is a messy, messy place. Especially for those not possessed of a carapace. *snips pincers*

Platypuses are the real world's version of a deadline monster. If someone sent in a platypus monster as a new animal for a Bestiary and they didn't exist in the real world, I'd reject the write-up for being too crazy, I suspect.

Also, platypuses probably don't live in the Inner Sea region anyway. I suspect they live on the other side of the world in distant Sarusan. That said, there's thylacines living in the River Kingdoms (look for their stats in Pathfinder Adventure Path volume #31), so I guess anything's possible.

More to the point, duck-billed things are too silly for me. Yes, even duck-billed dinosaurs are silly.

lastknightleft wrote:

Yeah but when do we get the god who's animal is the platypus, that's the important question.

Which is not a true feature of the platypus?

Poison Spur on its hind leg
Lays eggs
It has no nipples but secretes milk
has reptilian and mammalian DNA
Electro magnetic sensors in its bill
Eat Thoughts (Su):can drain psionic power points with a successful melee touch attack. Each touch drains 6 power points from the opponent
Psi-Like Abilities
At will—detect psionics, distract (DC 13), precognition, psionic daze (DC 13*); 3/day—thought shield.
Ethereal Jaunt (Su)

Platypuses are the real world's version of a deadline monster. If someone sent in a platypus monster as a new animal for a Bestiary and they didn't exist in the real world, I'd reject the write-up for being too crazy, I suspect.

Also, platypuses probably don't live in the Inner Sea region anyway. I suspect they live on the other side of the world in distant Sarusan. That said, there's thylacines living in the River Kingdoms (look for their stats in Pathfinder Adventure Path volume #31), so I guess anything's possible.

More to the point, duck-billed things are too silly for me. Yes, even duck-billed dinosaurs are silly.

Wait you approved the goblin snake, but duck billed creatures you find too silly?

You do realise that male praying-mantises are the favourite snack for female praying-mantises when they get the post-coital munchies.

Wait you approved the goblin snake, but duck billed creatures you find too silly?

lastknightleft wrote:

Wait you approved the goblin snake, but duck billed creatures you find too silly?

I liked the goblin snake, what's wrong with it?

I'd reject the write-up for being too crazy, I suspect.

The goblin snake was originally concepted as "Let's do a low-level naga" and we had lots of goblin themes in that first adventure, so a goblin-headed snake was the result.

And a duck snake WOULD be silly.

The goblin snake was originally concepted as "Let's do a low-level naga" and we had lots of goblin themes in that first adventure, so a goblin-headed snake was the result.

And a duck snake WOULD be silly.

And a duck snake WOULD be silly.

It just seems very strange that in a world with goblin headed snakes and bear-owl hybrids, that duck bills are the point where monsters get silly.

James Jacobs wrote:

And a duck snake WOULD be silly.

You do realize that the Owl-bear is an iconic DnD monster don't you?

It just seems very strange that in a world with goblin headed snakes and bear-owl hybrids, that duck bills are the point where monsters get silly.

I also don't like licorice, am not a big fan of football or Star Wars, and prefer rain to sun. Me thinking that duck-bills are funny and when you put them on a monster they make the monster look funny is hardly my biggest character flaw.

....and when you put them on a monster they make the monster look funny is hardly my biggest character flaw.

That being said - I think lastknight is not so much arguing - just musing as I too think that duck-billed anything looks silly - but when you break it down, there's a lot of silly in the game's history, and it's more akin to fishing for the sake of humor the thought process of an individual that classifies something as "this is fine - but this is silly" when I'm sure no one will agree on where the line should be drawn, and what is or is not too silly.

I always thought the mimic was way silly - until I read Dungeon Denizens Revisited book - that gave a whole new perspective and I actually really like them, now.

Now a duck-billed mimic on the other hand - that would be just silly.

Robert

Duck bills are funny. You can put a duck-bill on a dinosaur, and it's funny.

Heck, it's funny on a duck. (Though I have a friend who insists on calling ducks "platypus-billed-water-pigeons, so I guess everything is relative.)

lastknightleft wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

And a duck snake WOULD be silly.

You do realize that the Owl-bear is an iconic DnD monster don't you?

It just seems very strange that in a world with goblin headed snakes and bear-owl hybrids, that duck bills are the point where monsters get silly.

I'm not really sure why you're arguing with me or trying to make such a big deal out of this.

You know that's pretty much what I'd figured, So when do we change the name of nagas to human snake?

Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but when do we get our starfish-headed panda bear?

Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but when do we get our starfish-headed panda bear?

AKA: When the stars are right.

AKA: Hopefully never.

(It'd be a CR 3 aberration, though...)

Hmm...

What about a duck-billed bunyip? The teeth could fold down into the bill when the beast is at rest, for easy storage? Nah.

*tears the page out of the notebook, crumples it, and throws it away*

Ooh! How about a duck-billed naga...

I don't see how the platypus is any more silly then the brain mole. Oh, a brain platypus. Or maybe the duck billed rat things from Palace of the Silver Princess are really mutant platypi.

lastknightleft wrote:

You know that's pretty much what I'd figured, So when do we change the name of nagas to human snake?

The goblin snake should not be taken as a relation to nagas or suggest a monstrous trend common to all races. Nagas are their own distinct family with their own heritage and the goblin snake isn't meant to tread toward that, even if it has general similarities. New nagas, of which we have done at least one, are inspired by Indian myth and are meant to fit in with those existing breeds. Really, I'd liken the goblin/goblin snake relationship to that of drow and driders, a grotesquery brought about by a curse, magic, divine anger, or whatever have you that has breed true into the limited populations that survive today. As there's little published information on the creature, whether it's silly or not largely relies on how its presented and the capability of the GM.

One was done? Where is this published?

Thanks for the info Mr. Jacobs, the bugs make a lot more sense in the context of every god having an animal symbol. Also, I have to admit, I didn't think that many of Golarion's gods had been ported directly from your homebrew! 14/20 is a pretty hefty contribution.

As for duckbills, I suppose someone will just have to do an unofficial conversion of the chameleon-like color changing Parasaurolophus from that old issue of Dragon Magazine ;-)

Robert "A Duckbill Isn't Silly If You Can't See It" Ranting

I also don't like licorice, am not a big fan of football or Star Wars, and prefer rain to sun. Me thinking that duck-bills are funny and when you put them on a monster they make the monster look funny is hardly my biggest character flaw.

And a duck snake WOULD be silly.

I found the 1st Ed Thought Eater quite freaky, I suppose its a cultural thing & personal thing like you said.

lastknightleft wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

And a duck snake WOULD be silly.

You do realize that the Owl-bear is an iconic DnD monster don't you?

It just seems very strange that in a world with goblin headed snakes and bear-owl hybrids, that duck bills are the point where monsters get silly.

I'm not really sure why you're arguing with me or trying to make such a big deal out of this.

I also don't like licorice, am not a big fan of football or Star Wars, and prefer rain to sun. Me thinking that duck-bills are funny and when you put them on a monster they make the monster look funny is hardly my biggest character flaw.

As for not liking licorice, or football, or star wars though, that doesn't make it significantly effect the game, but your thinking duck bills are silly does effect what creatures make it into the game as you'll argue against it. Despite real world equivalents, but once again, I'm just having a conversation, I'm not picketing you as editor, calm down have a mocha latte and realize that I'm on your side.

lastknightleft wrote:

You know that's pretty much what I'd figured, So when do we change the name of nagas to human snake?

The goblin snake should not be taken as a relation to nagas or suggest a monstrous trend common to all races. Nagas are their own distinct family with their own heritage and the goblin snake isn't meant to tread toward that, even if it has general similarities. New nagas, of which we have done at least one, are inspired by Indian myth and are meant to fit in with those existing breeds. Really, I'd liken the goblin/goblin snake relationship to that of drow and driders, a grotesquery brought about by a curse, magic, divine anger, or whatever have you that has breed true into the limited populations that survive today. As there's little published information on the creature, whether it's silly or not largely relies on how its presented and the capability of the GM.