Rakshasa as Oni

So I had an idea today while working on stuff for an upcoming adventure for my gaming group. One of our major countries is being invaded by an army of Ogre Magi. Since the gaming world was developed well before Pathfinder (back in 2e days, actually), Ogre Magi were all there were. Now with the Pathfinder Bestiary, Ogre Magi are a subset of Oni (which I've long wanted someone to do). The problem is, the Bestiary only lists one type of Oni and hints at there being other types.

So, as a stop-gap until Bestiary II comes out (where I expect more Oni to be listed) what do you all think of using Rakshasa as Oni? They would simply need a bit of regeneration and an additional sub-type to make them Oni. Thoughts? Also, what would adding, say, Regen 5/Fire or Acid to the Rakshasa do to its CR?

The effects would be hilarious. Rakshasas can cast Resist Energy.

I don't see any reason you can't just use rakshasas as-is. Oni are just monstrous fiends, and hey, rakshasas are monstrous and they are fiends.

They can? I don't see that anywhere in the Rakshasa stat block. Not that it couldn't take a couple of class levels to get it...

They can? I don't see that anywhere in the Rakshasa stat block. Not that it couldn't take a couple of class levels to get it...

Rakshasa can already cast as X level sorcerers, unless that got changed from 3.5

They can? I don't see that anywhere in the Rakshasa stat block. Not that it couldn't take a couple of class levels to get it...

They can cast any sorcerer/wizard spell. And you'll probably want to fiddle with that spell list, especially if you'll want to run many different rakshasas.

I'm looking at both the PRD and my hard copy of the Bestiary and I can't find them being able to cast spells as anything but the Spell Like Abilities listed in the stat block.

Honestly, if I'm missing something, I want to know.

"Spells known" is the giveaway that it's a spellcaster. It's an omission that there's no line explaining what class it casts as.

Okay. That makes sense. I was wondering if I had gone insane.

To make sure I've got it right, they cast as 7th level sorcerers, correct?

Okay. That makes sense. I was wondering if I had gone insane.

To make sure I've got it right, they cast as 7th level sorcerers, correct?

Correct. By all means feel free to swap around their spells known based on the Rakshasa involved. (Not sure why Paizo opted to set them in stone in the statblock, easier to use I guess, but it's not hard to slide spells into those known slots, there can't be more than 15 there)

It should be noted that the Rakshasa entry says "spells known" and not "spell-like abilities." That typically indicates they are treated as a spellcasting class. This also means spellcasting levels stack and are typically key clases (see the rules for adding class levels).

Using the Rakshasa as oni would give you a "spellcaster" type to compliment the "melee" type of the ogre mage.

I don't think they go together too well. It's like saying devils are just another kind of demons.

I don't think they go together too well. It's like saying devils are just another kind of demons.

You don't think that two native outsiders, both stolen from vaguely Eastern myth, both of whom tend to live among mortals, and both of whom tend towards lawful evil go together well? Especially considering they tend to fill the same ecological niche in the same plots?

KaeYoss wrote:

I don't think they go together too well. It's like saying devils are just another kind of demons.

You don't think that two native outsiders, both stolen from vaguely Eastern myth, both of whom tend to live among mortals, and both of whom tend towards lawful evil go together well? Especially considering they tend to fill the same ecological niche in the same plots?

I don't, for sure.

Rakshasa come from Indian myth. Oni from Japanese myth. Two VERY different cultures, and two VERY different creatures. The monsters go well together in some ways, but mechanically they're pretty different. (Oni, for what it's worth, do NOT tend toward lawful evil. They'll be all over the board, alignmentwise.)

The BIG difference between the two, of course, is that Oni is an actual subtype (there are LOTS of different kinds of oni), but rakshasa is not. There's a few types of rakshasas, but probably not more than 3.

Rakshasa come from Indian myth. Oni from Japanese myth. Two VERY different cultures, and two VERY different creatures. The monsters go well together in some ways, but mechanically they're pretty different. (Oni, for what it's worth, do NOT tend toward lawful evil. They'll be all over the board, alignmentwise.)

Balrogs and Kali are even further removed, yet they're all Team Demon in D&D. Taping together things that have little in common because you can create a theme from them is one of D&D's sacred traditions, and the whole idea of having different mechanical effects is so that you actually have a team and not Badguy Level 1 and Badguy Level 10.

They go well together because they are both animal-humanoid hybrids, they're both native outsiders, they both integrate themselves into mortal society, they both tend to have controlling agendas (which is not necessarily LE but means that they all tend to get along with LE societies and villains), and they both have obscure weaknesses to make them much more hardcore against clueless NPCs than clueful PCs.

I lump "vaguely Eastern" together because, well, so do lots of people and games. You can mix up pretty much any myth together in a blender and offend only those who've actually studied it, and sometimes not even then. It's not that big a deal, because stealing all the cool stuff from any story ever and tossing it into one big, weird salad is what D&D is all about.

The various Rokugan books are a great source for different types of Oni's. I think the 3.5 Oriental Adventures has about a dozen different types. If you are looking for more of a Chinese/Japanese flavor that is probably a better route to go.

I always recall the 1e MM quote that called rakshasa's "demons of the flesh".

CJ

I would not, rakshasha as is have been used quite extensively and have their own hierachy and their own subtypes, putting them together in the same pot with Oni will take away some of their charm.

can't you think up some decent stats for some kind of googled creature from japanese mythology insead ? ^^

Yeah. I could homebrew my own oni, but (as I am lazy) I thought it might be easier to just retrofit an existing creature than re-invent the wheel.

can't you think up some decent stats for some kind of googled creature from japanese mythology insead ? ^^

Well. Part of the issue is that "oni" isn't a lot more meaningful that "monster". If you want a variety of CRs and abilities, the OP can toss all of the various rakshasas and ogre mage variants and probably some other stuff into Team Oni, and have plenty of stuff for a faction of native outsiders to form the spine of the invasion.

While I'm here. Some decent outsiders that go with the theme are the ECS and MM3 rakshasas, the MM5 Elemental Mages, and salamanders.

As a sidenote, I do not think different kinds of Oni work particulary well together, if you have Ogre Magi banding together it might be enough, but if you want them allying with a small band of rakshasha, by all means it doesn't seem too far of a stretch.

Just look for creatures that thematically fit with your army of invaders. I do love how the Ogre Mage got it's long awaited upgrade.. the 3.5 version was useless for it's CR.

I agree with everything "A Man in Black" says about D&D monsters earlier.

However, in this specific case I have to go with those who keep Rakshasa different. Probably because, as others have said, the Rakshasa in D&D history is so rich that lumping it with a group of monsters is awkward.

Also, I think it is very cool that Paizo is taking an aggressive stance on publishing monsters of cultural folklore and trying to be as close to the myth as possible.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with the OP's own game. If "Mauril" likes Rakshasa as Oni (at least until Paizo makes more) then awesome -- do it.

Can't (a person) think up some decent stats for some kind of googled creature from Japanese mythology insead?

Well maybe but it's better to have it published from Paizo or another gaming company.

We're the customers -- let them do all the work. They have the time and other resources, not to mention the professional commitment to do it for us.

I don't write campaign material.
I buy it.

In the Baster of Erebus book the Tiefling article give alternative Tieflings where Oni and Rakshasa are two different types. Just thought I point that out if it helps the thread here.

KaeYoss wrote:

I don't think they go together too well. It's like saying devils are just another kind of demons.

You don't think that two native outsiders, both stolen from vaguely Eastern myth, both of whom tend to live among mortals, and both of whom tend towards lawful evil go together well? Especially considering they tend to fill the same ecological niche in the same plots?

No, I don't think so. Not even closely.

Balrogs and Kali are even further removed, yet they're all Team Demon in D&D.

D&D? THIS! IS! PATHFINDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Plus, there are no Balrogs or Kalis in Pathfinder, there are balors and mariliths.

Taping together things that have little in common because you can create a theme from them is one of D&D's sacred traditions

Again: Pathfinder.

Pathfinder's MO seems to be "Don't forget where this stuff comes from."

You don't lump together the nametakers and the fleshbound ones. Let the D&D guys do it, and maybe make Succubus a devil, too, because their customers get confused by a non-monster demon.

Oh, wait.

They go well together because they are both animal-humanoid hybrids

What part of an oni is animal?

I lump "vaguely Eastern" together because, well, so do lots of people and games.

Sure. Other's do it. Great explanation. Let's jump off a bridge next ;-P

Well, to be fair, I can't think of anything being wrong with re-skinning Raksasha into Oni. If you're looking for an Oni spellcaster, file the serial numbers off, describe it as a monstrous, horned, human-sized fiend; Switch around the resistances, DR, SR, etc, and other signature elements to fit the oni subtype, and all of a sudden, you have an Oni Sorcerer. Just don't describe it anything like a Raksasha.

Also, there's no reason that, instead, a lawful or neutral evil Oni cannot ally itself with a Rakshasa. I have an adventure path adventure published by Paizo where a Fire Giant (Nordic myth) and a Rakshasa (Indian Myth) were buddies because of common goals. As long as you make clear that they aren't actually kinfolk, just that they see mutual benifit, it should be fine.

I mean, heck, the Pathfinder Bestiary pretty much says manticores (Indian) sometimes shack up with sphinxes (Egypt/Grecian) because they think they're kinda hot. Maybe the rakshasa is vixen-headed and likes big strong men and the oni has the hots for kitsune, but they won't give him the time of day.

So, as a stop-gap until Bestiary II comes out (where I expect more Oni to be listed) what do you all think of using Rakshasa as Oni?

As the lead designer has stated repeatedly on these boards, Pathfinder is your game. If you want to use rakshasas as oni in your campaign, go for it.

And shame on anyone who tells you otherwise. Anyone outside your gaming group who insists that you have to conform to their expectations when creating your own personal campaign's internal mythology has forgotten the entire point of tabletop RPGs. You don't need some outside observer's permission to use your imagination.

Putting my official Zen Buddhist clergy hat on for a moment, although oni is specifically a Japanese term, steeped in pre-Buddhist traditions, the rakshasa iconography that spans the greater portion of the eastern Silk Road does include iconography which looks remarkably like the Ogre Magi. So while I would hesitate to put Rakshasa as part of team Oni, I would happily put Ogre Magi as part of team Rakshasa.

In fact, many Buddhist sutras, in describing the Rakshasa, frequently use characteristics which would or could easily be used to describe Oni.

mumbling about three-year-old memes, Pathfinder not being D&D, and balors not being balrogs

Uh...huh.

Putting my official Zen Buddhist clergy hat on for a moment, although oni is specifically a Japanese term, steeped in pre-Buddhist traditions, the rakshasa iconography that spans the greater portion of the eastern Silk Road does include iconography which looks remarkably like the Ogre Magi. So while I would hesitate to put Rakshasa as part of team Oni, I would happily put Ogre Magi as part of team Rakshasa.

In fact, many Buddhist sutras, in describing the Rakshasa, frequently use characteristics which would or could easily be used to describe Oni.

One of the neat things about plundering unfamiliar sources of myth is that you can steal random ideas that the players aren't familiar with, and end up looking clever for minimum work. Even if you get it wrong, nobody will know (or really care).

Mauril wrote:

So, as a stop-gap until Bestiary II comes out (where I expect more Oni to be listed) what do you all think of using Rakshasa as Oni?

As the lead designer has stated repeatedly on these boards, Pathfinder is your game. If you want to use rakshasas as oni in your campaign, go for it.

And shame on anyone who tells you otherwise. Anyone outside your gaming group who insists that you have to conform to their expectations when creating your own personal campaign's internal mythology has forgotten the entire point of tabletop RPGs. You don't need some outside observer's permission to use your imagination.

Heh. Thanks. My question wasn't so much "is it wrong for me to do this?" but more "if I do this, how much reskinning/restatting do I need to do for it to be viable?"

I've actually ended up not needing the Rakshasa, as I am building one of each type of oni mentioned in the Ogre Magi stat block (reptilian, tengu, goblin and the stock ogre).

KaeYoss wrote:

mumbling about three-year-old memes, Pathfinder not being D&D, and balors not being balrogs

Uh...huh.

You can act condescending as much as you want, but you still cannot disprove the fact that in Pathfinder, a lot of things are done differently than in D&D, including the "we steal names and use our own stuff with it" practise of using monsters.

Pathfinder is based on D&D... but it is NOT D&D. The rules were designed with an ENTIRELY different design philosophy than 4th edition D&D (and even different in many key places than 3.5 design philosophy).

Frankly, I'm proud enough of what we're doing with Pathfinder that I'd rather call it Pathfinder. Calling it D&D feels like we failed at making the game our own, personally...

Pathfinder is based on D&D... but it is NOT D&D. The rules were designed with an ENTIRELY different design philosophy than 4th edition D&D (and even different in many key places than 3.5 design philosophy).

Frankly, I'm proud enough of what we're doing with Pathfinder that I'd rather call it Pathfinder. Calling it D&D feels like we failed at making the game our own, personally...

So...what's the philosophy change that's relevant here? Before PF, ogre mages were magical ogres. Now, they're fiendish ringers who tend to hang out with humanoids...which is almost exactly what rakshasas are in both 3.5 and PF.

Oni and rakshasas are:

My question wasn't so much "is it wrong for me to do this?" but more "if I do this, how much reskinning/restatting do I need to do for it to be viable?"

And look what you started ;)

It doesn't even matter that you "ended up not needing the Rakshasa"!

So...what's the philosophy change that's relevant here?

The one that Rakshasa and Oni are not the same thing, even if they might be similar in some regards, and thus aren't lumped together.

Just like they no longer lump kytons into the devil category.

Before PF, ogre mages were magical ogres

Before D&D, ogre mages (and, indeed, ogres) were oni.

. Now, they're fiendish ringers who tend to hang out with humanoids...which is almost exactly what rakshasas are in both 3.5 and PF.

Yeah, and demons and neothelids both have strange powers and like to attack humans, so let's lump them together, too.

Yes, it's ridiculous. But so is saying "Non-hostile interaction with mortals" is a big indicator that things are nearly the same.

Oni and rakshasas are:

Typically lawful evil

Where does it say that? Ogre mages are are LE, but nowhere does it say that they all will be.

Shapechangers who pose as humanoids

No, they're not. Rakshasas disguise themselves as mortals to walk unseen among humanoids, but the oni don't exactly disguise themselves. They look humanoid-like, but they sure stand out.

Extraordinarily tough

Yeah, that's rare among outsiders.

Have a significant weakness

Oni don't have that much of a weakness.

Can conceal that weakness using their shapechanging ability

Their shapechanging is different, though: Onis only can take forms that are similar to themselves.

Have a bestial true form, with animalistic forms mentioned for both

Show me the passage where oni are shown to have bestial forms or features. Because I can find none.

One is an "evil spirit that clothes itself in the flesh of other types of humanoid" and the other is "an evil spirit that cloaks itself in the guise of a humanoid creature that it might walk unseen among its prey".

Similar power, very different use.

In fact, if you put them on the same team the conflict between the oni desire to rule and the rakshasa desire to corrupt is a great story hook.

Not a real argument for "they fit together".

I can lump all sorts of different critters together (even without making a chimera out of their type) and get a nice infighting dynamic going. Archons and Devils working together (more or less) to stem the protean tide. Great potential, but I still won't make archondevils.

and in the books that were printed oni and rakshasas are long-lost cousins.

Not the books I got. And they clearly say "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" all over.

You sure you have the right ones?

I can only second Legend of the Five Rings, where oni are the main supernatural enemies (not that they have that much of a competition, except maybe corrupted kami).

There are common oni there, and many, many different individual critters.

Rokugani oni have this special thing where you can bind them by giving them your name. so I could have an Oni no KaeYoss (or a KaeYoss no Oni, depending on who's calling the shots). And over time, they adapt to the person that named them, getting closer in looks to them and adapt their less savoury personality traits.

In Rokugan, they're also vulnerable to jade because of its purity. (Obsidian is good for creatures of the Lying Darkness) You might want to introduce jade weapons, or maybe set up some equivalency. Maybe mithral/silver)

[ Brief Threadjack]

Frankly, I'm proud enough of what we're doing with Pathfinder that I'd rather call it Pathfinder. Calling it D&D feels like we failed at making the game our own, personally...

Absolutely be proud.

I hope that when Paizo staff hear those of us who do call Pathfinder "D&D" they take it as a compliment -- as it's meant.
(Even though it's simultaneously an assertion that the WotC RPG is not D&D.)

I've been playing D&D since childhood in the early 80's. I can not call the game I play anything other than D&D because, well, it's not "non-D&D". This is especially true in my individual case. I never played GURPS or WoD or Traveller or Mazes and Monsters or Tunnels and Trolls or Rifts or Warhammer or WOW or any other RPG. Ever.

The way I see it Pathfinder is the 4th Edition of the D&D game. In fact, it's more accurate to label Pathfinder "D&D 4E" in every aspect except copyright -- which is meaningless to me as a consumer!

From Paizo we have
1) a company commitment to traditional elements of D&D
2) superior crunch in a game system
3) superior fluff in a campaign world & cosmology
4) equivalent or better artwork
5) equivalent or better maps
6) superior published adventures
7) SUPERIOR CUSTOMER SERVICE!!!!
8) a website I like better
and the ability to use the 3E products we spent so much money on.

Out of respect, if I get to a Con and meet some Paizo staff I will refer to it as Pathfinder RPG but here on the Boards for everyone, and in real life, Pathfinder is D&D.

[ / Brief Threadjack]

Frankly, I'm proud enough of what we're doing with Pathfinder that I'd rather call it Pathfinder.

TRUMPETS!

Pathfinder is based on D&D... but it is NOT D&D. The rules were designed with an ENTIRELY different design philosophy than 4th edition D&D (and even different in many key places than 3.5 design philosophy).

Frankly, I'm proud enough of what we're doing with Pathfinder that I'd rather call it Pathfinder. Calling it D&D feels like we failed at making the game our own, personally...

So what is it about Pathfinder that makes it different from 3.5 D&D besides some of the math and the rules?

brainstorm: when oni are actually made, a list of different powers and stuff to slap on them like an eidolon might be nice. Looking at pictures off the web and/or Legend of Five Rings, there were numerous different creeds of oni.
Maybe the "dungeons and dragons rakshasa" breed was the shapeshifting spy type sent to mess with the "Europe" of the campaign, like Klingons without head ridges.

Also, anything that looks like a really hot chick is prolly an oni, and will turn into a giant hungry arthropod and try to eat you. I learned that off of anime.

James Jacobs wrote:

Pathfinder is based on D&D... but it is NOT D&D. The rules were designed with an ENTIRELY different design philosophy than 4th edition D&D (and even different in many key places than 3.5 design philosophy).

Frankly, I'm proud enough of what we're doing with Pathfinder that I'd rather call it Pathfinder. Calling it D&D feels like we failed at making the game our own, personally...

So what is it about Pathfinder that makes it different from 3.5 D&D besides some of the math and the rules?

To me? The fact that we focus on flavor first and build rules to support the flavor, rather than focus on rules first and then build flavor to support the rules. And the fact that we embrace the history of the game and actively work to incorporate real-world myth and legend into the game rather than focus on building brand new content that would be easier for us to claim as intellectual property.

That, and the fact that I like almost everything in Pathfinder better than 3.5 D&D.

James, "That, and the fact that I like almost everything in Pathfinder better than 3.5 D&D."

I would agree with that, but I still feel that it is the same game I've been playing for 20 something years. (Like 1st edition AD&D before Unearthed Arcana)

As for the original topic, I would love to see what you come up with for stat blocks for the other types of oni. I was working on an oni bloodline for ogre sorcerers that could be added to rakshasa, but got sidetracked when the APG witch came out.

I have always loved the ogre mage, and think that it has tremendous potential. I recall that there was an article about "fixing" the ogre mage, in the days when v4 was in the works, and I recall thinking - "wow, that really misses the point!" I'm glad pathfinder fixed the ogre mage for the better.

The one that Rakshasa and Oni are not the same thing, even if they might be similar in some regards, and thus aren't lumped together.

Just like they no longer lump kytons into the devil category.

Breaking up sentences for quotes like this makes replying to your posts makes replying difficult.

But basically, Paizo can have whatever philosophy they want, but in the book they printed, the two are exceedingly similar and go together nicely. The author is dead.

To me? The fact that we focus on flavor first and build rules to support the flavor, rather than focus on rules first and then build flavor to support the rules. And the fact that we embrace the history of the game and actively work to incorporate real-world myth and legend into the game rather than focus on building brand new content that would be easier for us to claim as intellectual property.

None of those philosophical goals make the oni in the Bestiary not go well with the rakshasas in the Bestiary. Lofty goals are admirable (and those are admirable lofty goals) but the whole reason that the author is dead is that we shouldn't feel limited by the intentions of the author when coming up with neat ideas that may not have been intended.

But basically, Paizo can have whatever philosophy they want, but in the book they printed, the two are exceedingly similar and go together nicely. The author is dead.

Jason died?

Anyway, what you call "exceedingly" similar I (and, apparently, Paizo) call "superficial similarities that barely mask the fundamental differences between these groups."

Jason died?

The author is dead. Don't allow yourself to be constrained by the cage of the author's intent, especially when reading against the author's intent leads to significant new insights.

Yeah. I could homebrew my own oni, but (as I am lazy) I thought it might be easier to just retrofit an existing creature than re-invent the wheel.

Perhaps you can upgrade some creatures from the oriental adventures, if you have the book. Trolls would make a good oni IMHO. Otherwise you may also ask people for some of their creations, I think that you can get some monsters for free like that ;)

The author is dead

Nice, they have special links for being condescending now.

Have a nice life.

A Man In Black wrote:

The author is dead

Nice, they have special links for being condescending now.

Have a nice life.

I'll be honest, I couldn't stop laughing when I watched it. I still am lol.

Nice, they have special links for being condescending now.

The internet is a cornucopia of wonders!

But fiendish trolls, oni bodyguards and generals, and rakshasa masterminds, that's a Team Evil. There are some less hillbilly trolls in MM3 and I think MM2, although most of them are really hard core and high CR, so be careful of those. MM4 (or 5?) had a bunch of trolls with random levels and templates and stuff, too, IIRC.

I sort of implied this earlier but the reason so many of us don't like Rakshasa as oni is because we already have a rich D&D history for the Rakshasa.

Since we've had years of memories of them as "not oni" we are uncomfortable with them becoming "oni" -- whether right or wrong.

Now that doesn't mean things like this can't happen but it does take some pretty good flavor text and artwork from the publisher. And the more we are enamored of the past the better the new interpretation must be.

Who knew (cared) that goblins went from LE (77 & 93) to NE (00 & 09)? Nobody, so no one cared.

Who cared that Chain devils went from being in with the list of devils (00) to being out of the list of devils (09)? No one because we weren't as enamored with the Chain Devil's "rich D&D history".

But make a Gelugon a Demon?! We care because we have strong feelings of the rich D&D history of the Blood War. (And if you don't know or care about the Blood War then you probably don't care about the Gelugon!)

Make a drow a spontaneous mutation from an elf?! Well, you better have some really great flavor text and artwork or we'll hate it...
(we love drow)

Make a Rakshasa an oni and put it in with the Ogre Mage feels awkward just because we've played for a few decades with them separate.

No big deal.

But we should all do whatever we want in our Homegame. Duh.

In my Homegame cosmology Devil is the title for the highest ranking demons. The 9 Hells are on top of the Abyss and the Blood War is the endless battle Fiends have to control their own Layer of the Abyss. The 9 Hells serve as the barrier between the Abyss and the Upper Planes but is really just a political arena for Blood War coups and conspiracies.

I sort of implied this earlier but the reason so many of us don't like Rakshasa as oni is because we already have a rich D&D history for the Rakshasa.

I also have that thing where they don't fit together, aren't the same, and forcing them to be the same is so not how Paizo is doing things.

Who cared that Chain devils went from being in with the list of devils (00) to being out of the list of devils (09)? No one because we weren't as enamored with the Chain Devil's rich D&D history.

Well, actually, a lot of people liked it, because originally, kytons weren't devils. They were LE outsiders, sure, but weren't part of the devils' hierarchy. Sings were set right

But make a Gelugon a Demon?! We care because we have strong feelings of the rich D&D history of the Blood War.

Or succubus a devil... And the blood war be damned. A succubus is a demon, a gelugon is a devil.

In my Homegame cosmology Devil is the title for the highest ranking demons.

And if you update the Temple of the Fallen to the Temple of the Forsaken, they can become Archdevils, right? (sorry, had a HoMMV moment there)