Sweet!
Links to 4e monster manual 3.... ohoooo! :)
Wow! Eric Belisle really is blowing us out of the water lately!
Cool!
I hope that Orcus gets some love along with the Golarian specific demon lords. I am still convinced that an adventure/adventure path where the PCs have to ally with the church of Urgathoa to defeat an even viler cult of Orcus would be a winner :)
Links to 4e monster manual 3.... ohoooo! :)
As Beek said, Watch out where the link takes to ...
I guess Erik and Lisa take turns standing over James with whip in hand to get him to meet deadlines
Links to 4e monster manual 3.... ohoooo! :)As Beek said, Watch out where the link takes to ...
I had heard that they'd changed the statistics block format in the 4th Edition Monster Manual 3, but this is… unexpected. :)
Other than Kostchtchie, any of them other guys got a beef wit' Graz'zt and/or Orcus and/or vice versa?
Any of them go out with Malcanthet?
(if, that is, one was in the mood to goulash the classic D&D demon lords in with the PF stuff....there's 666 layers to the Abyss, afterall).
Looks good. Does each demon lord get his/her own spread?
Oh yeah: Someone please fix the link.
Links to 4e monster manual 3.... ohoooo! :)As Beek said, Watch out where the link takes to ...I had heard that they'd changed the statistics block format in the 4th Edition Monster Manual 3, but this is… unexpected. :)
Should be better now.
Hurry up James you guys just got everything back on schedule ;) J/K If it takes longer to make it as good as possible I say take longer. Erik and Lisa may say something different though.:)
Creative Director
|
Graz'zt and Malcanteht are both owned 100% by Wizards of the Coast. Neither of them will be mentioned or detailed in "Lords of Chaos," although if you're looking for demon lords who are similar, you can check out Socothbenoth or Shax for Graz'zt and Nocticula or Sifkesh for Malcanthet.
As for Orcus, he'll be detailed since he IS open content, due to the fact that he's statted up in Necromancer's "Tome of Horrors" and, more importantly, because he's a mythological entity from the real world.
We're not going to illustrate all 32 or so demon lords; the way the book'll be set up will have two demon lords on the left hand page and one on the right. The one on the right will have about 100 to 150 more words of detail AND will have an illustration. Orcus happens to fall on a left hand page so he'll get no illustration and only have a single column of info. Of course, there's already an AWFUL lot of info about Orcus out there from other games for GMs who want to expand his role on Golarion...
Oh wow, they all look neat! Angazhan's six-fingered hands and Kostco's skull-decorated beard and the little cage around his neck are awesome bits of detail.
HEY! I was gonna call him Kostko!
Please name a demon lord after Wal mart...
shyoh....as if that's ever a bad idea
As for Orcus, he'll be detailed since he IS open content, due to the fact that he's statted up in Necromancer's "Tome of Horrors" and, more importantly, because he's a mythological entity from the real world.We're not going to illustrate all 32 or so demon lords; the way the book'll be set up will have two demon lords on the left hand page and one on the right. The one on the right will have about 100 to 150 more words of detail AND will have an illustration. Orcus happens to fall on a left hand page so he'll get no illustration and only have a single column of info.
Sadness. When I first saw the pictures I thought that the one for Angazhan might be the Paizo take on Orcus. I hope you don't mind if I appropriate him for such a purpose in my home game.
|
Creative Director
|
Sadness. When I first saw the pictures I thought that the one for Angazhan might be the Paizo take on Orcus. I hope you don't mind if I appropriate him for such a purpose in my home game.
As for Orcus, he'll be detailed since he IS open content, due to the fact that he's statted up in Necromancer's "Tome of Horrors" and, more importantly, because he's a mythological entity from the real world.We're not going to illustrate all 32 or so demon lords; the way the book'll be set up will have two demon lords on the left hand page and one on the right. The one on the right will have about 100 to 150 more words of detail AND will have an illustration. Orcus happens to fall on a left hand page so he'll get no illustration and only have a single column of info.
Our Orcus pretty much looks the same as the version we presented in the last few issues of Dungeon. A pudgy goat man demon. With a stinger and a fancy club.
|
I doubt Paizo will ever add anything that is not OGL in. To much risk of losing the ability to use it at a later date. So unless WotC makes them OGL someday i wouldn't count on it.
Yeah, that was my question: if they become OGL or if Paizo acquires D&D license for perpetuity (essentially same thing) would James like to include them in Golarion or not? Simply his wishes on the matter.
|
Creative Director
|
James, in theory, just for conversation's sake, if you ever get the opportunity to get back under your control the work that you did for Dragon and Dungeon, would you include Grazzt, Malcanteth and the rest in Golarion?
The likelihood of WotC releasing demon lords to my total control is pretty much zero.
And if they did... I'd still probably not grandfather them in to Golarion. We've already got demon lords in established roles that those lords filled, and I'm not interested in abandoning what we've done with Golarion's demon lords really.
And furthermore, a lot of what makes Graz'zt and Malcanthet and the other closed content demon lords cool is not their role in the Abyss (we can already duplicate that, and have), but how they interact with the REST of D&D canon and D&D history and tradition. Taken out of context on their own, they lose a lot of their cool. Graz'zt without Iggwilv is lame, as is Malcanthet without Maure Castle.
So... to put it another way, WotC would more or less have to turn over ALL of their intellectual property as regards D&D before I'd even START to think about grandfathering those demons in, and even then I'd probably not, because Nocticula and Socothbenoth and Shax and Sifkesh and all the rest were in Golarion first.
|
James, in theory, just for conversation's sake, if you ever get the opportunity to get back under your control the work that you did for Dragon and Dungeon, would you include Grazzt, Malcanteth and the rest in Golarion?The likelihood of WotC releasing demon lords to my total control is pretty much zero.
And if they did... I'd still probably not grandfather them in to Golarion. We've already got demon lords in established roles that those lords filled, and I'm not interested in abandoning what we've done with Golarion's demon lords really.
And furthermore, a lot of what makes Graz'zt and Malcanthet and the other closed content demon lords cool is not their role in the Abyss (we can already duplicate that, and have), but how they interact with the REST of D&D canon and D&D history and tradition. Taken out of context on their own, they lose a lot of their cool. Graz'zt without Iggwilv is lame, as is Malcanthet without Maure Castle.
So... to put it another way, WotC would more or less have to turn over ALL of their intellectual property as regards D&D before I'd even START to think about grandfathering those demons in, and even then I'd probably not, because Nocticula and Socothbenoth and Shax and Sifkesh and all the rest were in Golarion first.
I miss Graz'zt most of all. I hope there's gonna be a sexy boy-toy dominating demon lord in Golarion =p
as is Malcanthet without Maure Castle.
Lame or not, she's still freaking hot. :D
as is Malcanthet without Maure Castle.Lame or not, she's still freaking hot. :D
+1!!!
Malcanthet may be owned by WotC (a pox upon them) but that doesn't mean we can't see a Pathfinder version of the Demon Queen of Lust (and Succubi) pop up somewhere right James? Eh? EH? ^_~
|
Creative Director
|
Malcanthet may be owned by WotC (a pox upon them) but that doesn't mean we can't see a Pathfinder version of the Demon Queen of Lust (and Succubi) pop up somewhere right James? Eh? EH? ^_~
Nocticula.
She's detailed in Pathfinder #18, and will be even more detailed in Lords of Chaos. Plus, she's on the cover.
|
|
Malcanthet may be owned by WotC (a pox upon them) but that doesn't mean we can't see a Pathfinder version of the Demon Queen of Lust (and Succubi) pop up somewhere right James? Eh? EH? ^_~Nocticula.
She's detailed in Pathfinder #18, and will be even more detailed in Lords of Chaos. Plus, she's on the cover.
You are such a tease!
You are such a tease!Malcanthet may be owned by WotC (a pox upon them) but that doesn't mean we can't see a Pathfinder version of the Demon Queen of Lust (and Succubi) pop up somewhere right James? Eh? EH? ^_~Nocticula.
She's detailed in Pathfinder #18, and will be even more detailed in Lords of Chaos. Plus, she's on the cover.
Especially given the current cover art linked to... unless she's large, spiky and ugly I'd guess it's a place holder. Right?
Sex sells.
And is fun.
|
Who's the demon lord ****
that's a sex machine to all the chicks?
(Shax!)
You're damn right
Who's the demon
that would stab your neck for your soul man?
(Shax!)
Can ya dig it?
Who's the cat that'll rat you out
when there's danger all about
(Shax!)
Right on.
They say this cat Shax is a bad mother-
(Shut your mouth!)
I'm talkin' about Shax
(Then we can dig it)
Malcanthet may be owned by WotC (a pox upon them) but that doesn't mean we can't see a Pathfinder version of the Demon Queen of Lust (and Succubi) pop up somewhere right James? Eh? EH? ^_~Nocticula.
She's detailed in Pathfinder #18, and will be even more detailed in Lords of Chaos. Plus, she's on the cover.
That picture in PF #18 was fantastic, and believe it or not, it was the sigil-emblazoned wings that made the picture for me.
Anyway, James, I just read through the Fiendish Codex 1 fairly thoroughly this past weekend. I note you had Pazuzu as originally an Obyrith, and so assumed you'd give him a Qlippoth origin in PF. But your sidebar on Qlippoth Lords (p.57) doesn't include Pazuzu. Was that an intentional omission?
|
Creative Director
|
That picture in PF #18 was fantastic, and believe it or not, it was the sigil-emblazoned wings that made the picture for me.
Anyway, James, I just read through the Fiendish Codex 1 fairly thoroughly this past weekend. I note you had Pazuzu as originally an Obyrith, and so assumed you'd give him a Qlippoth origin in PF. But your sidebar on Qlippoth Lords (p.57) doesn't include Pazuzu. Was that an intentional omission?
Yup; the Pazuzu of Pathfinder and the Pazuzu of D&D are different creatures, even though they have a lot of similarities since they're both VERY heavily based on real-world myth.
Qlippoth predate humanity, and predate the presence of deities in Golarion. They're raw creations of the Abyss, unlike demons which are part Abyss, part sinful humanoid soul. Therefore, qlippoth don't have really strong humanoid shapes at all. Pazuzu is too handsome to be a qlippoth, in other words.
Orcus happens to fall on a left hand page so he'll get no illustration and only have a single column of info.
Boo, hiss!
|
Creative Director
|
Orcus happens to fall on a left hand page so he'll get no illustration and only have a single column of info.Boo, hiss!
If Orcus hadn't already been covered in exhaustive detail as the star of numerous adventures across 4 editions of the game and something like 3 decades of content... I'd feel a little more guilty.
As it stands, though... he's got plenty of resource material out there. And since he HAS been the star of so many adventures and HAS been such a key player in so many other campaigns, we don't really want to load him up with too much more stuff!
If Orcus hadn't already been covered in exhaustive detail as the star of numerous adventures across 4 editions of the game and something like 3 decades of content... I'd feel a little more guilty. etc.
Only a little more :)
Seriously though, despite the fact that no amount of Orcus is enough for me, I understand your position.
Besides - I can't fault the man who brought us the excellent Dungeon Magazine adventure Headless, which was chock full of Orcus!
Any plans to lump Book of the Damned 1 and 2 (and presumably 3 for the Daemons) together into one big juicy hardback?
|
Creative Director
|
Any plans to lump Book of the Damned 1 and 2 (and presumably 3 for the Daemons) together into one big juicy hardback?
Not yet. It'd be a relatively easy thing to do, obviously, but not until the softcovers have gone out of print. Which, since there's only one book in the line actually in print yet, is not going to happen for YEARS.
And there's far more fiends in Pathfinder than demons, devils, and daemons. I could see us doing a Book of the Damned for onis, for qlippoths, for asuras, for divs, for a LOT of races.
Divs... *drools*