Monster Core Preview: Monsters Resurrected!

keftiu wrote:

I think the fanbase and Paizo's bottom line both prefer books with mixed player-GM usage, rather than books only a GM would ever buy. You can sell one Bestiary per Pathfinder group... but *everyone* in it might grab a book that also has new classes!

It annoys me and has actively turned players of mine away from buying certain books.

It is at its worse when they do a Dark Archive and stupidly split the GM content up and scatter it through the book.

I also wonder how many players are buying books these days with pathbuilder around. I know some folks like analogue, but they are getting fewer and fewer; collectors were buying everything anyway and can be discounted. I guess there is exploiting PFS players, but I know more than a few players who are annoyed at paying for a full book when only 1/4 to 1/3 is player facing.

You know sometimes, even when something is free, people willingly give their money to the maker of that product as a way of thanking them for the product that they get to enjoy. There are also those who enjoy the lore and stories those books have inside of them, the expanded descriptions that the Apps/Nethys do not post, and the art inside said books.

I want them to organize their book better than Dark Archieve, but the way you describe the process of getting this content makes it sound so...utilitarian.

I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a construct inspired by the original mythology, and the golems that paizo has made themselves might be able to be tweaked to fit past, but an Iron Golem that is vulnerable to rust and acid, immune to non-acid magic, and has a breath weapon isn't something that can come back in a post-OGL world.

...and, honestly, good riddance.

I'm not going to cry for the rust monster, either.

Arcaian wrote:

The existence of vaguely-similar creatures in real-world mythology doesn't save something from the OGL crisis, I'm afraid. It would be possible to make a new golem creature that is inspired by the original mythology, but the existence of golems as anti-magic creatures made of specific materials with associated abilities is all very much part of the WotC IP that was made available by the OGL. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a construct inspired by the original mythology, and the golems that paizo has made themselves might be able to be tweaked to fit past, but an Iron Golem that is vulnerable to rust and acid, immune to non-acid magic, and has a breath weapon isn't something that can come back in a post-OGL world.

...and, honestly, good riddance.

I'm not going to cry for the rust monster, either.

Same. A lot of D&D-isms are things that I found pretty tiresome.

There exists a category of monster that is beloved not because they're evocative or narratively brilliant, but because they're D&D classics. Deploy them for a table full of grognards, and they shout with joy. Use them with new players, and they'll be confused and a little taken aback.

It's sometimes fun to indulge in gamer culture for its own sake, but these things tend to seem weird and out-of-place in most adventure narratives, so mostly I avoid them when possible.

Rust Monsters are definitely a relic of a very different game. A lot of other classic ambush monsters could also use retooling to make them fit into modern game ideas, and that can come with new lore and appearances to De-OGL them.

I'm so pleased about the "Match the Mythology" point! Everything being just based on pop culture stuff and not being any accurate to the actual sources has always been such a pet peeve of mine so I'm so so so excited to see this going forward!

Pop culture mythological creatures fall flat disappointingly often. The storyteller wants a creature and steals the name from mythology without retaining the mythological depth of the original.

I have an example where Paizo was guilty of this, though since it was Pathfinder 1st Edition, the oversimplification might has started in Dungeons & Dragons.

In Assault on Longshadow, 3rd module of Ironfang Invasion, the party encounters a maenad holding a feast with four enthralled dwarves. However, the PF1 maenads are insanely bloodthirsty killers. Their feasts are an aspect of their madness. In contrast, the mythological maenads were priestesses of the Greek god of wine Dionysus. They went into drunken religious frenzies in which they would rip animals apart to consume them. Later myths include them ripping human enemies apart, too, because stories of raving women who would kill men with their bare hands delved into men's fear of untamed women. The mythological version better suited an encounter with my party, so when I converted the PF1 maenad to PF2 (description here), she partially reverted to priestess of indulgence. They bartered with her, promising her sheep in exchange for the captive dwarves.

Thus, I look forward to mythological depth in Paizo's remastered monsters.

Will there be pawns?

I don't know...but put me down as someone else who would buy them if there were.

lotrotk wrote:

Will there be pawns?

I don't know...but put me down as someone else who would buy them if there were.

I would love to see Monster Core Pawns, too.

Quote:

Match the mythology

Side-eyes the wendigo

I think that dude needs to be just flat-out wendigone. He should go the way of Slenderman--make a new monster that plays with the same tropes that fascinate people, but call it something else and add some new ideas. Make an antlered "ancient ghoul" or a cannibalism fey spirit or the like.

Its enough for them to be making record profits. Argue about quality, but its clearly popular.

And you believe this is because of the change in presentation, rather than PF2e growing and making record sales before the change, strong book themes as well as shifting movements in the 5e community due to burnout and controversies?

Btw this is not my saying there is no impact, just that I am dubious that Paizo let alone us forumgoers have enough data points to draw any decent conclusion unless sales drastically shot up for those books specifically (and I do mean drastically).

And I would really question the assertion that anyone who does purchase the books because of their mixed PC and GM content, was swayed into doing so because the PC and GM content is mixed throughout the book; rather than segmented into a player and GM section.

Pronate11 wrote:

Its enough for them to be making record profits. Argue about quality, but its clearly popular.

And you believe this is because of the change in presentation, rather than PF2e growing and making record sales before the change, strong book themes as well as shifting movements in the 5e community due to burnout and controversies?

I made no such claims. I am however claiming that people are still buying books, and in larger numbers than before

KingTreyIII wrote:

Quote:

Match the mythology

Side-eyes the wendigo

I think that dude needs to be just flat-out wendigone. He should go the way of Slenderman--make a new monster that plays with the same tropes that fascinate people, but call it something else and add some new ideas. Make an antlered "ancient ghoul" or a cannibalism fey spirit or the like.

Personally, I'd love to see a legit respectful-of-the-origin-culture wendigo that was done with some care for accuracy. I don't know what one would look like, and I'm honestly curious.

Have Trolls been made closer to mythology too (the old (and modern) norse word for Magic is named after Trolls), in stead of being one-note brutes with an ahistorical gimmick mechanic Gary stole from a 1961 novel?

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

KingTreyIII wrote:

Quote:

Match the mythology

Side-eyes the wendigo

I think that dude needs to be just flat-out wendigone. He should go the way of Slenderman--make a new monster that plays with the same tropes that fascinate people, but call it something else and add some new ideas. Make an antlered "ancient ghoul" or a cannibalism fey spirit or the like.

Personally, I'd love to see a legit respectful-of-the-origin-culture wendigo that was done with some care for accuracy. I don't know what one would look like, and I'm honestly curious.

From everything I know, the most accurate and respectful to the culture wendigo possible is one that doesn't appear ever. For many monsters there's a worthwhile argument about whether its possible to be respectful enough to be worth adding, but the nature of wendigo stories are such that sharing the story itself is bad news.

I get that wendigo are by now pretty household names, and in that light some folks chafe at the idea that its too taboo to be included respectfully, but I'm with KC on this one, a creature called the Windwalker Hunger or some such and which hungers for flesh and hunts in cold areas sounds like it would adequately do the job.

Have Trolls been made closer to mythology too (the old (and modern) norse word for Magic is named after Trolls), in stead of being one-note brutes with an ahistorical gimmick mechanic Gary stole from a 1961 novel?

I confess, I'm more than a little surprised to see the classic Paizo troll art front and centre on the new Monster Core cover, same as they've always been. I'd entirely forgotten that their regeneration was itself borrowed from a third party, so I wonder if they will have changed at all? Kaer Magan augurs can rejoice at their job security at least, provided Paizo prefers to continue the regenerator giant identity with no changes to how that works.

... despite my greatest hopes and fears I suspect we'll never see the rock Trolls with bright hair or the rounded moomintroll...

A pretty cool monster that fills similar niches from 1E that I always really enjoyed was the vilkacis.

I have no idea what culture, if any, it is from, or if it's a respectful depiction, but it is a very cool monster that would hit a lot of the same notes.

A pretty cool monster that fills similar niches from 1E that I always really enjoyed was the vilkacis.

I have no idea what culture, if any, it is from, or if it's a respectful depiction, but it is a very cool monster that would hit a lot of the same notes.

Vilkacis literally translates to "wolf-eyes" and is the Latvian word for werewolves. The Pathfinder version was quite fun for my party the one time, though.

From everything I know, the most accurate and respectful to the culture wendigo possible is one that doesn't appear ever. For many monsters there's a worthwhile argument about whether its possible to be respectful enough to be worth adding, but the nature of wendigo stories are such that sharing the story itself is bad news.

Okay. I continue to be both confused and honestly curious. Is it possible to explain why that's the case without it being bad news? Is there some sort of a weird "the fact that they have this story might make them look bad, so we shouldn't talk about it" thing going on? Is it that somehow there's something in the original lore of the Wendigo that inherently states that you shouldn't share it with outsiders?

I guess I'm partially just kind of confused about the whole overall idea that it might not be possible to be respectful enough to include certain things. Obviously there are things that you might not want to put into a monster manual because you don't want to encourage people to hunt them down and kill them, possibly because they're somehow sacred, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean in this case. What else is there?

I just pray that monster stat blocks don't wrap around art like they did in the previous bestiaries. Please just follow 5e's design on this and just have a clean and literal block.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

From everything I know, the most accurate and respectful to the culture wendigo possible is one that doesn't appear ever. For many monsters there's a worthwhile argument about whether its possible to be respectful enough to be worth adding, but the nature of wendigo stories are such that sharing the story itself is bad news.

Okay. I continue to be both confused and honestly curious. Is it possible to explain why that's the case without it being bad news? Is there some sort of a weird "the fact that they have this story might make them look bad, so we shouldn't talk about it" thing going on? Is it that somehow there's something in the original lore of the Wendigo that inherently states that you shouldn't share it with outsiders?

I guess I'm partially just kind of confused about the whole overall idea that it might not be possible to be respectful enough to include certain things. Obviously there are things that you might not want to put into a monster manual because you don't want to encourage people to hunt them down and kill them, possibly because they're somehow sacred, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean in this case. What else is there?

From what I understand it's that latter point; those stories shouldn't really be spoken of, period. Speaking about them, particularly referring to their subject by name, is bad. I've heard sources say it's because it gives those things power, or it has to do with withholding respect because of how bad they are, but neither of those are first-hand explanations so I could be off and would like to be corrected if so.

It's the year 2525, and Pathfinder Bestiary # 757 has just hit your FLGS.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

From everything I know, the most accurate and respectful to the culture wendigo possible is one that doesn't appear ever. For many monsters there's a worthwhile argument about whether its possible to be respectful enough to be worth adding, but the nature of wendigo stories are such that sharing the story itself is bad news.

Okay. I continue to be both confused and honestly curious. Is it possible to explain why that's the case without it being bad news? Is there some sort of a weird "the fact that they have this story might make them look bad, so we shouldn't talk about it" thing going on? Is it that somehow there's something in the original lore of the Wendigo that inherently states that you shouldn't share it with outsiders?

I guess I'm partially just kind of confused about the whole overall idea that it might not be possible to be respectful enough to include certain things. Obviously there are things that you might not want to put into a monster manual because you don't want to encourage people to hunt them down and kill them, possibly because they're somehow sacred, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean in this case. What else is there?

From what I understand it's that latter point; those stories shouldn't really be spoken of, period. Speaking about them, particularly referring to their subject by name, is bad. I've heard sources say it's because it gives those things power, or it has to do with withholding respect because of how bad they are, but neither of those are first-hand explanations so I could be off and would like to be corrected if so.

It is my understanding that there are creatures in many cultures that should not be spoken of, or at the very least, not be called by their true name for fear of attracting their interest or their wrath and in any case sure doom.

This kind of taboo is a very strong belief for those who hold it and should not be taken lightly.

From what I understand it's that latter point; those stories shouldn't really be spoken of, period. Speaking about them, particularly referring to their subject by name, is bad. I've heard sources say it's because it gives those things power, or it has to do with withholding respect because of how bad they are, but neither of those are first-hand explanations so I could be off and would like to be corrected if so.

Ah. Well if that's what's going on, then yeah. That makes sense. If an honest rendition of the lore would include "and you really shouldn't spread this stuff around too much. It might get bad." then we're probably better off not spreading this stuff around too much. It might get bad.

Like the point of the Wendigo story is to underline how in lean times one shouldn't be greedy, and no matter how hungry you are you should not eat your friends and neighbors- doing this makes you a monster. This is a good moral, and one worth underlining which is why there are indigenous groups that will freely tell the story since the moral of "being a selfish jerk enough to hurt others to sate your hunger will ultimately leave you as more of a selfish jerk who is still hungry."

There being other groups that don't share the story might have a different meaning to it (since they're not telling me about it), but as long as Pathfinder clings to the former, I think they're fine. There are like actual living Ojibwe people we could ask about this, after all.

The problem with "Wendigo in popular culture" is when the creature is divorced from its context of selfishness, hunger, and cannibalism and instead just made into "nature monster." Don't do that. Similarly don't make the Deer Lady into just a vengeful spirit, her deal is more that she helps out women and children and punishes the people who would harm them.

Now, let me be clear: I like this creature. I think it’s a fun creature (even though Ride the Wind is more than a little clunky). I don’t, however, like that it’s called a wendigo.

Now, I’m not a member of any kind of native tribe or anything—I am a super white guy who is just interested in folklore—but the whole thing about wendigos being weird deer creatures has always kinda irked me. I do agree that Paizo’s deer-antlered wendigo could just be renamed and that would fix a lot.

Now, I’m also not one to speak about the whole thing about whether it’s appropriate for Paizo to even try to recreate the wendigo, but if they did, I think it would accomplish a lot of what the folklore says about it if they made it into a type of ghoul with a winter theme. Just my two cents.

Haha, sprigjack!

lotrotk wrote:

Will there be pawns?

I don't know...but put me down as someone else who would buy them if there were.

Erik Mona implied that there will be some product to fill this need, but not when it will be released, or even exactly what it will look like.

I'll buy pawns if they release 'em. I wouldn't be opposed to punch-out tokens that sit flat on the table, either, if that is what it takes to make the product financially viable. Not only would that obviate the need for bases, but size M creatures -- the vast majority -- would require half the card stock. Heck, if you make the tokens double-sided and are careful with how each token lines up with the obverse, you could get it down to one quarter the card stock, in which case we might finally get enough low-level baddies without needing to buy multiple boxes. :-)

I think that mixing monsters with player content is mostly a way to sell more pages. GMs are already the only ones buying bestiaries, modules, and adventures.

I think that mixing monsters with player content is mostly a way to sell more pages. GMs are already the only ones buying bestiaries, modules, and adventures.

Yep and the more products that mix, the more players are exposed to GM material and might muse on giving it a whirl. Not only smart financially, but good for nurturing potential GMs and keeping your gaming ecosystem healthy. Joe Shmuckatelli may not be the guy who ever willingly buys a GM core.......but after skimming over four books worth of GM facing content mixed with the classes that were the driving reason for his purchase he may come to realize the GM gets a lot of cool toys and run a beginner box. Good for everyone except the heavily invested ends of the spectrum who get less centralized content for their respective camp. Ultimately, it's a sacrifice that's better for the longevity of the game

I'm honestly a bit surprised that we don't see animal companion statblocks in bestiaries anymore. I figured they were there to make them of interest to players outside of use as sources for summoning.

Elfteiroh wrote:

OOoooh! Nice!

I love their new abilities, this is so much more interesting than mummy rot.
I spot that they have more HP and deal more damage though... xD

Chris Esser 556 wrote:

Looks good,I like particularly the Naga (never was a fan of the snake with just a human-head look) and the sedacthy, who looks more comfortable underwater than his sahaguin colleague.

I know I should not ask before the relase of the book but are there more monster books planned ? PF1 had 6 and PF2 Pre-Remaster had 3. I just love monster books and you can never have enough.

When they announced the remaster, I remember in the stream that Erik Mona said it was possible, but nothing have been announced about concrete plans.

I'm sure they don't have anything planned in the sense that they don't know when they would release them or what monsters would go where, but I feel like there's no reason not to release more books. There are plenty more monsters to make match with the remaster and plenty of new monsters to introduce on top of those. I imagine we won't see those books until like, next year, maybe late this year if Monster Core sells really well, but I'm pretty confident they're going to come around unless Monster Core outright underperforms.

The remaster was an exception, but usually they plan books 2 years before release. So yeah... could be a while before Monster Core 2. :P

Perpdepog wrote:

From what I understand it's that latter point; those stories shouldn't really be spoken of, period. Speaking about them, particularly referring to their subject by name, is bad. I've heard sources say it's because it gives those things power, or it has to do with withholding respect because of how bad they are, but neither of those are first-hand explanations so I could be off and would like to be corrected if so.

Ah. Well if that's what's going on, then yeah. That makes sense. If an honest rendition of the lore would include "and you really shouldn't spread this stuff around too much. It might get bad." then we're probably better off not spreading this stuff around too much. It might get bad.

Actually, that's complicated. Indigenous american nations are NOT homogeneous, and their stories sometimes spread across nations and change. Some nations have stories where he should NEVER be mentionned. Others have them as cautionary tales that NEED to be shared. And they are all slightely different.

It's a very tricky subject, and one that you can'T really win. If you include them, you hurt the ones that are from nations where they are unspeakable taboos, but if you specifically omit them, then you hurt the nations that it was a story that was made to share.

(Note that my point of view might be affected by differences that are specifics to Canadian Indigeneous nations around me.)

I also wonder how many players are buying books these days with pathbuilder around. I know some folks like analogue, but they are getting fewer and fewer; collectors were buying everything anyway and can be discounted. I guess there is exploiting PFS players, but I know more than a few players who are annoyed at paying for a full book when only 1/4 to 1/3 is player facing.

I can say that me, and everyone at my table, are still buying books. I know for us we use the Pathbuilder and AoN as supplements. Same with the PDFS. However we like the feel of physical books. Granted this is a small sample size, but I'm sure there are others out there that are similar.

Love the preview above. Always a fan of cool and new art. +1 for the "going back to source" comments.

On the topic of themed books: Count me as someone who prefers a tightly themed book with a lot of related content and lore compared to a big book of monsters (or whatever) lacking a unifying theme.

Love the preview and look forward to seeing the changes to bring monsters more in line with lore.

I admit that there is at least one thing I hope they don’t bring in line with the lore. I would rather they keep the Pegasus and Medusa as types of creature rather than unique creatures. I don’t mind if they make the Medusa a type of Gorgon since it was the Gorgon sisters, but still would rather they not be unique creatures.

I wonder if this means they will bring in other creatures of mythology like man-eating sheep.

Bringing the creatures in line with lore will likely have an additional benefit. Assuming the tales are already in the public domain it becomes much harder for WotC or anyone else to make copyright claims against them.

Has a master list of what creatures are being removed due to the OGL, and which are changing name been released yet? I suppose it doesn't really make a difference, but I'm curious which monsters have been removed.

I am definitely interested in some pawns for the core bestiary, (especially the dragons) and hopefully a core bestiary 2 coming out in a few years.

Has a master list of what creatures are being removed due to the OGL, and which are changing name been released yet? I suppose it doesn't really make a difference, but I'm curious which monsters have been removed.

I am definitely interested in some pawns for the core bestiary, (especially the dragons) and hopefully a core bestiary 2 coming out in a few years.

I would expect no such list from official channels. Technically, in some cases the OGL monsters aren't removed so much as they are 'no longer ever appearing again' - the stat block for a lot of things still exists in 2e rules, even if they were never republished for the Remaster. To publish an official list of deleted monsters doesn't seem like it would be consistent with the way they usually run things (including a preference not to try predicting the future of by ruling out anything that might be in a grey area right now). The matter's just too complex, though I wouldn't object to being proven wrong.

Meanwhile, there have been a couple threads, namely Monster Core Speculation, attempting to catalogue which monsters are most likely going to be omitted from the ORC licence going forward, but until Monster Core is published we have no way of confirming which changes ended up being necessary, so be prepared to sift through more than a small amount of extremely not-a-lawyer speculation if you want to stop by.

I'll be very interested how they will deal with the removal of alignment for fiends and celestials. Are fiends (demons, daemons, devils, etc) still going to be "always evil", but just with the tag "unholy" to replace it? And the same in reverse for celestials? Or will it be more common for outsiders of their stripe (always aligned to one alignment type before the remaster) to be of any morality they desire?

I'll be very interested how they will deal with the removal of alignment for fiends and celestials. Are fiends (demons, daemons, devils, etc) still going to be "always evil", but just with the tag "unholy" to replace it? And the same in reverse for celestials? Or will it be more common for outsiders of their stripe (always aligned to one alignment type before the remaster) to be of any morality they desire?

Since the setting is staying the same, I expect the former. Note that this will apparently apply to undead too (ie most of them having the Unholy trait in addition to the Undead trait).

I think fiends will likewise have both the Unholy trait and the Fiend trait.

magnuskn wrote:

I'll be very interested how they will deal with the removal of alignment for fiends and celestials. Are fiends (demons, daemons, devils, etc) still going to be "always evil", but just with the tag "unholy" to replace it? And the same in reverse for celestials? Or will it be more common for outsiders of their stripe (always aligned to one alignment type before the remaster) to be of any morality they desire?

Since the setting is staying the same, I expect the former. Note that this will apparently apply to undead too (ie most of them having the Unholy trait in addition to the Undead trait).

I think fiends will likewise have both the Unholy trait and the Fiend trait.

I recall when the removal of alignment was announced, there was rather a lot of speculation to the tune of suggesting that, without alignment, a deity like Sarenrae could now be dark and flawed, and there would be nothing to stop her clerics from committing atrocities in her name. Contrary to these claims, dev commentary suggested that, except where impossible, the changes made by the remaster should be virtually invisible in the setting.

This if course means that we should expect to see that immortals/outsiders will remain the same--dedicated by nature to certain concepts, but technically capable of change, no matter how unlikely. My understanding of the people in charge of stories at Paizo right now feel that part of what makes an 'angel falls' or 'redeemed demon' story is that it simply doesn't happen save for in rare exceptions that are usually worth a narrative arc about them.

It's entirely possible in a few years we'll see a plot line with an archon whose extreme pursuit of justice has folded into a devil-like obsession with punishment, but that remains to be seen.

I'm honestly a bit surprised that we don't see animal companion statblocks in bestiaries anymore. I figured they were there to make them of interest to players outside of use as sources for summoning.

Actually, yeah. I'm hoping that Howl of the Wild will expand on the available animal companion options, and it'd be cool if Monster Core did as well.

I'm really excited to see more creatures get new lore and abilities based on the original sources. Yet another reason Paizo is awesome with how much they want to put effort into respecting the origins more.

Unholy and Holy are effectively a weakness in the remaster. I was excited to see the unholy tag on the Undead although I wonder if they broke it out from Undead to avoid nested labels or to allow design space for good undead like in Eberron. Time will tell on how effective or vulnerable sanctified clerics and Pally's will be.

Well it's nice to see bleed on immunities. Not really, but people ignored what Bleed damage was.

Going to not be surprised if people start arguing over Void not being listed as an immunity for Undead. Same for Vitality.

I suppose the Vordine Devil is our ORC equivalent to the Barbazu? Some creatures are in need of a rebalancing anyway. I'm curious about what kind of creative monsters we will be seeing (thanks to the removal of some OGL monsters leading to that creative spark). Either way I'm hooked for more!

I'm hoping we can get a couple more creation rituals for constructs, now that D&D-esque golems and their irksome magic immunity are no longer going to be a thing. I'd love to see an archetype that gifts those rituals or gives them other goodies; a Bastion Builder archetype of some kind, for example.

Edit: I'm also fairly certain that most of my favorite demons and devils are Paizo originals, so I'm looking forward to them making the switch, and us getting a couple more that haven't yet made the jump, but I am pretty sure Paizo created, like the Advodaza.

The Raven Black wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

I'll be very interested how they will deal with the removal of alignment for fiends and celestials. Are fiends (demons, daemons, devils, etc) still going to be "always evil", but just with the tag "unholy" to replace it? And the same in reverse for celestials? Or will it be more common for outsiders of their stripe (always aligned to one alignment type before the remaster) to be of any morality they desire?

Since the setting is staying the same, I expect the former. Note that this will apparently apply to undead too (ie most of them having the Unholy trait in addition to the Undead trait).

I think fiends will likewise have both the Unholy trait and the Fiend trait.

I recall when the removal of alignment was announced, there was rather a lot of speculation to the tune of suggesting that, without alignment, a deity like Sarenrae could now be dark and flawed, and there would be nothing to stop her clerics from committing atrocities in her name. Contrary to these claims, dev commentary suggested that, except where impossible, the changes made by the remaster should be virtually invisible in the setting.

This if course means that we should expect to see that immortals/outsiders will remain the same--dedicated by nature to certain concepts, but technically capable of change, no matter how unlikely. My understanding of the people in charge of stories at Paizo right now feel that part of what makes an 'angel falls' or 'redeemed demon' story is that it simply doesn't happen save for in rare exceptions that are usually worth a narrative arc about them.

It's entirely possible in a few years we'll see a plot line with an archon whose extreme pursuit of justice has folded into a devil-like obsession with punishment, but that remains to be seen.

My point is that having sapient beings who tag and behave as "always alignment X" has gone out of vogue in the last decade, with the predominant view being that this is a narrative trope which could be seen as bigoted. Since alignment itself now is a thing of the past in Pathfinder, I have to wonder if the devs have taken this opportunity to remove fixed morality from outsiders (and undead) or if this aspect has been kept around and just replaced with "always certain edict/anathema".

Happy lovely devils and demons will jig with unrepentant glee as they tiptoe thru reconstructed tulips helping lil old people of indeterminate gender cross at the lights... It's not their fault they're nice, it's what their ruleset would do!

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

I'll be very interested how they will deal with the removal of alignment for fiends and celestials. Are fiends (demons, daemons, devils, etc) still going to be "always evil", but just with the tag "unholy" to replace it? And the same in reverse for celestials? Or will it be more common for outsiders of their stripe (always aligned to one alignment type before the remaster) to be of any morality they desire?

Since the setting is staying the same, I expect the former. Note that this will apparently apply to undead too (ie most of them having the Unholy trait in addition to the Undead trait).

I think fiends will likewise have both the Unholy trait and the Fiend trait.

I recall when the removal of alignment was announced, there was rather a lot of speculation to the tune of suggesting that, without alignment, a deity like Sarenrae could now be dark and flawed, and there would be nothing to stop her clerics from committing atrocities in her name. Contrary to these claims, dev commentary suggested that, except where impossible, the changes made by the remaster should be virtually invisible in the setting.

This if course means that we should expect to see that immortals/outsiders will remain the same--dedicated by nature to certain concepts, but technically capable of change, no matter how unlikely. My understanding of the people in charge of stories at Paizo right now feel that part of what makes an 'angel falls' or 'redeemed demon' story is that it simply doesn't happen save for in rare exceptions that are usually worth a narrative arc about them.

It's entirely possible in a few years we'll see a plot line with an archon whose extreme pursuit of justice has folded into a devil-like obsession with punishment, but that remains to be seen.

My point is that having sapient beings who tag and behave as "always alignment X" has gone out of vogue in the last decade, with the predominant view being that this is...

IIRC we recently had a preview of a Remastered Mummy who had both the Undead and Unholy traits.

So it seems most Mummies will default to Unholy.

I guess this will apply to most Undead and to most Fiends as well to keep the setting's continuity.

Note that all this pushes not-Unholy bad persons to find a way to true immortality (rather than undeath).

Because as soon as a bad person becomes undead or dies and is judged by Pharasma, Holy damage hurts much more.

My point is that having sapient beings who tag and behave as "always alignment X" has gone out of vogue in the last decade, with the predominant view being that this is a narrative trope which could be seen as bigoted. Since alignment itself now is a thing of the past in Pathfinder, I have to wonder if the devs have taken this opportunity to remove fixed morality from outsiders (and undead) or if this aspect has been kept around and just replaced with "always certain edict/anathema".

This is indeed an interesting question, but one to which I think the answer remains the same: The designers have expressed the desire to keep the remastered Golarion much the same as it was before the remaster--at least as much as possible, the major exception being the drow.

It is true, fantasy species being 'born evil' is very often regarded with suspicion because it feeds back into nasty irl stereotypes that need no further support, but the bar is usually in a very different place when the creatures involved are neither humanoid nor even mortal. Humanoids having a mental and moral range similar to us is important because they are us, in a hundred different ways.

Demons are incredibly diverse creatures in fiction, sometimes acting as just another fantasy species, other times being literal manifestations of cosmic evil. Paizo demons are more toward the latter, so while I'm sure there are those who might propose (in good faith) that a sapient embodiment of evil being evil is uncomfortable or even problematic, the people at Paizo seem to feel that there being some group of creatures in the universe that are 'always evil' because they are made of evil is more interesting than not. There are factors in place that make it clear (at least imho) that 'demons are evil' is not in the same order of statement as 'orcs are evil' with regards to what role these fantasy creatures play in our media.

Besides, in no edition of the game I have played has 'always evil' meant always evil.

magnuskn wrote:

My point is that having sapient beings who tag and behave as "always alignment X" has gone out of vogue in the last decade, with the predominant view being that this is a narrative trope which could be seen as bigoted. Since alignment itself now is a thing of the past in Pathfinder, I have to wonder if the devs have taken this opportunity to remove fixed morality from outsiders (and undead) or if this aspect has been kept around and just replaced with "always certain edict/anathema".

This is indeed an interesting question, but one to which I think the answer remains the same: The designers have expressed the desire to keep the remastered Golarion much the same as it was before the remaster--at least as much as possible, the major exception being the drow.

It is true, fantasy species being 'born evil' is very often regarded with suspicion because it feeds back into nasty irl stereotypes that need no further support, but the bar is usually in a very different place when the creatures involved are neither humanoid nor even mortal. Humanoids having a mental and moral range similar to us is important because they are us, in a hundred different ways.

Demons are incredibly diverse creatures in fiction, sometimes acting as just another fantasy species, other times being literal manifestations of cosmic evil. Paizo demons are more toward the latter, so while I'm sure there are those who might propose (in good faith) that a sapient embodiment of evil being evil is uncomfortable or even problematic, the people at Paizo seem to feel that there being some group of creatures in the universe that are 'always evil' because they are made of evil is more interesting than not. There are factors in place that make it clear (at least imho) that 'demons are evil' is not in the same order of statement as 'orcs are evil' with regards to what role these fantasy creatures play in our media.

Besides, in no edition of the game I have played has 'always evil' meant...

Well said. I also think that having unnatural creatures being "always alignment X" is something that can be defended from a literary standpoint. The demons from the manga/anime Sousou no Frieren are an interesting example of such creatures. I was just wondering how Paizo would handle this with their remaster of outsiders, since alignment was such a fraught point of debate in the past, especially when it came to the "always chaotic evil" type of discussions. We'll see where they go, although I think you are probably right and they'll keep the morality of outsiders and the like the same, just under the banner of edicts/anathema.

Awesome points, Sibelius.

Also, most Fiends are not really born evil. Many are the evolution of evil souls from mortal creatures who chose to do evil deeds.

So, it is still evil by choice rather than evil by nature.