|
A question for Mr. Jacobs: Will the demon lords have new demons types that serve them exclusively? I remember the old Demonomicon articles had that.Nope. They'll have lots of demons that PREFER to serve them, but we aren't going to have any races that serve specific single demon lords exclusively. And even the Demonomicon articles didn't REALLY do that—they had demons that were very closely associated with specific lords, but you could certainly have an incubus working for someone other than Malcanthet, for example.
Same for this book. The shemazian demons and the xacabras don't solely work for Lamashtu and Abraxas.
Thanks for the info Mr. J. I'm really looking forward to this book.
So...qlippoths are the new baernoloths? I'm in! Go Todd go! What about draedens (or something like them)?
Qlippoth (the original evil outsider race, perhaps the first source of evil)
Qlippoths are James' lovely awesome beasties, and I can only point you in his direction for them. I've not touched on them much in print except for some bits of history regarding some mutual genocide between them and the proteans (which IIRC came largely up in a KQ article).
There isn't a direct analog of the baernaloths in Golarion's cosmology (does there have to be? honest question) and from all appearances, the NE fiends are the youngest of the major fiend races, which sort of removes the need for an elder NE race of proto-fiends like Planescape's baernaloths. In terms of power level, there's the Oinodaemon, the so-called "Bound Prince" as the possible hand behind the actions of his lesser children, and yes the thematics I went with there tried to mix those of the AD&D oinoloth/general of gehenna/baernaloths of the Demented and give it a large twist.
I've also tried to introduce fiendish creatures like The Risen who don't fall neatly into any one catagory of fiend, and other less-defined abominations like Tegresin the Laughing Fiend who intentionally have mysterious motives and origins (to say nothing of no defined alignment).
Abd on the topic of baernaloths, of course there's a short story sitting on my desktop partially written for the heck of it that takes place entirely inside the head of Trelmarixian the Archdaemon of Wasting, in which he's haunted by his last memories as a mortal. Gets into his actions that led to his status now, what horrific sins bred such a creature, and that he might have been nudged in that direction by something else, something much older. Yet who or what it was and what they asked him as he lay dying - that's something he can't remember and it agonizes him even as he loathes the very notion of remembering his mortal life and that he was once the thing he hates more than any other. Was just something speculative and introducing something vaguely baerny into the material (more for my own later use in a Golarion campaign than anything else).
I repeat...qlippoths are the new baernoloths? I mean as far as the mysterious proto-fiend type goes.
Abd on the topic of baernaloths, of course there's a short story sitting on my desktop partially written for the heck of it that takes place entirely inside the head of Trelmarixian the Archdaemon of Wasting, in which he's haunted by his last memories as a mortal. Gets into his actions that led to his status now, what horrific sins bred such a creature, and that he might have been nudged in that direction by something else, something much older. Yet who or what it was and what they asked him as he lay dying - that's something he can't remember and it agonizes him even as he loathes the very notion of remembering his mortal...
I do so hope this story sees the light of day someday. You've always done such magnificent work with your canid daemons. Shemmy and Vorkannis and all the rest of the unholy pack; I'd love to see something covering Trelmarixian!
Creative Director
|
I repeat...qlippoths are the new baernoloths? I mean as far as the mysterious proto-fiend type goes.
To be precisely correct, they're the new obyriths, a race of proto-demons I invented for 3.5 in the Book of Fiends. Of course, the obyriths themselves were inspired by the qlippoth from Green Ronin's "Armies of the Abyss" book.
The baernaloths were only one subtype of fiend, a single species. The qlippoth are as varied in shape and form and CR as are the demons, the daemons, or the devils.
I actually missed out on a fair amount of Planescape, actually; my friend was going to run a Planescape game back in college and as a result he collected all of that stuff and I didn't touch it with the assumption that he'd eventually run all that stuff for a game. He eventually did... like 5 years later with 3rd edition... but in the meantime I had sort of missed the boat on Planescape. Which, as it works out, is kind of unfortunate.
In any event, I actually don't know all that much about the baernaloths; they were certainly never a major inspiration for the obyriths and aren't for the new qlippoth I'm designing for Bestiary 2. And this might be my Planescape ignorance showing, but aren't baernaloths humanoid shaped? It seems weird to me that such an ancient, mysterious race would be shaped like a human. Qlippoths are NOT humanoid in shape, since they existed long before humanity and possibly long before the gods themselves; they CERTAINLY existed before the gods themselves knew about Golarion.
In any event, I actually don't know all that much about the baernaloths; they were certainly never a major inspiration for the obyriths and aren't for the new qlippoth I'm designing for Bestiary 2. And this might be my Planescape ignorance showing, but aren't baernaloths humanoid shaped? It seems weird to me that such an ancient, mysterious race would be shaped like a human. Qlippoths are NOT humanoid in shape, since they existed long before humanity and possibly long before the gods themselves; they CERTAINLY existed before the gods themselves knew about Golarion.
I missed out on Planescape too. :)
http://arcanofox.foxpaws.net/Baernaloth (<--- there's a baernaloth)
Vaguely goat-like humanoid. You could argue that it's not truly odd for them to be such, on the assumption that their original forms were the inspiration behind much later mortal archetypes of evil, as mortals were influenced directly or indirectly by the stories and legends of the celestials and other outsiders that were themselves pre-mortal in origin, or had direct contact with those primordial species.
We could also ask Colin about the topic since he sorta created the baernaloths in the first place. ;)
At least in my own campaign, I don't necessarily have all of the baern appear precisely similar, just the baern who comprise The Demented and even then they tend to each have some unique abnormality that deviates from the book default. I strongly hint that the baern who simply abandoned the universe and vanished were of much different form and possibly mindset regarding the role of Evil versus that of the current yugoloths as influenced by The Demented. And one of the baern I used quite a bit in that campaign, Tellura ibn Shartalan, she usually appeared as a crippled, teenaged aasimar girl (with an inhuman and independantly mobile shadow). I've got some really spiffy artwork of some of those baern from that campaign I can link to later this evening.
But back on topic, the Qlippoth are awesome, and I seriously cannot wait to see what more you come up with for them.
|
Creative Director
|
Yeah; while I like the design for the baernaloth (goat humanoids are creeeeeepy!) it hardly looks, to me (a guy raised on Lovecraft and prehistoric monsters) like something so ancient that it comes from the dark gulfs of time. Although the concept that the human form was based on their shape is really pretty cool...
|
Creative Director
|
On the matter of Qlippoth art design: Any of you folks follow the Berserk manga? :O
Very much looking forward to this. I particularly want to see more on Abraxas, Aldinach, and Kabiri.
I believe Wes does... I know about it, at the very least. But the main source of inspiration for me for the qlippoth is Lovecraft.
Will we, at some future point, see stats for devil Archdukes and Abyssal Lords (and Daemonlords)?
I know some people like to have them as the BBEG that, well, never gets into a fight with the PCs cause they're too cosmic or whatever nonsense, but I tend to run, as many other DMs I know do, run "epic" events like that where the BBEG is a powerful entity (not necessarily say, Asmodeus, but something right below).
|
Will we, at some future point, see stats for devil Archdukes and Abyssal Lords (and Daemonlords)?
I know some people like to have them as the BBEG that, well, never gets into a fight with the PCs cause they're too cosmic or whatever nonsense, but I tend to run, as many other DMs I know do, run "epic" events like that where the BBEG is a powerful entity (not necessarily say, Asmodeus, but something right below).
I believe that various Paizo staff members have said that they won't be providing stats for arch-devils, demon lords, and the like until there's an epic level rules supplement for the PFRPG. Which makes sense.
Personally, when you get that high up the rung of bad guys, I would use the following stats:
Senses: This BBEG sees you, even if you don't see him.
Initiative: This BBEG goes before you do.
Attack Bonus: This BBEG hits you.
Damage: This BBEG kills you.
|
Creative Director
|
Will we, at some future point, see stats for devil Archdukes and Abyssal Lords (and Daemonlords)?
I know some people like to have them as the BBEG that, well, never gets into a fight with the PCs cause they're too cosmic or whatever nonsense, but I tend to run, as many other DMs I know do, run "epic" events like that where the BBEG is a powerful entity (not necessarily say, Asmodeus, but something right below).
Yes. But not before we figure out how our Epic Level rules (or whatever we end up calling post-20th level play) work. My goal is to have things like archdevils and demon lords and the like be creatures that you fight at the upper end of the Epic Level arc, near to wherever we set the level cap for Epic Level advancement. To use a current analogue—they'd fit in the same category as great wyrm dragons, the tarrasque, balors, pit fiends, solars, and so on.
There WILL be a lower CR option... already is, sort of. Nascent demon lords—powerful demons in the CR 20 - CR 25 range who have unique appearances and powers and, in time, might ascend to full demon lord status (thus taking them beyond CR 25). But for now, a nascent demon lord makes a great end boss for a core campaign. We've statted up one such demon lord already—Treerazer, in Pathfinder #17.
Actual full-on deities (demon lords and the like are demigods) would have stats even beyond the Epic Level stuff, in any event.
|
|
I actually missed out on a fair amount of Planescape, actually;...
Same here; it coincided with our groups branching out into other systems. This was part curiosity, part boredom, and partly because we couldn't find a lot of late 2E D&D product in general, let alone Planescape product, which was about as rare as rocking-horse droppings.
For all the reports of bulging warehouses of TSR overstock, they didn't seem to ship much to the UK.And this might be my Planescape ignorance showing, but aren't baernaloths humanoid shaped? It seems weird to me that such an ancient, mysterious race would be shaped like a human. Qlippoths are NOT humanoid in shape, since they existed long before humanity and possibly long before the gods themselves; they CERTAINLY existed before the gods themselves knew about Golarion.
Huzzah!
As a frequent CoC player/GM, I heartily approve of this.I accept that devils, as an ordered race of arch-tempters, would fashion themselves to resemble the dominant races of the prime (or vice versa...?), as this would improve their chances of corrupting them.
But I always thought it odd that the other fiends were not more varied in appearance. Having the old-style demon nomenclature of Type I, Type II, etc., just never sat right with me, and I also wished the designers would stop grouping new CE fiends as tanar'ri, and make more creature types, as befits the inhabitants of an infinite expanse of utter, mutating, Chaos.
I would welcome demons being individuals, built from a cookbook of options, like the eidolon, or the Hordelings (MM2 and Maure Castle). I would sometimes roll up one of those random fiends for inspiration, and draw the bizarre result, though the tables were still conservative to my teenage eyes.
More assymetrical, squamous tentacles, please!
|
Creative Director
|
Demons in Pathfinder have a pretty good reason to be humanoid, generally, in shape: they're formed from the combination of the Abyss and the sinful soul of a mortal humanoid. They're very much supposed to be personifications of sin, be they the seven deadly sins or of more exacting sins such as arson or the violation of the dead or whatever. They're intended to be the physical manifestation of the worst humans have to offer, and thus they usually have a humanoid shape to them.
Devils aren't so much "tempters" as they are liars and deceivers. You can certainly have demons tempting mortals, although wheras a devil would tempt mortals into betraying their own faith and beliefs and to work for Hell, demons are more interested in tempting humans into sinning. Because a sinful soul that goes to the Abyss makes more demons. Of course, most demons are more interested in just destroying stuff.
Daemons are all over the place—they represent personifications of ways in which mortals die. In some cases, that could result in a humanoid shape (such as from old age or starvation) but in others (eaten alive or drowning) it does not.
It's more or less the qlippoth that are super INhumanoid.
Personally, when you get that high up the rung of bad guys, I would use the following stats:Senses: This BBEG sees you, even if you don't see him.
Initiative: This BBEG goes before you do.
Attack Bonus: This BBEG hits you.
Damage: This BBEG kills you.
That would work for someone sticking to a 1-20 game, but not for those of us that really enjoy the anime-God of War-DragonballZ-feel of going 21 to triple digits and taking on enemies that can blast a fireball 1-mile wide with a thought or taking on a pack of great wyrms or a titan the size of a mountain ;)
Honestly, when I see other people's D&D games, especially with this generation and beyond, that's the scope of gaming now. If someone wants to get to the point where they can slice a 5 foot thick masonry wall open in one slice or take on a flight of dragons solo, then I believe it should be provided within the rules.
|
Honestly, when I see other people's D&D games, especially with this generation and beyond, that's the scope of gaming now. If someone wants to get to the point where they can slice a 5 foot thick masonry wall open in one slice or take on a flight of dragons solo, then I believe it should be provided within the rules.
Wait, you're trying to tell me that my lvl 20 Frenzied Berserker/Abjurant Champion/Planar Shepherd/Wizard party can't do that ? :)
... which is not true of Gandalf, of course, who is an angle-like being come into the world (with some limitations) to support elves and humans against a dark version of his race.
If that's the type of gaming you're looking for, I'd recommend checking out the Exalted game by White Wolf. That's very much the style of that game. D&D, on the other hand, tends to be Sword and Sorcery at its core. Conan, the Gray Mouser, and Gandalf, in other words - characters that overcome obstacles through skill, wit, and talent, not by being god-like superbeings.
Yes, but see, we like D&D. Really like it. We also like what's available for characters in it as opposed to other systems. The furthest we went outside the system is Star Wars Saga (which, isn't far at all). And there's plenty of room to offer rules to support that kind of gaming. We don't want to move to a system that D&D, er, Paizo doesn't support nor do we care about learning an entirely different RPG system to get this. Besides, from what I have seen with Exalted, I can't mimic the D&D material with it so it'd be pointless anyway.
D&D does support it with the Epic Level Handbook. It's simply a matter of waiting for a better version of it to come along.
In any event, I actually don't know all that much about the baernaloths; they were certainly never a major inspiration for the obyriths and aren't for the new qlippoth I'm designing for Bestiary 2. And this might be my Planescape ignorance showing, but aren't baernaloths humanoid shaped? It seems weird to me that such an ancient, mysterious race would be shaped like a human. Qlippoths are NOT humanoid in shape, since they existed long before humanity and possibly long before the gods themselves; they CERTAINLY existed before the gods themselves knew about Golarion.I missed out on Planescape too. :)
http://arcanofox.foxpaws.net/Baernaloth (<--- there's a baernaloth)
Vaguely goat-like humanoid. You could argue that it's not truly odd for them to be such, on the assumption that their original forms were the inspiration behind much later mortal archetypes of evil, as mortals were influenced directly or indirectly by the stories and legends of the celestials and other outsiders that were themselves pre-mortal in origin, or had direct contact with those primordial species.
We could also ask Colin about the topic since he sorta created the baernaloths in the first place. ;)
At least in my own campaign, I don't necessarily have all of the baern appear precisely similar, just the baern who comprise The Demented and even then they tend to each have some unique abnormality that deviates from the book default. I strongly hint that the baern who simply abandoned the universe and vanished were of much different form and possibly mindset regarding the role of Evil versus that of the current yugoloths as influenced by The Demented. And one of the baern I used quite a bit in that campaign, Tellura ibn Shartalan, she usually appeared as a crippled, teenaged aasimar girl (with an inhuman and independantly mobile shadow). I've got some really spiffy artwork of some of those baern from that campaign I can link to later this evening.
But back on topic, the Qlippoth are awesome, and...
This is the actual origin of the baernoloth:
http://www.linkandpinhobbies.com/graphics/tviolato.jpgAs one of the primary characters of Ray's Cube Comics and Stories (see here: http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?int_dnd30_Ray), we determined that this Violator action figure actually spoke in the voice of Barney from the Simpsons. The character we built around him had so many fantastic lines that we felt it was important to immortalize him.
In game terms, however, we wanted to create something that might help place a sense of the limitless expanse of the multiverse. We wanted to show a glimpse behind the currently understood wisdom into something deeper and darker. If we'd had more time, we might even have been able to suggest something along the lines of the baernoloths being a junior race to something still more unfathomably ancient.
As for the humanoid thing... as I recall, we discussed this, and decided that the true forms of anything on the planes were hidden from eyes that couldn't understand what they truly saw, and that since humanoids were the current dominant intelligent type, their belief locked these creatures of belief into humanoid forms. And then there was also an argument about convergent evolution.
And while I'm here, I'd just like to add that if any other books that deal with outer planar beings and gods and stuff need to be written, I know a guy.
If that's the type of gaming you're looking for, I'd recommend checking out the Exalted game by White Wolf. That's very much the style of that game. D&D, on the other hand, tends to be Sword and Sorcery at its core. Conan, the Gray Mouser, and Gandalf, in other words - characters that overcome obstacles through skill, wit, and talent, not by being god-like superbeings.
That would work for someone sticking to a 1-20 game, but not for those of us that really enjoy the anime-God of War-DragonballZ-feel of going 21 to triple digits and taking on enemies that can blast a fireball 1-mile wide with a thought or taking on a pack of great wyrms or a titan the size of a mountain ;)Honestly, when I see other people's D&D games, especially with this generation and beyond, that's the scope of gaming now. If someone wants to get to the point where they can slice a 5 foot thick masonry wall open in one slice or take on a flight of dragons solo, then I believe it should be provided within the rules.
This game is way too powerful to be a conan, gandalf, gray mouser game. This is a Stardust game where magic shops are plentiful and pc's can have what ever magic items they have coin to buy or skill to make. It's a great game and i love it, but for conan, play RC (or B/X) or AD&D, not 3.x (unless you alter the availability and commonality of magic). But again, this game is great for power gamers, which i can be at times.
Awesome cover!
I've updated the product description and cover image to reflect the finished product.
Why is Nocticula the cover girl? Since Lamashtu is the Queen of Demons, why not her? Equal exposure for furry demons!
More seriously, great cover, and it'll probably get at least a few impulse buys.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've updated the product description and cover image to reflect the finished product.Why is Nocticula the cover girl? Since Lamashtu is the Queen of Demons, why not her? Equal exposure for furry demons!
More seriously, great cover, and it'll probably get at least a few impulse buys.
Because Nocticula is sexier.
But also because Lamashtu is more than a demon lord; she's an actual goddess. That's the same reason we didn't put Asmodeus on the cover of "Princes of Darkness." These books are more about the other rulers of the lower planes, not the ones who made it big.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Whereabout in December is this one coming out ? I predict massive problems with my Paizo purchases once VAT on books kicks off in my country in January ...
We're currently anticipating late December, but until it's actually in our warehouse, we can't be sure. At this point, things can move either way.
I see that Paizo is putting out the 2nd installment of Book of the Damned out, but was wondering if Angels and Archons would get the same treatment as the Devils and Demons are. I ask b/c i was quite excited with the 3.5 material in Fiendish Codex 1 & 2, but was a little let down when it happened that no Celestial Codex would be printed. =/
Im currently writing a "Hellgate" esc. style campaign in which Demons are the invaders and have effectively decimated all life on the Material Plane. The surviving native (including my future PCs) have allied themselves with either Devils or Angels and are doing what they can to close the portals to the Abyss...so you can see my frustration with so little material on the Celestials.
All in all, this looks to be yet another AMAZING addiction..I MEAN addition to the Pathfinder collection. =D
I see that Paizo is putting out the 2nd installment of Book of the Damned out, but was wondering if Angels and Archons would get the same treatment as the Devils and Demons are. I ask b/c i was quite excited with the 3.5 material in Fiendish Codex 1 & 2, but was a little let down when it happened that no Celestial Codex would be printed. =/
Im currently writing a "Hellgate" esc. style campaign in which Demons are the invaders and have effectively decimated all life on the Material Plane. The surviving native (including my future PCs) have allied themselves with either Devils or Angels and are doing what they can to close the portals to the Abyss...so you can see my frustration with so little material on the Celestials.
All in all, this looks to be yet another AMAZING addiction..I MEAN addition to the Pathfinder collection. =D
+1
Books on angels and archons would be nice. Incidently will we see a return of our old buddy Orcus? Unlike some demon lords there was a god Orcus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcus
|
Creative Director
|
Books on angels and archons would be nice. Incidently will we see a return of our old buddy Orcus? Unlike some demon lords there was a god Orcus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcus
Well... in Golarion, ALL demon lords are technically also gods. Demigods, that is, but they still grant spells to their clerics.
Orcus gets about half a page in the book, in any event. With some other tidbits scattered around here and there. He's actually had more attention over the years than any other demon lord, though... and as a result we tend to skew pretty "light" on the new information for him.
|
|
Books on angels and archons would be nice. Incidently will we see a return of our old buddy Orcus? Unlike some demon lords there was a god Orcus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrcusWell... in Golarion, ALL demon lords are technically also gods. Demigods, that is, but they still grant spells to their clerics.
Orcus gets about half a page in the book, in any event. With some other tidbits scattered around here and there. He's actually had more attention over the years than any other demon lord, though... and as a result we tend to skew pretty "light" on the new information for him.
James! Don't you ever sleep?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because Nocticula is sexier.
Amen to that. My girlfriend is a big fan of Nocticula and fervently hopes that Nocticula's ascension to true goddesshood awaits in the covers.
Books on angels and archons would be nice. Incidently will we see a return of our old buddy Orcus? Unlike some demon lords there was a god Orcus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrcusWell... in Golarion, ALL demon lords are technically also gods. Demigods, that is, but they still grant spells to their clerics.
Orcus gets about half a page in the book, in any event. With some other tidbits scattered around here and there. He's actually had more attention over the years than any other demon lord, though... and as a result we tend to skew pretty "light" on the new information for him.
Well my main reason for that is to show despite what WotC might want to believe, they don't have a lock on the name. The image maybe but Orcus is not a made up name.
|
Creative Director
|
Orcus gets about half a page in the book, in any event. With some other tidbits scattered around here and there. He's actually had more attention over the years than any other demon lord, though... and as a result we tend to skew pretty "light" on the new information for him.Well my main reason for that is to show despite what WotC might want to believe, they don't have a lock on the name. The image maybe but Orcus is not a made up name.
That's dangerous territory.
Sure, WotC doesn't own the word "Orcus," but they (and TSR/Gygax before them) have done a HELL of a lot of development work making Orcus into a demon lord. Had WotC/TSR/Gygax not done what they did for Orcus, chances are excellent that you and I would not even think about Orcus as a demon lord, but more likely as a name for the underworld itself.
Anything that develops Orcus (or ANY demon lord or other open content character that TSR/WotC started work on) pretty much HAS to keep that in mind. It's one thing to develop those concepts further and to add on to established lore in a way that doesn't infringe upon WotC's intellectual property. It's another to abuse the situation in an attempt to "show up WotC," and that type of attitude is one that I'd like to see go away entirely.
I'm thankful that WotC allowed Necromancer Games to present Orcus as a demon lord and use some of the background they and TSR built for the character, and I'd like to show that thanks by respecting what WotC/TSR have done by NOT trying to be a jerk about it, basically. And I'm not just saying that because I had a significant part in developing the D&D demons at the last half of 3.5's life cycle—I'm saying that because a confrontational us-against-them attitude when it comes to sharing monsters is a poor choice.
Yeah, leave the "us-against-them" to WotC, Paizo is much better than that.
Obviously, I'm bitter at the stranglehold WotC has on mind flayers, beholders, and a number of other monsters they should've made open content. Sucks we're limited to what's in the SRD and Tome of Horrors.
One day, all of D&D will be public domain...one day...or century...
|
Creative Director
|
Yeah, leave the "us-against-them" to WotC, Paizo is much better than that.
Obviously, I'm bitter at the stranglehold WotC has on mind flayers, beholders, and a number of other monsters they should've made open content. Sucks we're limited to what's in the SRD and Tome of Horrors.
One day, all of D&D will be public domain...one day...or century...
The fact that they made the majority of their rules open content and the VAST majority of the monsters open is what I prefer to focus on. For every mind flayer or beholder that remained closed content, we have an entire selection of demons and devils, needles to say things like aboleths, rust monsters, behirs, ropers, gelatinous cubes, mimics, green slime, bulettes, driders, night hags, neothelids, intellect devourers, otyughs, shambling mounds, xills, kytons, and so on and so on. They didn't have to make ANY of those open content, but they did.
Frankly, that's MORE than enough to build new stories from.
Yeah, leave the "us-against-them" to WotC, Paizo is much better than that.
Obviously, I'm bitter at the stranglehold WotC has on mind flayers, beholders, and a number of other monsters they should've made open content. Sucks we're limited to what's in the SRD and Tome of Horrors.
One day, all of D&D will be public domain...one day...or century...
The fact that they made the majority of their rules open content and the VAST majority of the monsters open is what I prefer to focus on. For every mind flayer or beholder that remained closed content, we have an entire selection of demons and devils, needles to say things like aboleths, rust monsters, behirs, ropers, gelatinous cubes, mimics, green slime, bulettes, driders, night hags, neothelids, intellect devourers, otyughs, shambling mounds, xills, kytons, and so on and so on. They didn't have to make ANY of those open content, but they did.
Frankly, that's MORE than enough to build new stories from.
Damn straight SKIPPY!!! ~grins~
|
|
There's also the fact that just because Paizo can't put mind flayers or beholders into Pathfinder/Golarion publications, that doesn't mean that we can't use them in our own campaigns, be they based in Golarion or elsewhere.
I liked Mind Flayers, Beholders, Displacer Beasts, Umber Hulks, and Carrion Crawlers. I never really cared much for Yuan-Ti, Githyanki, Githzeri, Grell, Slaad.
I'm sure there are more WotC IP monsters, but I can't think of what they were, so obviously I don't miss them much.
It's funny how some things get seen as proper nasties while others are viewed as just plain silly. My apologies to those that like beholders, but to me they are even more silly than flumphs. I loved the way they were treated in misfit monsters. Mind Flayers I always thought of as cool. Although that said, there is an aberration in one of the bestiaries from Council of Thieves that made me think you combined the best aspects of beholders and illithids and made a new and really nasty monster out of that WotC can say boo about and is in some ways better either one of the two individualistically.