What Sorts of Monsters


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

You asked.

I do agree with Hoyle that color-coded dragons present a RP issue. While it certainly doesn't break the game that players know the difference between good and evil dragons (after all, you can see the difference between an angel and a fiend), good dragons are usually just talking heads: they're too powerful/cumbersome for NPC allies, and have geas/quest on their spell list just for railroading players. The fact that good dragons have non-lethal breath weapons and shapeshifting, while evil dragons do not, is a huge metagame issue. Chromatic dragons could be much more interesting with the same abilities, and metallic dragons face tougher choices with stubborn PCs if their non-lethal gimmicks were taken away.

The other issue with color coding, besides attack-or-parley, is energy abilities/resistances. I know a fiend from a celestial, but I don't necessarily know demon from devil, and they have very different energy resistances. But if I see a black dragon, I know to cast protection from acid. If I see a red dragon, I know not to bother with fireball.

What I do like: Age categories. While it can make assembling a stat bock more difficult, it means dragons remain interesting encounters at all points in an adventurer's career. I wish more monsters had that kind of scalability.


Okay, I've been strictly a player for...well if I tell you that I'll age myself. I've just recently began dabbling in DMing for my kids and hubby and am planning on TRYING to convert Pathfinder to our favorite world and giving it a go, as our DM is getting grumpy and wants to play. It's going to be a first for me, but I'm pretty sure I have the mechanics down, and I know the core rule books backwards and forwards (closes eyes tightly while chanting I think I can)
What I would like to see in a Dragon, is one the PC's won't recognize as good or evil just by sight. A race that could be either, is the dog friendly, or is he going to eat your face off kind of thing. It gives them pause, enough time for me to get close enough to eat their faces off see.

Sovereign Court

Ross Byers wrote:

The fact that good dragons have non-lethal breath weapons and shapeshifting, while evil dragons do not, is a huge metagame issue. Chromatic dragons could be much more interesting with the same abilities, and metallic dragons face tougher choices with stubborn PCs if their non-lethal gimmicks were taken away.

I agree with this 100 percent. While I'm not likely to give a White Dragon shapeshifting, I'll certainly do so for the Red dragons, Blues and Greens. Blacks as well.

I'm a bit more leery of taking it away from good dragons. They become less 'railroady' if you play them with subtlety. The enigmatic patron with interesting connections, a supply of useful magic items and far reaching goals can be a very useful NPC. Remember that dragons can afford to take very long views in their planning, and can have several plots stringed together so that they don't have to force retralcient PCs into doing thier bidding.

Ross Byers wrote:

The other issue with color coding, besides attack-or-parley, is energy abilities/resistances. I know a fiend from a celestial, but I don't necessarily know demon from devil, and they have very different energy resistances. But if I see a black dragon, I know to cast protection from acid. If I see a red dragon, I know not to bother with fireball.

I'll mess with this a lot. White Dragons with Rings of Protection From Fire. I also let Dragons take type switching feats, or feats that augment their breath weapon type (It breathes acid that's -on fire-.) At the same time, the color coordination has a certain serious history to it, and to a degree the ability of a party to survive a run in with a dragon is the knowledge of what sort of damage you -really- need to be ready for. Also: Red Dragons that know Cone Of Cold. It's a mean thing to do, but great fun.


Taliesin Hoyle wrote:

Dragons.

I believe that the dragons in the MM are OGL. That said, I am tired of the old chromatic and metallic divides. It makes far more sense to me to have dragons be based on the terrain they are adapted to.

The upcoming ferrous dragons give us a good example of a subcategory that spans different alignments. ("What, they're not all good? But I though they're a subcategory of metallic dragons.") And I have a copy of Legends & Lairs' Draconic Lore which has several 3.0 dragons (all OGC), which can be used as a good start-off point. (As an aside, I figured the Swim-By Attack feat in Stormwrack was adapted from this book.) And various new dragon threads at EN World that the contributors (like me) would be willing to show to Paizo.

Fossil animals: the good thing about them is that because they're extinct, even with the best educated guesses about their biomechanics their game abilities are not necessarily true-to-life so there's a bit more leeway in making variants of them while keeping them realistic. Imagine the walrus-headed whale Odobenocetops using its tusks as weapons, or carnivorous kangaroos that are like the pouncing and jumping equivalents to velociraptors.


I really enjoy metallic and chromatic dragons, not because of the good/evil thing so much (I believe firmly that no dragon is ever safe to be around--good dragons gotta' eat too, y'know) but for the gobs of personality and flavor that drip from the various descriptions. I love them. Would I like more kinds of dragons? Oh boy yeah! Every time Dragon had an issue that covered new kinds of dragons I bought it. I would go for a multiplicity of dragons, all of them with their own cultures and individual personalities besides.

I don't see the color thing as racism, not in the slightest--since a well concieved individual dragon, regardless of color, will have a distinct personality within it's greater racial bounds. It's like saying there shouldn't be gnomes or elves, because then you see an elf and go "ho-hum he eats daisies and thinks he's better than me..." or you see a gnome and think "oh here we go again, he's going to talk my ear off about some invention..." While these are stereotypes, they serve as cultural jumping off points to make hundreds of neat characters within their spectrum, or perhaps a nice contrast for individuals that step outside their usual box and challenge the preconceptions--rattling the cage a bit.

I'd like to see dragons in Pathfinder, classic dragons as they were meant to be--ancient and magical and neigh invulnerable. Much like goblins (who I'm convinced now that only Pathfinder have ever really done justice) I would like to see the re-imagining of dragons be a purification and crystalization of the things that have made them great rather than see what whacked out new things can be done with flying lizards (Easy-Cheese breath weapon!)

Though as to the larger issue of this thread--monster submissions for Pathfinder--I have to say, I've got a ton of ideas I'm itching to submit. I really am gunning to get my foot in the door to leave a mark on the Pathfinder setting. Granted until things like the Player's Guide come out I'm going to be a bit of an outsider (not ever using adventures it's really hard to buy the books when I won't really ever be able to use more than half of it...*sigh*) but I'm really liking how things are coming together and would love to see some of my creations (or spins on much older ideas) go on to become real breathing citizens of this new world. I'd like to get some kind of preliminary way of submitting ideas--even if it's just to pitch them and see which ones will work!

Contributor

Mike McArtor wrote:
Please continue to talk about what you like and dislike of dragons as they exist in D&D today.

When my players hear the word "dragon," I want them to stop short. I want them to wonder, "Is this adventure really worth it? Shouldn't we reconsider?" Dragons should be so awe- and fear-inspiring that people don't even want to talk about them, much less square off against one.

It might not be a bad idea if Paizo never detailed the specifics on certain types of dragons. Keep the Draconomicon notes a secret and just present dragons are unique individuals.

For instance, Auranorex should be a name that is known and feared. His death, while talked about in Guardians of Dragonfall, should be disputed for years to come. "Is he dead? What if he's not? Oh no!"

Oh, and make the good-aligned dragons the "bad guys" sometimes.

- - - - -
#pathfinder chat: Chat Now! (Channel: #pathfinder)


I'm working on statting up some of my favorite fey that I haven't seen. The idea that fey are sparkly and sill really bothers me and I have wanted to see the influence of the unseelie court for ages. Also, I've been tossing around ideas for goblin variants, mostly dealing with humanoid children being stolen by fey turning into changelings, or, goblins with a few tweaks.

I love the idea posted of variantions on dragons. Maybe that could be incorporate into the existing mettalic/chromatic divide...a coppery dragon with scarlet highlights that demands a toll of blood to pass through it's desert territory or a green and silver dragon that is the 'protector' of a tribe of elves.

Contributor

ON HOBGOBLINS

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Of all the low-CR threats out there, hobgoblins are my favorite. I know they'll be in the Pathfinder setting, but in case they've not been detailed yet, allow me to make my wishes known.

Make them the equestrian nomads - a la the Tuigan of the Forgotten Realms, or the Paynim of Greyhawk. Give the hobgoblins names that mean "robbers" or "demons." Make them the mounted archers of Pathfinder (they do have a nice DEX bonus to exploit).

If the "tragic elves" motif is used, pit the two groups against each other - striving on the edges of civilization. Have the goblins hate them for a reason. (hey, they ride HORSES!)

I have more, but that's a start.


I really like the treatment Dragons got in Eberron.

Dragons are massively old, and have high Intelligence, Wisdom (in fact all scores except Dex), so why do they sit around in caves on piles of loot waiting for adventurers to come and kill them?

I like in Eberron how they consider themselves "above" the other races, and spend most of their time contemplating the prophecy.

Whatever you do, DON'T make them just another random encounter that the players defeat. They should all be unique individuals with their own gola sand motivations, and with as much background details as the more detailed NPCs of the plot.

I suppose, basically I would prefer to see dragons treated like NOCs, and not as just another monster.

Sovereign Court

Actually, to the people commenting on darker fey, and who really like the goblins, I really only have one thing to say:

Redcaps.

You know you want it.


I hate orcs. Orcs belong in LOTR, not D&D. D&D has goblinoids. I'll take all the goblins and hobgoblins you can give me, especially if drawn by WAR.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Mike McArtor wrote:
Please continue to talk about what you like and dislike of dragons as they exist in D&D today.

I dislike the strict alignments on any race especially dragons. One of the things I would really like to see is an alien psychology. These are exceedingly long lived reptillian monsters who have an innate tie magical forces. How do these traits factor together into a dragon's personality.

Also good explanations for classic draconic qualities would be nice: such as why dragons horde treasure. Some of these questions were answered in the Dracnomicon but that isn't OGL so I'd love to see these traits factored into the new draconic concepts.


I’m tired of D&D dragons. I think Pathfinder should jettison most of the existing rubric. Pathfinder dragons should defy player knowledge. Their alignments, personalities, and abilities should have little to do with the climates they choose and nothing to do with their colors. Dragon scales should come in all kinds of colors, from drab earth tones to brilliant gemlike hues, usually patterned or otherwise mixed together. Amassing treasure, admiring themselves, and either counseling adventurers or rampaging against human communities should satisfy few self-respecting dragons as admirable goals. Moreover, dragons should have a wide range of unexpected abilities and weaknesses. And while breeds exist, each dragon should be unique in some fashion.

The great azure dragon that preys upon narwhals beneath the arctic ice flows, for instance, breaths both fire and a gray life-leeching gas that drains levels. It's said that those who cast harmful transmutation spells against the silvery, mirror-like dragonettes of the deep wood turn to glass. But rumors that a charging dun dragon of the high steppes can knock you clean into the ethereal plane are surely fanciful. Aren't they?


Dragons with innate clerical, shaman, druid spellcasting instead of sorcerous spellcasting abilities would be nice. Dragons that are purely physically combative without magical abilities.


I am really glad to see I am not alone.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Mike McArtor wrote:

This thread suddenly got my attention.

Please continue to talk about what you like and dislike of dragons as they exist in D&D today.

:)

Someone at Wizards talked about how powerful dragons spend too much time spellcasting and not enough time breathing and biting. I agree.

Smaug never cast a spell and look what he did to Laketown.

I’d prefer dragons to access maneuvers (like Tome of Battle but made OGL!). As they get more powerful they get a suite of maneuvers to boost speed, damage, flight etc. Really powerful dragons might get extra maneuvers: damage resistance, limited teleport as a swift action, flaming claws, beams of searing light from the eyes etc.

The dragon could only use so many powers in an encounter and maybe only once each unless it takes a move action to regain one. Many powers would be swift actions but not quite as powerful as a spell. Some might even use immediate actions to counter attacks (like damage resistance).

Also, I don’t like the color/metal split and reliance on Tiamat and divine backing. I’d like to see an actual culture for dragons developed. Maybe they evolved to protect the flow of magical energies but some of them turned to evil and exploitation of that magic.

Dragons make lairs in areas where magical energy is strong and draw on it to boost their maneuvers even more. Vast amounts of precious stones and metals or valuables might mask the easy detection of these energy sources, making it imperative for dragons to amass wealth to stay hidden from their rivals.

Wars are fought over these magical areas, prestige classes could draw on them, spells could be more powerful there, magic items could also use them, and the energy might create new monsters. Dragons may be involved in dragon wars that go on outside the bounds of human and demihuman intrigue but sometimes intersects with them in dangerous and violent ways.

If the majority of humans ever learned of these sites, they might hunt dragons to extinction to gain control of their lairs. Therefore both good and evil dragons will sometimes work together to kill adventurers to protect their secret. Not all good dragons agree with this philosophy, but many do.


I'd like to see more living constructs and golem-like races. Maybe a nation of them. A race encompassing a range of living constructs of different size, shapes and purpose. -Like how the goblinoid type is broken up into: goblins, bugbears, decanter, hobgoblins etc.

A nation of tiny or small sized puppet master dolls, would rock.
A culture revolving around transfering the souls of the recently dead into imortal 'poppets', the reason for the tiny size is to deal with over population. :)

Empire of the Dolls

Hmmmm... Tasty ideas forming for my campaign...Like a lawful evil creepy doll version of Lilliputianess…mixed with something simular to those deathless elves from Eberron...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Do to dragons what was done to goblins - make them interesting again!

But artwork is important, too. I've never gotten used to the new dragon images. The art of Dragonlance influnces what I envision. Sleek black dragons popping out of a well, not a black sheep-horned thing...


Ross Byers wrote:

You asked.

I do agree with Hoyle that color-coded dragons present a RP issue. While it certainly doesn't break the game that players know the difference between good and evil dragons (after all, you can see the difference between an angel and a fiend), good dragons are usually just talking heads: they're too powerful/cumbersome for NPC allies, and have geas/quest on their spell list just for railroading players.

A simple solution, that preserves most of dragons as presented in the SRD, would be to simply have metallic dragons tend towards neutral (rather than good) alignments. Adventurers will be even less certain of where they stand.

I do really like the suggestion (elsewhere in this thread) of "blended" dragons, e.g. a coppery-red dragon, but that could make things difficult for DMs -- no standard approach, just a bunch of one-off cases. Though one approach might be to have a "base dragon" creature, which is never encountered as-is; instead, you overlay two color templates on top of it. You might overlay a copper template and a red template to get the above example, or the red template twice to make something very similar to the red dragon as presented in the SRD, or....

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Or just have a 'base dragon' age progression, chose an energy type breath weapon, and an alignment, and have it look however you want. Keeps the PCs guessing and still gives customization.


Ross Byers wrote:
Or just have a 'base dragon' age progression, chose an energy type breath weapon, and an alignment, and have it look however you want. Keeps the PCs guessing and still gives customization.

For a campaign I did a few years back, I did just that. I even wrote up three dragon "classes" (small, big, and bigger). Dragons got Talents (like in d20 modern) to pick draconic abilities, and they could use their feats to boost their abilities. They chose what type of breath weapon/resistances they got, and everything. As a side effect, few dragons were casters... which I thought was a good thing.

A big change I do for dragons is have them connected to the natural world.

When a Dragon is mad, storms break out. My "dragon of mist" (I guess it'd be a silver dragon, that's the closest analogy) was a fisherman who tended towards human form. Wherever he was, though, light fogs would break out. Windows would always haze over in his presence. And, no matter the temperature (he lived in the tropics), people's breath would always mist up.

Sovereign Court

I just had a look into today's blog entry:

Six new monsters per Pathfinder issue?!
I.e. 72 monsters per year!

How are so many new critters to fit into a campaign setting, or rather: is there still place for the OGL standard monsters in the new setting? Or are they just oddities compared to all the new monsters you are going to invent?

Just curious... ;-)

Greetings,
Günther

Paizo Employee Creative Director

There's been a LOT of talk about dragons here. And while I've read through it all... I wouldn't expect Pathfinder's dragons to end up differing much at all from the classic ten chromatic and metallic dragons. They've remained pretty much the same for 3 decades, and that's not by accident.

We'll certainly be introducing new dragons, and the physical look of the Pathfinder dragons will be different. But it's foolish to make sweeping changes to something that's that well-loved.

ANYway... it looks like we'll be having a big article about the Pathfinder world's dragons in Pathfinder #5. And no, I can't say much more about that yet. Mostly because we're more than half a year away from it still...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Guennarr wrote:

I just had a look into today's blog entry:

Six new monsters per Pathfinder issue?!
I.e. 72 monsters per year!

That should actually read: MINIMUM 6 new monsters per Pathfinder. Some volumes will have more.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

First: We have to wait till #5? but I want it now!

Second: That's a lot of monsters. How many of those will be re-visits like the Goblins and how many will be completely new? I don't want to over-populate the universe.


Mike McArtor wrote:

This thread suddenly got my attention.

Please continue to talk about what you like and dislike of dragons as they exist in D&D today.

:)

The dragons as presented in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved spring to mind. With those guys, you never know what your getting. A reddish dragon that breathes ice, a bluish dragon that breathes a cloud of stinging, blinding dust.

That sort of thing would be nice.

Contributor

Just wanted to drop in and say that yesterday's blog post was another teaser giving information about new monsters in Pathfinder volume #1. Thought ya'll might be interested.

-James Sutter
Keeper of the Blog

Sovereign Court

Ross Byers wrote:

First: We have to wait till #5? but I want it now!

Second: That's a lot of monsters. How many of those will be re-visits like the Goblins and how many will be completely new? I don't want to over-populate the universe.

My sentiment is the same.

Inflationary use of monsters isn't helpful, but revisits and variations of existing monsters (like e.g. dragons, see above... ;-) ) are neat.

But James already stated that new monsters will only appear where they make sense in an adventure...

Greetings,
Günther

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Ross Byers wrote:
First: We have to wait till #5? but I want it now!

That's IT! I'm moving the article to Pathfinder #9!

Just kidding. It'll be in #5. Because that's where the most dragons in the adventure path are destined to pop up. I think.

Ross Byers wrote:
Second: That's a lot of monsters. How many of those will be re-visits like the Goblins and how many will be completely new? I don't want to over-populate the universe.

None will be re-visits. The goblins look different, but their stat blocks are unchanged from the SRD. The new monsters in Pathfinder will be all new. In some cases, they'll be new interpretations of mythological monsters that have appeared in other products (such as the wendigo or the linnorm, for example), but even then they'll look different and have different stats.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Guru's Gal wrote:

The dragons as presented in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved spring to mind. With those guys, you never know what your getting. A reddish dragon that breathes ice, a bluish dragon that breathes a cloud of stinging, blinding dust.

That sort of thing would be nice.

We'll be introducing new dragons that do unexpected things and have new abilities. But the classic 10 chromatic and metallic dragons will be familiar and more or less unchanged game-stat wise. They'll look different, and in some cases act different, but again; it's foolish to tamper with a monster that's had 30 years of tradition to it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Guennarr wrote:
But James already stated that new monsters will only appear where they make sense in an adventure...

Yeah... but that applies to the adventure. The new monsters we're including in the Pathfinder Bestiary will be both adventure-supported monsters and "bonus" monsters that are tied to that issue's themes somehow. That doesn't mean that every monster needs to be in the world. Just becaue a new monster book releases 300 new monsters doesn't mean that they all magically appear in a game world, remember.

As long as monsters appear in an adventure in a logical manner, it'll all work out well.

Sovereign Court

Guru's Gal wrote:
Mike McArtor wrote:

This thread suddenly got my attention.

Please continue to talk about what you like and dislike of dragons as they exist in D&D today.

:)

Oh... So this was the reason for this thread being "dragonjacked"... ;-)

The existing dragons are iconic and a mainstay of D&D/ OGL. But I agree that some more variation could help. Even my (inexperienced) players gradually learn to tell them apart (we are playing Red Hand of Doom).

I'd vote for modification of "standard dragons": new feats, different spells, different combat tactics and outlooks on life (as a dragon). I think this can cause more surprises than just another fire breathing big brute with a different scale colour... What about a silver dragon turned evil, or a gold dragon who thinks that he is doing good, but could turn out to be too narrowminded...

Greetings,
Günther


Overall I'm not keen on "races" of dragons -- I prefer them to be unique. Some should be wyrms, all coils and oozing acidey death ... others like massive yellow-scaled crocodiles with baleful lamps for eyes ... still others enormous golden-red, fire-breathing winged terrors.

Having said that, I also realize that's a lot of work to pull off -- and a recipe for everybody recreating Smaug time and again. So in practice, the good old metallic/chromatics are probably a good way to encourage diversity in their own way.

But in an -ideal- world, yah -- all dragons are unique!

-The Gneech

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Guennarr wrote:


I'd vote for modification of "standard dragons": new feats, different spells, different combat tactics and outlooks on life (as a dragon). I think this can cause more surprises than just another fire breathing big brute with a different scale colour... What about a silver dragon turned evil, or a gold dragon who thinks that he is doing good, but could turn out to be too narrowminded...

Greetings,
Günther

One of the BBeGs for Age of Worms was a Vampiric Silver dragon who wanted to useat Dragotha as the meanest undead dragon around.


Sben wrote:

Though one approach might be to have a "base dragon" creature, which is never encountered as-is; instead, you overlay two color templates on top of it. You might overlay a copper template and a red template to get the above example, or the red template twice to make something very similar to the red dragon as presented in the SRD, or....

Ooooh, me likey. Me likey lots. It standardizes the concept while still leaving room for funky dragons that give the players a pause.

Someone else said something about the art of dragons. I completely agree. I've always seen all dragons as sleek, beautiful beings no matter what their alignment is. The evil ones are beautiful the way a raging fire or high powered gun is, while the good ones are beautiful the way an icicle or waterfall is.

Sovereign Court

James Jacobs wrote:
Guennarr wrote:
But James already stated that new monsters will only appear where they make sense in an adventure...

Yeah... but that applies to the adventure. The new monsters we're including in the Pathfinder Bestiary will be both adventure-supported monsters and "bonus" monsters that are tied to that issue's themes somehow. That doesn't mean that every monster needs to be in the world. Just becaue a new monster book releases 300 new monsters doesn't mean that they all magically appear in a game world, remember.

As long as monsters appear in an adventure in a logical manner, it'll all work out well.

*lol* I already own too many monster books and have a guess why... :p

Serious: I am curious about the monsters you will feature. I'd also like to get more out of the existing OGL monsters, too, though. Ecologies are fine, new variations on existing monsters as well.

Greetings,
Günther

P.S.
Hhhmm... I never felt as if WotC offered a persuading answer to the question how all the MM II - IV monsters came into existence in FR/ EB. And I feel that monsters should have a reason for their existence...


YeuxAndI wrote:
Ooooh, me likey. Me likey lots. It standardizes the concept while still leaving room for funky dragons that give the players a pause.

Thanks. I'm not sure that's the right way to do it (and it's not like dragons aren't already hard enough to stat up), but I think there's something there to fiddle with for someone's home campaign.

Contributor

James Jacobs wrote:
It'll be in #5. Because that's where the most dragons in the adventure path are destined to pop up. I think.

Pathfinder #5 comes out in... December? Amazingly, GameMastery Module J2: Guardians of Dragonfall also comes out that month. What a coincidence!


All this talk of dragons reminds me that I need to update my lesser dragons from back in 1e/2e days. They had 5 age categories (wyrmling, young, adult, old, ancient). I had some fun with these guys. They kept my players on their toes.

And James, I currently am wrapping up a planescape game where my players have been facing creatures from the Far Realms since the very start. As such, I may have a few Lovecraftian monsters for you. I just need to go back through my notes and find them.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

EP Healy wrote:
Pathfinder #5 comes out in... December? Amazingly, GameMastery Module J2: Guardians of Dragonfall also comes out that month. What a coincidence!

Yeah... weird how that worked out, huh? :)

Dark Archive

EP Healy wrote:

ON HOBGOBLINS

Make them the equestrian nomads - a la the Tuigan of the Forgotten Realms, or the Paynim of Greyhawk. Give the hobgoblins names that mean "robbers" or "demons." Make them the mounted archers of Pathfinder (they do have a nice DEX bonus to exploit).

In my homebrew, I loosely based hobgoblins on the Mongol Empire. Horselords fits well with the hobgob war-centric culture.


Hey James, you know what would be helpful? A list of monsters you've already got under your belt. You mentioned that you've already created a new take on the wendingo and linnorm, for example. I read that and stopped typing my wendingo query. I'd rather devote time to creatures you've not got your arms around already. (Nasty image there, if you let your imagination play it out . . . )


Has "alignment" come up yet with regard to this new world? Any changes to that? I bring it up here, as the talk of dragons reminded me. I hate the rigid "always" this or that alignment and prefer "any."

So what flavor of alignment are Pathfinder's dragons?

Liberty's Edge

Ithaqua.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Ashenvale wrote:
Hey James, you know what would be helpful? A list of monsters you've already got under your belt. You mentioned that you've already created a new take on the wendingo and linnorm, for example. I read that and stopped typing my wendingo query. I'd rather devote time to creatures you've not got your arms around already. (Nasty image there, if you let your imagination play it out . . . )

Just because I mention a monster by name doesn't mean we've got the stats written up yet. In some cases, our authors have chosen some such monsters for their adventures (such is the case of the wendigo) but in others, the monster's name is merely a part of a map tag (as is the case of the linnorm).

Keep in mind though that if you stat up monsters from myth and legend, you'll likely have tougher competition than brand new monsters, since other authors will be statting up much of the same legendary monsters (and said legendary monsters often have to live up to standards that have been set in my head...)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Alignment in Pathfinder works the same as it does in the SRD. There's too many spells, magic items, and monster abilities that hinge on it working the way it already does to change it.

Personally, I'm rather a fan of the more rigid alignment system. A lawful good red dragon will probably never appear in a Pathfinder Adventure Path, for example, unless said lawful good red dragon is the FOCUS of the Adventure Path. In other words, monsters that play outside of what's normally a rigid alignment won't be common. People expect a certain amount of stability in D&D, and if you throw alignment out the window, then the truly unique monsters (like a lawful good red dragon) aren't as unique or interesting as they should be.

Put another way, 99.53% of the dragons that appear in Pathfinder will be the alignments they are in the SRD (or, at the very least, within one step of said alignment).

Metallic dragons are therefore good, and chromatic dragons are therefore evil.

New dragons unique to Pathfinder's world (and you can bet there will be plenty) are open season on alignment, though.

Dark Archive Contributor

James Jacobs wrote:
New dragons unique to Pathfinder's world (and you can bet there will be plenty)...

Heh.

Heh heh.

Heh heh heh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

>:)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

It sounds to me that what James is getting at is that if it is a crunchy stat from the SRD then for the most part it is going to stay as it is now, but the fluff, like the new vision for goblins, is what will be played with a bit.

If it's a new creature though, then anything goes.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh, and to get into the discussion on dragon fluff...in my homebrew world dragons are one of the original races, originally set as protectors of the sky (two new races I created are the protectors of the land and sea). Humans, elves, dwarves and halflings are all latecomers to the world. In a nutshell, dragons became very powerful throughout the centuries and eventually many of the most powerful ones became deities themselves, and are now worshipped by humans, etc. It's more complicated than that, but I could write a few pages on the history of my world and I don't want to bore anyone. :)


James Jacobs wrote:


Put another way, 99.53% of the dragons that appear in Pathfinder will be the alignments they are in the SRD (or, at the very least, within one step of said alignment).

Metallic dragons are therefore good, and chromatic dragons are therefore evil.

New dragons unique to Pathfinder's world (and you can bet there will be plenty) are open season on alignment, though.

I'm actually cool with a "suggested retail alignment." It's the possibility of something different that means everything.

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / What Sorts of Monsters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.