| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pht...Ffft...Psht..isic...screw you, English language, and all your "ph, th, dh"
Cerber...ceberee...lirilith...
I give up, and I am European. ;-)
Your a talking bag that happens to be in Poland, you don't count.
And some names should give you headache, adds to their psychic powers.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psychic alien mutant robot myth buster bestiary power up;)
I want to comment that if you speak English, you probably pronounce kamaitachi wrong anyway xD
Anyway, is there a reason you want to see obscure mythology creatures so much? ._. I have forgotten if you did once explain your reasoning why you keep bringing them up as if nothing else mattered xD
1) I'm getting sick and tired of seeing the same old D&D Dragons, Zombies, MInotaurs, Harpies and other such overused myth creatures in card games, D&D-like games, movies, series, games and RPG's, its time for other monsters to take their place or fight along side them, mythology is a rich vein, unexplored, well if you aren't called Greek or Norse mythology, which are milked out pretty much. Pathfinder is a great way to introduce those mythological creatures to the world, like they did for Baykok and Akhlut for example, and now hopefully for Harionago and Buggane as well.
2) I like myself some awesome pictures, for personal reasons.
3) I really like mythology, and if those creatures are in a bestiary, you can re-play the mythology in your game, adding to the story, for example the story of Grendel, or Cherufe or some overused greek story for that matter.
4) They just rock, and while I also like many made-up monsters like Leukodaemon, it is the mythological monsters I recognize and like most, also most creatures have something that reminds me of myths anyway.
5) I'm obviously are called Myth Lord, but I like monsters overal, spare for the SF monsters which I only like in movies (Alien is my favorite movie for CS) and The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I like scifi monsters,cryptids, new types of old monsters(Giants, dragons, ect.), re-imagining old monsters, and completely new monsters. And Oozes.mmmmmm oozes
But I don't want those things and have everything else excluded. I want people who want their fey to get fey. People who want their outsiders to get outsiders. People who want their Duckbunnies to get Duckbunnies. People who want their obscure myths to get obscure myths(I too would like things like the Cherufe). The bestiary is supposed to be inclusive of a wide range of monster that appeal to a lot of people.
If you didn't constantly criticize other people's wants like aliens and new dragon types people would probably be more receptive to your suggestions of more obscure mythical creatures.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what frustrates me. I want to see all sorts of creatures in the bestiary, including mythical monsters, pop culture monsters and expies, original monsters, SciFi themed monsters, and so on and so forth. In fact, I too have a personal connection to mythological ones, and those are the ones I request most often. There's a number of reasons for that. They're public domain. They can be researched without an absurd amount of effort. They can be fairly easily modified and interpreted in unusual ways as artistically preferable or functionally necessary. The world already has hundreds of them, and a large amount of mythological influence in general that makes their presence rather expected. They also have set, predetermined regions within the setting already, (such as Yokai going in Tian Xia) and don't require much difficulty to place for that reason. The Devs are clearly myth enthusiasts as well. I'm also knowledgeable on the subject and I am capable of providing a lot of material personally. Other types of monsters could be requested, but aren't quite as likely to be used. Pop culture monsters typically suffer from the burden of copyright. Expies are almost always possible, but a lot of devs seem to dislike expies and many creatures get changed so much they become unrecognizable. Plus my knowledge is a lot more limited to a few specific franchises, many of which are rather specialized. I could list 300 kaiju pretty easily, a majority of which I'm sure you guys have never heard of, and I could even make an argument that they should be interpreted as normal sized creatures, but what do you think the chances really are of us getting an expy of Gakuzom from Ultraman Gaia? I don't really think there's any chance whatsoever of my personal creations getting in either. Mythical creatures are a logical way to go, request wise.
And so I request myth creatures. And, in doing so, I become attached and enthusiastic towards a lot of them. My list of mythical creatures for my own uses recently surpassed the 3,000 mark. There's nothing on that list I wouldn't have at least a vague interest in seeing, though some more than others. To the point, this means that there's a lot of overlap between my personal interests and Sincubus's. Almost all of his requests are creatures I'd like to see too. What frustrates me, though, is his behavior. By being so absurdly militant towards mythological exclusivity, and utterly anti regarding huge categories of creatures, many of which are extremely popular crowd pleasers, he ruins the chances of a lot of creatures I specifically want to see being included. Now people who really would probably like to see these obscure creatures when they get to know them, or honestly wouldn't care one way or the other, associate these monsters with his behavior and become specifically resentful towards them. And that's sad. Mythology is a huge source for weird and interesting creatures that aren't like anything we have. The more obscure ones are often just as cool as the iconic ones, and it would be a shame to ruin people's perception of one of the greatest sources of ready made monsters out there. So I beg of you, the devs and users alike, please look past the poor behavior of the messenger and analyze these creatures for their own worth. These are perfectly good monsters. There's no reason for one individual to cause us all to miss out on a perfectly good opportunity to use some damn cool public domain creatures.
lol you people are hysterical sometimes.
So because I made fun of a D&D creature that really EVERYONE makes fun off (the brain mole) I spoil peoples taste in obscure mythological creatures?
Yes, I can be extreme when against robots or lasers especially since they weren't in bestiary 1, 2, 3 and 4, and now suddenly are everywhere, but if people take that little non-saying stuff to dislike an entire branch of creature, they can go ... .....
Please.
BTW, i've been like this since the beginning, and TADA, buggane, harionago, alp-luachra, almiraj, FOSSEGRIM, soulsliver and an entire lot of others still in Bestiary 4. My creatures were even favorites and winners in that little competition they had last year, in which the Nightbloom and Sianach won.
Miracles exist it seems, or lies spread easily.
And why people keep saying i'm hating on Aliens? I love the Grey, they are even in my own project, i'm just hating on Alien Robots with computers, mobile phones and unfair laser weapons, just like the Talking Polish Bag is hating on Giantslayer and all boring LOTR-type of AP's (his thoughts, not mine), and still nobody gives 2 f's, and nobody acts this way against that.
And sorry for being a bit more salty and aggressive than normal, but this entire Dutch refugees matters make my blood boil and the Vrykolakas inside me tear out some more extra than usual.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, the almiraj ws in the original Fiends Folio if I recall correctly. And while I am not everyone, I don't think I've heard any good jokes -- or any at all -- about the brain mole, or anyone make fun of it.
I think when one becomes very vocal about any subject, they tend to draw attention and often ire. Even if you are totally positive you can draw poor reactions from people for perceptions of monopolizing the conversation if nothing else.
I'm very very positive everyone that has been near monster threads knows there is a hunger in some quarters for mythological creatures (tho they apparently cannot be Greek or Norse now, but ok) or more kaiju or more whatever. Paizo hears you.
It's when one goes on and on and is negative about anything that isn't in their interests that it becomes a problem.
I think I've read an article or two that made fun of the Brain Mole, but nothing particularly abundant. It's a good monster, one of those quirky ones from back in the day, but I feel it can be improved upon, so I'm interested in seeing Paizo's interpretation. Though I hope it's still recognizable.
Did Paizo say something regarding Greek and Norse creatures? My perception was just that they'd used most of the really well known ones that didn't require special treatment due to insane power levels, and were moving on to more obscure ones, of which there are plenty, though I know about more for the Greeks than the Norse. (Scandinavian creatures in general on the other hand, there are probably still hundreds.) There were tons in Bestiary 4.
I'm glad to see creatures from more diverse sources, however.
Last I heard this version of the brain mole will not be the old school one:(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am on team mythological monster as well.
Basically, I agree with Wannabee Demon Lord. I can easily post a list of mythological creatures that would be cool. It's harder to compose wish lists from other sources.
Saying "I want more Fey and constructs" isn't useful, because I am pretty sure bestiaries will always include those sort of general categories. I can say I want outsiders themed on a few things, but it's often difficult to come up new ideas. I like Aeons, but I struggle to think of new concepts for them to embody, for instance. I can say I want stuff like that monster x from some movie or book, but then it's tough to walk the line between "rip off" and "so far removed it doesn't satisfy". And a lot movie monsters already exist given how popular things like ghosts, zombies, etc are. I can just describe abilities I would like to see, but them that requires an encyclopediac knowledge of monster stat blocks I just don't have, since there might very well be existing monsters that have those.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't feel the need to ask for mythical creatures too often since we have people who have asked for almost everything I would want to see and them some. But I do like looking at the mechanics and thinking what ability or strange combination I have I not seen. I also like asking for creatures similar to movies, TV shows, books, and videogames. Sometimes you get what you want, sometimes not, but regardless you will find something you will like in a bestiary.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back when Bestiary 4 was released, I asked if Paizo was ever going to add Greys to the mythos of Golarion.
I am very happy to see that they finally are. :)
I would have to say I'm on team mythical as well...I prefer the creatures pulled from ethnic lore over creatures created whole cloth from contemporary imagination.
People who favorited Chris Lambertz comment because they thought it was about me come back from a cold shower, as it was about the talking bag. Just saying. :-D
Anyway, while i'm on team mythology obviously, i'm also on team new monsters. While most things are in mythology, some things like magnetic control, mantis, wasp and some dinosaurs aren't found in any mythology.
And I mostly like everything Paizo throws at me, spare for some branches that everyone knows I don't like, mostly because I find them cheap or uninspired or not fitting in the monster book scene, or of course in some versions I think they would have been better off with a mythology creatures that fits the description.
In every branch i'm not really a fan of the ultimate favorite things (like in x-men I hate Wolverine, in batman I dislike Joker, in D&D I dislike the rainbow dragons and so on) so obviously I don't feel much for ultimate favorites that the entire world loves, creatures like Chtuhlu and Godzilla, also don't like ultimate powerhouses that nobody can kill or monsters who are insanely big, even the Zaratan shouldn't be that big in my vision.
But of course in the end everyone should get what they want in the end as the book has over 300 beasts, i'm just a vocal sometimes, but mostly before the book is out, after the book is out I mostly calm down and accept it. It's probably because i'm a spoiled only child and i'm not used to sharing with others, and I have this annoying desire to talk about stuff I don't like, sometimes even more than about the stuff I do like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who favorited Chris Lambertz comment because they thought it was about me come back from a cold shower, as it was about the talking bag. Just saying. :-D
It is entirely possible, of course, that the favorites are an expression of people not wanting this to dissolve into a boob discussion, and that the favorites have absolutely zero to do with you or any other specific person. :)
As for monsters, I don't really care where they come from. As long as a monster is cool and a fun challenge for my players, I have little interest in its origin. It's fun on an academic level to know about a creature's Real Life myth, of course, but it's not a deciding factor in what I want to see. So I guess that places me in Team Myth/Pop Culture/Original Monster.
I wonder how many aliases you can have on this site.
So who's hoping we will finally get the drop bear?
I hope they're like the Gummi Bears cartoon, except feral, I always felt that show had potential if they'd only gotten darker with it.
But then I probably wouldn't be able to watch it in Poland :-D
I wonder if any creatures from 3.5 B1 made it in such as the ravid, arrowhawke, etc.