You got it? Mine wasn't even sent yet!
|
You got it? Mine wasn't even sent yet!Yup. And it is a great adventure. Much better than the first installment, which frankly left me underwhelmed.
Seven Days to the Grave may be new "classic" in terms of it being, as mentioned in the editorial, the ultimate "plague" adventure. I certainly have not seen better. Compare the limpness of the same theme in The Sinister Spire from Wotc.
Yeah, Seven Days to the Grave is chillingly real-feeling. You can feel the horror, misery, and paranoia pressing down on you almost as soon as you start reading, and that's a good thing. Also, I think that Queen Ileosa is going to be a very memorable villain indeed.
Got my PDFs (Classic Monsters and Seven) yestereve. I only gave them a cursory glance, but I liked what I read.
I also got my tree-massacre version from Anarchy and am halfway through the adventure (read the rest), and I liked it, too. I like a butchery that serves even troublesome people (harr harr harr) and children's quiz shows where you stand to lose more than your face (though they losed them first the way they were fed to that gator).
After I read those two parts, I started wondering: People were complaining that it was too sanitised for Logue. I guess that if someone else had written it, that someone would have had a visit by a little lynch mob for being a sick bastard.
Gotta love Logue's sick mind. Especially since I managed to gross out my players with Hook Mt. And there are some players in there who are upset if they don't get to play evil characters once in a while.
I definetly look forward to Curse. (Not how hip I am by leaving out words in all those names. I'm soo cool).
By the way: Love the Horsemen! Whatever's planned for Golarion's apocalypse, it's going to go down in style!
|
|
Got my PDFs (Classic Monsters and Seven) yestereve. I only gave them a cursory glance, but I liked what I read.
I also got my tree-massacre version from Anarchy and am halfway through the adventure (read the rest), and I liked it, too. I like a butchery that serves even troublesome people (harr harr harr) and children's quiz shows where you stand to lose more than your face (though they losed them first the way they were fed to that gator).
After I read those two parts, I started wondering: People were complaining that it was too sanitised for Logue. I guess that if someone else had written it, that someone would have had a visit by a little lynch mob for being a sick bastard.
Gotta love Logue's sick mind. Especially since I managed to gross out my players with Hook Mt. And there are some players in there who are upset if they don't get to play evil characters once in a while.
I definetly look forward to Curse. (Not how hip I am by leaving out words in all those names. I'm soo cool).
By the way: Love the Horsemen! Whatever's planned for Golarion's apocalypse, it's going to go down in style!
I didn't say the whole thing was sanitized, just the Queen's behavior.
|
Yes, it's a great, great issue!
But, to get back on topic, I don't really like the inclusion of daemons. It's cool to have neutral-evil fiends and I know that Yuggoloths can't be used and that daemons are classic D&D and all, but I found the term daemon lame back then too. It's just too similar to demon. I would've preferred another name. Don't get me wrong, I love the concept, the design, the daemon itself (can't remember its name right know) and the idea to include the four horsemen. That's all great, great stuff, only the name daemon doesn't appeal to me.
When we get to see one (or all) of the four horsemen, I hope you won't use the template from Advanced Bestiary. I don't like it at all and I'd love to see something unique for the Golarion version of the riders of the apocalypse.
Creative Director
|
Yes, it's a great, great issue!
But, to get back on topic, I don't really like the inclusion of daemons. It's cool to have neutral-evil fiends and I know that Yuggoloths can't be used and that daemons are classic D&D and all, but I found the term daemon lame back then too. It's just too similar to demon. I would've preferred another name. Don't get me wrong, I love the concept, the design, the daemon itself (can't remember its name right know) and the idea to include the four horsemen. That's all great, great stuff, only the name daemon doesn't appeal to me.
When we get to see one (or all) of the four horsemen, I hope you won't use the template from Advanced Bestiary. I don't like it at all and I'd love to see something unique for the Golarion version of the riders of the apocalypse.
We won't be using the template from the Advanced Bestairy for the four horsemen. Our horsemen will be unique monsters designed from the ground up.
As for daemon... there's really 2 reasons we went with the name...
1) It's the original term for the NE fiends, and there are many of them reprinted from 1st edition in the Tome of Horrors. And even though it's technically pronounced the same as the word "demon," I've still always pronounced it like Matt Damon's last name.
2) Yugoloth isn't open content.
Eventually, we may come up with more descriptive (made up) words for our devil, daemon, and demon races to replace the loss of words like baatezu, ta'narri, loumara, obyrith, and daemon, but for now we're going with the classics.
[As for daemon... there's really 2 reasons we went with the name...
1) It's the original term for the NE fiends, and there are many of them reprinted from 1st edition in the Tome of Horrors. And even though it's technically pronounced the same as the word "demon," I've still always pronounced it like Matt Damon's last name.
Now as much as it pains me to say so -since I've always preferred yugoloth to daemon- but... since Paizo has started using daemon for their own NE fiends, the name is growing on me. And I pronounce it like Matt Damon's last name too.
NE fiends = made of evil and awesome. :)
1) It's the original term for the NE fiends, and there are many of them reprinted from 1st edition in the Tome of Horrors. And even though it's technically pronounced the same as the word "demon," I've still always pronounced it like Matt Damon's last name.
If I had to guess (which I have, since I don't know its origins), I'd say they just used the German Dämon and replaced the ä with ae for the usual reasons.
Thus, daemon has always been a weird term for me, since we use Dämon for demon at the game table. So if daemons are used, you alway have to ask whether it's a Dämon (CE fiend) or Daemon (NE fiend).
|
Creative Director
|
1) It's the original term for the NE fiends, and there are many of them reprinted from 1st edition in the Tome of Horrors. And even though it's technically pronounced the same as the word "demon," I've still always pronounced it like Matt Damon's last name.If I had to guess (which I have, since I don't know its origins), I'd say they just used the German Dämon and replaced the ä with ae for the usual reasons.
Thus, daemon has always been a weird term for me, since we use Dämon for demon at the game table. So if daemons are used, you alway have to ask whether it's a Dämon (CE fiend) or Daemon (NE fiend).
True... but also, the game has a strong, proud tradition of mispronounciation. I think that pronouncing the word daemon as "DAY mun" and demon as "DEE mun" is a pretty minor crime and one that I actually endorse. :-)
Just got my copy of Curse of the Crimson Throne No. 2 - Seven Days to the Grave and read the lower planar details for Golarion. I just wanted to say "Well done." Bringing back daemons is, I think, an outstanding design choice. Daemons, as conceptualized, are cool and their return gives Pathfinder a definite "old school cool" vibe. If you are not already planning a sourcebook on Golarion' devils, demons and daemons, please allow me to suggest it. You've got a nice signature bit here that, IMO, can and should be followed up in a major way at some early point. Good job!
QFT
|
True... but also, the game has a strong, proud tradition of mispronounciation. I think that pronouncing the word daemon as "DAY mun" and demon as "DEE mun" is a pretty minor crime and one that I actually endorse. :-)
And of course there is also the DA-mon, OF Fiend(Yankee), formerly recognized by it's unkempt countenance.
Definitely a nitpick: Why not simply "fiend"? demons, devils, and fiends?
So you made a choice.
Keeping "fiend" as a catchall seems like an "old-timer" choice.
Any newer player wouldn't even think of rakshasas as "fiends". Rakshasas belong in the "evil badass" catchall.
If you are instituting a new category, why not give it a distinctive name? A name that looks completely different on paper and sounds completely different. What daemons do is different, the role is different, the name is no different.
I realize that Seven Days to the Grave is already printed so the instinct is to stand behind something that is in print... and that you are much more knowledgeable about your core customer :)
-----
I just thought it was odd. New, new, new... old similar name. Why not, new role, new category, AND let's exclusively call NE Outsiders (bent on whatever) fiends?
I guess then in-game language would be too restricted? If farmer bob saw a devil and called it a demon out of ignorance (instead of just saying that it was fiendish). I guess the fiendish and half-fiend templates screw things up too if you went with NE as "fiend". OK, I give up ;) Or wait, should the demonic badger be different than the dev'lish badger?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you made a choice.
Keeping "fiend" as a catchall seems like an "old-timer" choice...
Making choices about Golarion is my job, actually. And in this case, it absolutely is an "old-timer" choice. And so far, making old-timer choices that stay true to and respect the game's history and traditions are not only one of the parts of Pathfinder that many of our customers are enjoying, but it's something that I feel very strongly about myself. I've been playing the game for close to 30 years now, and I'm not interested in turning it into something that I'm not interested in playing. That means there's a certain amount of established and implied canon to the game that shouldn't change. At the same time, of course, there's even more room FOR change (you need look no further than the Pathfinder RPG for that, or to Pathfinder 1's goblins...).
The thing to remember is that daemons AREN'T a new category to the game. They're established, and have been, for about 25 years. Changing the name isn't something that I'm really interested in doing, since that throws up a barrier between Pathfinder and the game's roots.
In game, ignorant NPCs absolutely DO call fiends devils/demons/daemons/monsters whatever; in fact, in the first adventure of Second Darkness, an NPC ignorantly refers to some demons as devils. Also... you mention the templates; fiendish creature and half-fiend. The game's been calling all evil outsiders "fiends" for a long time; longer than 3rd edition's been around, and the proof's in those templates, since they refer to all three alignments of evil outsiders.
Pathfinder IS a new setting, but in a lot of ways we're trying to make it feel old and comfortable, if not like, say, Greyhawk, then like old fantasy novels and stories, or even like old real-world historical myths. We've been using the Tome of Horrors very heavily in Pathfinder because of this; there are hundreds of classic monsters in that book that have been a part of the game for decades. And one of the major categories of those monsters are daemons.
It's not something we're considering changing, in any event (if only because Seven Days to the Grave and the next two months of products are already at the printer and several of them use the word "daemon" as well).
Thanks JJ. Your doing a excellent job!
Thanks James :)
For an old-timer, you're all right by me. :)
Making choices about Golarion is my job, actually. And in this case, it absolutely is an "old-timer" choice. And so far, making old-timer choices that stay true to and respect the game's history and traditions are not only one of the parts of Pathfinder that many of our customers are enjoying, but it's something that I feel very strongly about myself. I've been playing the game for close to 30 years now, and I'm not interested in turning it into something that I'm not interested in playing.[...]
Pathfinder IS a new setting, but in a lot of ways we're trying to make it feel old and comfortable
You hear that, people? The man's a hero!
We need a game that is D&D in spirit, not just in name, and Pathfinder is just that. While being choc-full of new ideas, it still is definetly D&D as it should be. Players from the very first editions are as much at home here as 3e players.