Knowing that James in still testing the waters with his NE answer to evil outsiders I have tried to patient. But I have to confess I was definately hoping for at least one new type of daemon in "Skeletons of Scarwall" to wet my pallette. But alas...none.
I LOVE the concept of daemons. I personally feel as if necromancy, death and undeath are some of the scariest things in D&D and I am always looking for new undead monsters and necromancy spells. (Great new undead, by the way!) When the Leukodaemon was introduced I fell head over heels in love (figuratively speaking). A new type of monster that came at death from a completely different angle then undead creatures. Daemons are about famine, pestilence, disease and passionless murder.
And where demons roar with anger and strife... and where devils whisper temptations and sin into your ear... daemons stand eerily silent and motionless until they act.
I need more... more... more.
Oh... I'm well beyond "testing waters" now. The daemons are Locked In as the NE outsiders. That said... we don't want to flood the market with them. There WILL be more before long. Before the end of 2009, at least...
Thank you, sir! And good work!
I always hated the concept of the 'loths. Not individual designs mind you, just the concept. (I mean, come on... evil outsider mercenaries?) And the quiet, uncompromising nature of the daemons is a much better one. Let demons have their sadism and devils have their corruption... daemons just simply want to bring it all down.
But... hardly any more promised until the end of 2009? That's a year and a half! Mabye just one. Come on. One more...
One MORE...
I'm definately excited to see more of these guys popping up in the future... especially if there is one somewhere in the same CR as an imp or a quasit that would make a good Improved Familiar.
I'd like to see enough Daemons and Proteans to fill in the missing niches in the PFRPG MM-type book next year. I don't care if they are in Pathfinder first or not.
Is there really a big difference between imps and quasits? Flavor text aside, they have almost identical stats. Just make a NE quasit, call it a familiardaemon (or what have you), and there ya go.
A Daemon of the same CR need not fly, though, to make a good improved familiar.
|
Oh... I'm well beyond "testing waters" now. The daemons are Locked In as the NE outsiders. That said... we don't want to flood the market with them. There WILL be more before long. Before the end of 2009, at least...
Sweet! Daemons in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook! Good replacement for the non-OGL monsters.
|
(I mean, come on... evil outsider mercenaries?) And the quiet, uncompromising nature of the daemons is a much better one.
The mercenary image is really the public front. They're primary focus is to keep the wheels of evil turnin'. You get a lot more outwardly "quiet, uncompromosing" as you move up the loth ranks, mainly the Ultroloths and Baernoloths.
That said, the way the new daemons work is definitely going to color how Loths act in Golarion in my games.
But... hardly any more promised until the end of 2009? That's a year and a half! Mabye just one. Come on. One more...
One MORE...
Hey, you never know what's going to slip into the Bestiary. We've got up till #17 tracked out and, sadly, no more Daemon love, but beyond that... we'll keep them in mind. We've been wanting to give these awesome outsiders a new shtick, so we're eager to do more, it's just a matter of finding the right spot...
I love the new soul-collecting agenda of Golarion's daemons, as well as the Four Horsemen motif.
Yeah, the Four Horsemen are awesome and never seemed to have a real place in D&D. This seems to fit the NE fiends really well. I actually just saw part of The Frighteners today and couldn't help but think that the scary reaper in that felt very daemon like...
I love the new soul-collecting agenda of Golarion's daemons, as well as the Four Horsemen motif.Yeah, the Four Horsemen are awesome and never seemed to have a real place in D&D. This seems to fit the NE fiends really well. I actually just saw part of The Frighteners today and couldn't help but think that the scary reaper in that felt very daemon like...
Four Horsemen? Ditto.
The Frighteners? Ditto.
(I mean, come on... evil outsider mercenaries?) And the quiet, uncompromising nature of the daemons is a much better one.The mercenary image is really the public front. They're primary focus is to keep the wheels of evil turnin'. You get a lot more outwardly "quiet, uncompromosing" as you move up the loth ranks, mainly the Ultroloths and Baernoloths.
That said, the way the new daemons work is definitely going to color how Loths act in Golarion in my games.
Okay, maybe I don't know enough about the 'loths. Where are the best places to find information on them?
(No matter what, I'm still going to love the daemons. Like I said, I've got a thing for cold silent juggernauts that want nothing more than the death of others, regardless of who they are. They creep me out like nothing else.)
|
|
Okay, maybe I don't know enough about the 'loths. Where are the best places to find information on them?
This is personal bias here, but IMO the best place for info on the fiends is in Planescape material. LOTS of great stuff in there. The first PS monster compendium covers most of the loths, IIRC. That or the second one. They're both available as .pdfs at the shop here. Planes of Conflict has a good amount on them too(including the tower in the Grey Wastes they made from the spine of a dead god!), as well as Faces of Evil.
Yugoloths didn't fare very well at all in 3.0/3.5 from what I've seen. They pretty much did get Flanderized as mercs, so it's easy to see how that's all they're known for now.
This is personal bias here, but IMO the best place for info on the fiends is in Planescape material. LOTS of great stuff in there. The first PS monster compendium covers most of the loths, IIRC. That or the second one. They're both available as .pdfs at the shop here. Planes of Conflict has a good amount on them too(including the tower in the Grey Wastes they made from the spine of a dead god!), as well as Faces of Evil.
Totally, both Planes of Conflict and Faces of Evil are great products. Definitely top notch places to go for more thematic info besides just stats and abilities. Ed Bonny's "Pox of the Planes" article in Dragon Annual #2 also had some interesting bits on the leaders of the yugoloths, like Antraxus. He's even got his own Wikipedia page, somewhat surprisingly...
Okay, maybe I don't know enough about the 'loths. Where are the best places to find information on them?
Aside from what has already been mentioned, 'Hellbound: The Blood War' has some great stuff, especially for the timeline and the depiction of Daru ib Shamiq.
3e really gimped the 'loths since most of the time they were depicted as bland, pointless mercenaries, and they skipped over the darker 2e material entirely. We went from Colin McComb's disturbing work on them in Faces of Evil, Daru ib Shamiq who might have been a victim of his own wasting apathy or just a really awesome liar, and them as the fanatical yet godless worshippers of an almost tangible univeral evil, to getting nycaloth mercenaries named General Render and never anything more than them being selfish mercenaries. It was a real shame they never got much more attention from WotC.
There's some overlap I think between Golarion's Daemons and the higher types of yugoloths, but some tangible differences at the same time. Interesting and awesome critters. :)
Well this explains alot.
I actually didn't get to D&D until 3.5! I retroactively purchaced alot of 3rd edition books, but I know almost nothing of 2nd edition. No wonder I have such a low opinion of the yugoloths.
Thanks for giving some ideas for source material! The search begins...
Given what I do know now, though, I still think that the daemons are better NE outsider than the 'loths (IMHO). I already talked about my love of silent villians without care or passion that kill. But now I think that it's also that they seem to have their own motivations independent from either devils or demons. Whereas yugoloths seek to keep the wheels of evil turning, working with demons or devils as needed. It almost seems sacrificial... a trait attributed to good creatures, not evil.
Hello everyone.....
Wow....i am PunkRockBard on WOTC. i haven't posted there in a very long time. Ever since all the changes happened to 4E...i lost interest.
i was a huge fan of the Yugoloths.....and i just recently learned about the things Pathfinder are doing.
i often hoped the Neutral Evil Fiends would get their day....and they finally have...not the way i expected but that makes it all the better!
A few questions........
i am reading about these four horsemen. Are concepts like the Oinodaemon, Hades, and Anthraxus not usable?
If no...WOTC should hand them over!
What on earth are they going to be using them for at this point!
i refuse to act like a rantish fanboy. i read enough of that when these changes initially happened. It is spilled milk...what is done is done..and hopefully we are all on to better things.
Nonetheless...WOTC really should hand them over. It's the least they can do.
I have a request for a Daemon to be included and fully statted in a future supplement:
Matt Da(e)mon!
Maaaaaatt Da(e)mon...
Matt Da(e)mon!
Ehhh Tamayto Tamahto.....Oinodaemon is fine!
i remember in Tome of Horrors....The Oinodaemon was Anthraxus...just without the name tagged on.
If Hades and the Oinodaemon are being used...i am happy!
WOTC needs to give up Anthraxus. Are they going to use him even? He was missing in 3.0/3.5. They should hand him over. i'd love to see the other Diseased Lords finally statted.
i am going to e-mail them on this issue. i haven't even been to the Gleemax forum since 4.0 started.
By the way....i finally looked at the 4.0 material.
i went in with a completely open mind...i -wanted- to like it. i simply was not impressed. It all feels very simplified..too simplified...their alignment system is now pointless. Why even keep it if it looks like what it now resembles?
What really got me is using illustrations from 3.0/3.5 in their manuals. How cheap. Was all of this just a rush job?
Anyway....i am veering off topic. i want this all to be positive anyway. i kept putting energy out there to get more Yugoloth/Daemon material....and i think we all might've gotten a better deal than we thought! i doubt WOTC would have ever gone this in depth with the Neutral Evil fiends. Way to go, Paizo :)
WOTC needs to give up Anthraxus. Are they going to use him even? He was missing in 3.0/3.5.
Even had they been inclined to use the 'loths much in 3.x, Anthraxus didn't have much of a role, given that he was deposed/abdicated back in 2e by the current Oinoloth. Would have been great to write something about what happened to him after that point (I did some fiction on that note, but nothing published).
FWIW, I pitched them an idea on an article/series of articles on the 'loths in collaboration with two other (BOZ and Mouseferatu), but WotC never did anything with the pitch (or even replied AFAIK).
They really didn't do much with them in 3e, and they grossly underplayed them, just going with the bland "greedy mercenaries" idea that was never anything more than an intentionally put upon false face in the 2e material. The "yugoloths" in the 3.x MMIV didn't even follow the race's naming convention, or some of the core points of their hierarchy and ecology. That was unfortunate.
The 'loths in 3.x were largely a gigantic missed opportunity.
Creative Director
|
Although the NAME "Anthraxus" is not open content... the Oinodaemon is. He's in the Tome of Horrors, and he's the same creature that Anthraxus was. The name itself was part of a larger scheme of powerful daemons who were all disease-related, in fact. And we DO have daemons who are disease related in Golarion. The spirit of Anthraxus is very much alive in Golarion as a result, even if he's not actually CALLED Anthraxus.
Although the NAME "Anthraxus" is not open content... the Oinodaemon is. He's in the Tome of Horrors, and he's the same creature that Anthraxus was. The name itself was part of a larger scheme of powerful daemons who were all disease-related, in fact. And we DO have daemons who are disease related in Golarion. The spirit of Anthraxus is very much alive in Golarion as a result, even if he's not actually CALLED Anthraxus.
That is all that counts :)
Thank You, James Jacobs.
While i will always appreciate how Planescape really beefed up the Daemons/Yugoloths...there were some aesthetic choices that never sat well with me.
The mass exodus to Gehenna.i know some of You consider it simply an expansion..but many passages in Planescape state that most loths are now in Gehenna. That leads to my next issue....making the Oinoloth second fiddle to the General of Gehenna. The whole "general" concept itself makes it too militaristic..thus lawful..for a purely neutral evil race. The idea of a dark, toxic ruler sitting atop a tower at the very center of the lower planes appealed more to me as head honcho.
Again...that is just a matter of personal aesthetics. What Planescape did was miles more preferrable than their treatment in 3.0/3.5.
Then again...there is the 4th ed. treatment! i laughed when i saw that poor little "Mezzo Demon" lumped with the elementals. It was just one! One lil' "mezzo demon"! bwah!
|
Even had they been inclined to use the 'loths much in 3.x, Anthraxus didn't have much of a role, given that he was deposed/abdicated back in 2e by the current Oinoloth. Would have been great to write something about what happened to him after that point (I did some fiction on that note, but nothing published).
I used the return of Anthraxus as part of a d20 Modern game once. One of the PCs, a tiefling, was attempting to bring him back to power in exchange for arcane power. It was all good fun until the game devolved into inter-party squabbling. Actually, I'm bringing some of it back for my next d20 Modern game.
The 'loths in 3.x were largely a gigantic missed opportunity.
Agreed.
|
|
I'm curious; has there been any thought given to the broad, over-arching properties of Daemons? design guidelines, that sort of thing. Since we only have one example, I'm just wondering how iconic it is. Do all daemons wear an animal skull on their sensory nodule? do they all have courrupted angelic features?
Demons tend to have either bestial (galbrezu), courrupted humanoid (succubus), or tentacle-spider-monster (ekolid) features.
Devils seem usualy humanoid or spikey, with lots of 'modification'- metal grafting, showing up here and there.
I imagine that Famine Daemons are really, really thin, war daemons have weapons grafted to their bodies, and death daemons are...what, matte black with scythe-arms and big grinning teeth? or are they skeletons with muscles and organs stuck on, and no skin?
Yes!
To me....Daemons/Yugoloths have appearances that are mysterious, often abberationish....sometimes instectile. Their alienlike features are perfect flipped coins to the natural, animal appearances of Guardinals.
To me...Arcanaloths have always been fallen Guardinals. That is just me tho :)
I'm curious; has there been any thought given to the broad, over-arching properties of Daemons? design guidelines, that sort of thing. Since we only have one example, I'm just wondering how iconic it is.
I've chatted with James a bit on it, and in the draft of the PCCS cosmology section I wrote a bunch of design notes regarding the daemons and where I had them going in my head. I can't say that my conception in those notes is directly going to translate to what will ultimately end up in print in later books - all depends on how James and company like it or not, and if I come up with different ideas between now and then, or if any material on them gets put into print before I (presumably) expand on them in the multiverse sourcebook.
My notions about them versus how the 'loths were handled (in 2e) also comes down on some level to just what the daemons are, what they want, and where they come from. Yugoloths didn't look very humanoid -often very alien- but they also existed prior to mortal life, and even prior to gods, nor did they create more of their kind from mortal souls, so they really wouldn't have forms influenced or molded by mortal beliefs or fears. Just what relation daemons have to mortals and mortal souls will likely influence what direction their roles and nature will take as well, combined with the 4-fold War/Disease/Famine/Death motif that at least some of their castes fall under.
The campaign setting should give more details on them, some names for the archdaemons, and details on their specific servitor castes. Of course this assumes that nothing has changed since I submitted the text, which is always possible. I've come to rather like some of the names for a few planar races that were used versus my original suggestions.
Again, would love to give specifics, but best I can do is generalize around the concepts at the moment lest I call down editorial wrath like a 10d6 flamestrike. *puts on the yugoloth hat* And as everyone knows, I take double damage from that holy portion.
To me...Arcanaloths have always been fallen Guardinals. That is just me tho :)
I played with that idea in my last campaign. Almost had the PCs convinced that in one specific case it might have been true. Ended up being horribly off base, and an intentionally spread lie, but it was fun to play with, especially when said fiend looked at a fallen guardinal PC (NG to N) and told them, "You and I, we really aren't so different. Are we?"