Bear in mind, this isn’t a complaint, merely an observation.
At some of the early campaign development stages the statement was made that Orcus would have a role in Golarion. However that role would be de-emphasized, because WOTC would drawing a lot of attention to Orcus in their new 4E product line.
Thus Baphomet was selected by Editorial to receive some attention in the Golarion setting, as a Demon Lord that was cool and often underutilized. A favored and powerful patron of some Drow Clans.
That made sense on paper, to dust off Baphomet instead. It was kind of a bummer to see Orcus get the backseat, but it made sense when James Jacobs explained it.
Except today, Monday, WOTC announced they’re doing a special treatment of Baphomet in this month’s Dragon. The second such article, following Yeenoghu back in June.
Heh. Underutilized? Not any more. This article does serve as a back-up to a related article they have on using minotaurs as a playable race.
But I’m not writing this post about 4E or what WOTC does. (Vic please don’t move it without some consideration). I don’t have a tin foil hat on either. I’m completely willing to accept that it’s a coincidence. If its not, who cares? I don’t think it makes any difference anyway.
I buy products from both companies, but if I had to drop one product line, it would not be Pathfinder.
However, it strikes me that the other company isn’t going to make any decisions based upon what Paizo chooses to do. That is the heart of what I’m getting at here. The decision to deemphasize Orcus was to skirt what WOTC was doing, and whether that was a good call or not, I don’t see any reason for Paizo to take their Editorial Decisions into account either.
|
Even if WotC chose to never use Orcus again, I think it's true that Orcus was pretty heavily emphasized, and Baphomet, not so much. By emphasizing demon lords other than Orcus, who was already kind of tightly defined in the minds of AD&D fans, they gave themselves a little more freedom, IMO.
Ditto Lolth, but more so. She's been massively thrust into the forefront, from a 66 hp Demon Queen of Spiders to a greater goddess with her own little 'Drow pantheon.'
I think that the Paizo crew made the right choice stepping back from figures that might be too rigidly defined by past use, or even suffering a bit from over-exposure, giving them more creative freedom to tell us about their own world and it's demon lords, some of whom, like Haagenti and Xoveron, interest me quite a bit more than Orcus ever did.
(That being said, I'll miss Yeenoghu, Demogorgon and Grazz't!)
Set,
I don't disagree with the decision framed in the context you're putting it in..
Its the notion that Pathfinder Editorial decisions take WOTCs release schedule into account that kinda got to me.
You see, I can take all the valid points in your post and they're still not mutual exclusive to what I said. :D
I just don't like the notion that Pathfinder once stepped around anything that WOTC did. And I'm not pulling this out of the ether, this was the stated rationale for not pushing Orcus to the front. I recall it clearly from when I used to be able to attend the chats regularly.
So this is not a "Bring back Orcus" writing campaign. No sir, heh. I'm fine with Baphomet too. If you think I was saying that, you missed the finer point.
This is a comment on "you can't worry about what the neighbors do."
And maybe this would never have happened again anyway. I'm not trying to roast James Jacobs over something he once said. Rather I like the integrity and "to thine own self be true" attitude of the Editorial Team. I want to encourage that. They shouldn't consider anything but Golarion in their development.
|
|
This is a comment on "you can't worry about what the neighbors do."
My thought is that they weren't so much worrying about what their neighbors were *doing* (present tense) as what they'd already *done.*
Orcus, even if WotC never used him again, was pretty clearly 'set in stone' and defined. In TV terms, 'the character's done, let's write him out.' (So much so that one could probably still find threads banging around ENWorld or the WotC boards complaining about an artistic portrayal of Orcus as 'buff' and not fat!)
Being not conversant with 4E, I have no idea how much or how little use WotC is making of Orcus right now, but I think that Orcus (Lolth, etc.) have been avoided simply because Paizo wanted to try something fresh, and not repeat what's already been done. (Unlike Demogorgon, who hasn't been as heavily used and which they've specifically mentioned being unable to use in his traditional D&D form, which disappoints me mightily.)
This is a comment on "you can't worry about what the neighbors do."My thought is that they weren't so much worrying about what their neighbors were *doing* (present tense) as what they'd already *done.*
Except that wasn't actually what was said.
I grant you, that would have been a better stated reason than the one that was actually given.
Again, the original post wasn't about the validity of the actual decision, but the process by which it was arrived. If your reply is "the original decision was a good one, for some other reason", then I have no response. What can I say? I don't even disagree! Its a change of topic, albeit a subtle one, but a deflection nevertheless.
I'm done. My point is made whether anybody agrees with me or not. And I suspect they won't, because I probably look like I'm on the attack on our beloved Paizo (which I am patently not).
There is no value in continuing to split hairs.
Except today, Monday, WOTC announced they’re doing a special treatment of Baphomet in this month’s Dragon. The second such article, following Yeenoghu back in June.
Heh. Underutilized? Not any more. This article does serve as a back-up to a related article they have on using minotaurs as a playable race.
Well, I am taking a couple of things away from issues that you raised.
1) I think that the Paizo team decided to do the changes for several reasons. To have new territory, not to get into a competition with WotC, to provide players with more material, and probably more reasons that aren't obvious to me (perhaps James really likes the idea and concept of Baphomet?).
2) WotC seems to be reacting to Paizo again. An under-utilized demon lord has been dusted off and shined up, just after Paizo starts to expand on the same demon lord (taking into account writing lead times), seems to be a bit of a stretch for it to be a coincidence.
|
|
2) WotC seems to be reacting to Paizo again. An under-utilized demon lord has been dusted off and shined up, just after Paizo starts to expand on the same demon lord (taking into account writing lead times), seems to be a bit of a stretch for it to be a coincidence.
I dunno, the Minotaur fits with the sort of PC races they've been emphasizing (both the dragonborn and tieflings have impressive racks, and I'm talking about the ones on their heads!), so a bit of development for Baphomet only makes sense.
Plus, Paizo really hasn't focused on Baphomet yet, that I know of, so it doesn't seem reactionary for WotC to do something with him. If WotC suddenly devoted an interest to connecting the schools of magic to the seven sins or something, that would look pretty darn suspicious. :)
I just can't wait for the 'do Minotaur women have udders' debate to show up again.
I dunno, the Minotaur fits with the sort of PC races they've been emphasizing (both the dragonborn and tieflings have impressive racks, and I'm talking about the ones on their heads!), so a bit of development for Baphomet only makes sense.
They're emphasizing races with horns, so Baphomet is only a natural choice? Respectfully, I don't see how tieflings and dragonborn fit into the minotaur/Baphomet connection. I don't see the horn connection itself either.. I mean all three races also have eyes and noses too. :)
They're all bipeds! :) Not one of them are plants! I'm kidding, but the logic knife cuts both ways.
Plus, Paizo really hasn't focused on Baphomet yet, that I know of, so it doesn't seem reactionary for WotC to do something with him. If WotC suddenly devoted an interest to connecting the schools of magic to the seven sins or something, that would look pretty darn suspicious. :)
I take your point, but I think something is in the works for Baphomet. To the point it was stated months ago "We're not doing much with Orcus, we're going to emphasize Baphomet and some others instead."
WotC seems to be reacting to Paizo again. An under-utilized demon lord has been dusted off and shined up, just after Paizo starts to expand on the same demon lord (taking into account writing lead times), seems to be a bit of a stretch for it to be a coincidence.
I don't know. The problem is, the moment you suggest that, someone will try to fit you for a tinfoil hat. I think its safe to say its interesting however.
And to the original post, I like the image of WOTC reacting to Paizo, and not the other way around, whether its strictly true or not.
I just can't wait for the 'do Minotaur women have udders' debate to show up again.
:D
We could always start it. Heh.
I just can't wait for the 'do Minotaur women have udders' debate to show up again.
That debate showed up ever? Neat!
You haven't had a +2 bowl of Lucky Charms until you've blessed it with Minomilk. It's got a nutty flavor you can't pass up.
|
|
They're emphasizing races with horns, so Baphomet is only a natural choice? Respectfully, I don't see how tieflings and dragonborn fit into the minotaur/Baphomet connection. I don't see the horn connection itself either.. I mean all three races also have eyes and noses too. :)
I dunno, the Minotaur fits with the sort of PC races they've been emphasizing (both the dragonborn and tieflings have impressive racks, and I'm talking about the ones on their heads!), so a bit of development for Baphomet only makes sense.
I was trying to be circumspect, 'cause if I said something like, '4E seems to be trying to draw in the 'furry' crowd, so Minotaurs, Gnolls, etc. seem like a good fit with that direction' it would turn into a flaming cesspool of acrimony. :)
In fact, I blame Races of the Wild and the Catfolk for the death of 3rd edition. Darn those ninja cat-girl sorceresses and their cute little sailor outfits!
[disclaimer] No, really, I don't blame Catfolk for the death of 3E, nor do I think that 4E is headed into Hentai-territory (mainly 'cause they don't have Nick Logue). This was a joke. [/disclaimer]
[disclaimer] No, really, I don't blame Catfolk for the death of 3E, nor do I think that 4E is headed into Hentai-territory (mainly 'cause they don't have Nick Logue). This was a joke. [/disclaimer]
Yeah, but it's true. Nick would be all over that with lube, man.
I was trying to be circumspect, 'cause if I said something like, '4E seems to be trying to draw in the 'furry' crowd, so Minotaurs, Gnolls, etc. seem like a good fit with that direction' it would turn into a flaming cesspool of acrimony. :)
In fact, I blame Races of the Wild and the Catfolk for the death of 3rd edition. Darn those ninja cat-girl sorceresses and their cute little sailor outfits!
[disclaimer] No, really, I don't blame Catfolk for the death of 3E, nor do I think that 4E is headed into Hentai-territory (mainly 'cause they don't have Nick Logue). This was a joke. [/disclaimer]
Lolololol..
Went straight over my head. Heh. The youth of today!
*****************
Watcher: "I had a crush on Josie and the Pussycats when I was a little kid. Back in the days, you know, before Cartoon Network, and the Muppets."
Players: "And that puts you immediately under Furry-suspicion."
Creative Director
|
It does seem strange to me that the next Demonomicon is a rerun when there's still folk like Orcus who don't have an entry yet... but (shrug).
The decision to downplay Orcus in Pathfinder, though, was mostly because he's been the star of SO MUCH already; he's more or less had his time in the limelight. Also, he's Necromancer Games' mascot, and it made sense to leave Orcus stuff to Orcus.
Dude, if it's got a 'nutty flavor' then maybe you shouldn't have been milking the one with the horns.But hey, don't feel bad you only got half a cup.
Holy Pasiphaë Batman!
(She was the original)
Minomilk; It's got a nutty flavor you can't pass up.Dude, if it's got a 'nutty flavor' then maybe you shouldn't have been milking the one with the horns.
But hey, don't feel bad you only got half a cup.
That explains the single udder.
It does seem strange to me that the next Demonomicon is a rerun when there's still folk like Orcus who don't have an entry yet... but (shrug).
I'm really perplexed about that as well, because they're going to have big shoes to fill. Anything WotC comes up with for their 4e take on Baphomet is going to be compared to your Demonomicon article that wasn't written all that long ago.
It does seem strange to me that the next Demonomicon is a rerun when there's still folk like Orcus who don't have an entry yet... but (shrug).I'm really perplexed about that as well, because they're going to have big shoes to fill. Anything WotC comes up with for their 4e take on Baphomet is going to be compared to your Demonomicon article that wasn't written all that long ago.
And I have a hard time seeing how they'll equal that article. The Demonomicon stuff seriously rocked, and was a major influence in concincing me to start buying DRAGON again.
|
|
It does seem strange to me that the next Demonomicon is a rerun when there's still folk like Orcus who don't have an entry yet... but (shrug).I'm really perplexed about that as well, because they're going to have big shoes to fill. Anything WotC comes up with for their 4e take on Baphomet is going to be compared to your Demonomicon article that wasn't written all that long ago.
And yet, from a glass half full perspective, if they do come up with some *awesome* flavor for Baphomet, we can certainly tweak our own versions to incorporate the juiciest bits.
Except today, Monday, WOTC announced they’re doing a special treatment of Baphomet in this month’s Dragon. The second such article, following Yeenoghu back in June.
Heh. Underutilized? Not any more. This article does serve as a back-up to a related article they have on using minotaurs as a playable race.
Well, I am taking a couple of things away from issues that you raised.
1) I think that the Paizo team decided to do the changes for several reasons. To have new territory, not to get into a competition with WotC, to provide players with more material, and probably more reasons that aren't obvious to me (perhaps James really likes the idea and concept of Baphomet?).
2) WotC seems to be reacting to Paizo again. An under-utilized demon lord has been dusted off and shined up, just after Paizo starts to expand on the same demon lord (taking into account writing lead times), seems to be a bit of a stretch for it to be a coincidence.
Don't you guys realize there is a 6 month plus editorial cycle? The Dragon article was in final edit probably 3 months ago, initially submitted a couple months before that, and commissioned months before that.
So, unless Paizo was talking about emphasizing Baphomet in March you can't really say WotC was reacting to Paizo.
|
Don't you guys realize there is a 6 month plus editorial cycle? The Dragon article was in final edit probably 3 months ago, initially submitted a couple months before that, and commissioned months before that.
So, unless Paizo was talking about emphasizing Baphomet in March you can't really say WotC was reacting to Paizo.
Actually, WotC's current editorial cycle for e-zine content is about a 1 month cycle for anything written by staff members. They may have just managed to bump it to a 2 month cycle, but I would not expect anyone but freelancers to actually be getting material in earlier than that, and then only the adventures.
Bear in mind, this isn’t a complaint, merely an observation.
At some of the early campaign development stages the statement was made that Orcus would have a role in Golarion. However that role would be de-emphasized, because WOTC would drawing a lot of attention to Orcus in their new 4E product line.
Thus Baphomet was selected by Editorial to receive some attention in the Golarion setting, as a Demon Lord that was cool and often underutilized. A favored and powerful patron of some Drow Clans.
Strange indeed, Paizo, through James Jacob in his Demonicon series fleshed out the fluff for most of the "minor" demon lords. Most of Baphomet's popularity is due to the Demonicon article. I've used Baphomet in my campaign since reading that article, deeming him as a man who was made a beast, the exact opposite of his rival Yeenoghu, a beast who was made a man. I use these two in the my elven pantheon, with Baphomet worshipped by the elves who were erudite in their savagery, while Yeenoghu were the rabid elves, more beast than elf.
For you Moorcock/Elric fans, think of how Melniboneans and Pantangians view Hionhurn, one elegant and debased the other perverse and savage.
Turaglas the Ebon Maw, would by my choice for an underutilized demon lord. It took an alliance between Demogorgan and Orcus to defeat subdue him. he is evil on the level of Tharizdun. Turaglas slumbering nature also lends itself nicely in a Lovecraftian sort of way...
lets not forget about the obyriths either!