I revise my comment from "wow" to "Ewwwww!"
Gross...but awesome. Love your work.
It appears one reason put forward for having demons be beasties and devils human is to avoid confusion.
I feel absolutely no need to have demons and devils (or daemons for that matter) clearly and easily distinguishable from each other on first glance. I am perfectly happy with characters getting them confused, not quite remembering which one is immune to lightning and which needs cold iron. If the character has enough knowledge (planes) i will give them a hint, tell them what is most effective--if not well they dont know do they.
Confusion= good
Easy identification of monster types = bad
So, question for Todd or anyone else: since all the old stuff is available on Drivethru, which products are the best primers on all things fiendish for D&D? Which ones have baernoloths? And if the writeups about the baernoloths aren't very good, why?
Is there anyplace that has the info online?
Faces of Evil: The Fiends
Hellbound: The Blood War
Planes of ConflictThe flavor text, history, and general fluff for the baernaloths are amazing. The stats however just don't match what they're capable of in the in-game history, and so you can either junk the stats, or try to rationalize that in various ways (it only represents baern who have lost most of their original power to apathy, or they're simply amazing liars with no special powers whatsoever, etc).
The one time I put full stats on a baernaloth (already weakened by being in the inner planes) the fight took several hours and was almost a TPK versus level 28-30 PCs. It was damn memorable however. One named Tarsikus ibn Methkultesh the Flesh Render (IIRC) in the crumbling ruins of Vecna's former deific domain in the quasielemental plane of ash.
As far as info online, not really. But the pdfs of the books I mentioned are cheap, and if you're just interested in some (mostly non-canon) fluff, I've written a number of stories about specific baernaloths. Most of them are over on the Chronicles section on Planewalker.com if you're curious.
Sweet! ~looks through my wallet~ Yep! I can afford those PDF!
|
So, question for Todd or anyone else: since all the old stuff is available on Drivethru, which products are the best primers on all things fiendish for D&D? Which ones have baernoloths? And if the writeups about the baernoloths aren't very good, why?
Is there anyplace that has the info online?
Faces of Evil: The Fiends
Hellbound: The Blood War
Planes of Conflict
...linkified for those who would like to download the files from Paizo:
- Faces of Evil- Hellbound
- Planes of Conflict
If you are interested in more Planescape pdfs, you'd be interested in this link:
- 2nd edition Planescape pdfs
Ok. Enough advertising now... :p
|
|
I get the feeling I'm not as enthused about Daemons in Pathfinder as I ought to be for a couple of reasons:
1) The name. I'm pretty sure Daemon is pronounced like Demon, though I suppose I can differ them by pronouncing it Day-mon instead of Dee-mon, which is outside of actual traditional linguistic stuff for the word. I really miss Yugoloth. That was the one fiendish rename that I thought really really worked. Still, not a huge deal.
2) My favorite Daemons, the Ultraloths, Aranoloths, and those... tongueoloths, are closed content. It is worth noting, the Tome of Horrors does reference Ultradaemons and Arcanodaemons, even though they aren't statted in the book.
On the other hand, those Leukodaemons are pretty darn awesome.
1) The real world 'daemon' was indeed pronounced the same as demon. However I've always pronounced the D&D daemon as day-mon, even if it flaunts traditional linguistic stuff. I also believe that an early source during 1e pronounced it that way as well (contradicting 4e's Worlds and Monsters that it had always been pronounced as demon).
That said, I always preferred yugoloth in a major way, and couldn't stand daemon till very recently when I got to play around with Golarion's NE fiends, and wasn't able to use 'loth. Hopefully I can make some boiling, poisoned, soul-damning lemonade with what I was given. ;)
2) And yeah, I adored the arcanaloths and ultroloths too. -Alot-. But it's WotC's IP even if they have absolutely no intention of using them at all for their PoL cosmology in 4e (which is a real shame).
Hopefully I can make the four deacon castes in Abbadon interesting enough to make you forget about the lack of those three fiends. I think you'll find their spiritual successors however among the stuff I've got planned for The Great Beyond, including a different spin on the demodands/gehreleths. You'll also likely see some game use of them in Colin's module out next year as well (which is looking freaking awesome).
I'm around as big...
As mentioned further above: "Daemon" respectively "Dämon" (pronounced like Dah-mohn) is just the german word for "demon". Some time developpers apparently just ran out of english expressions... (and probably caused nightmares for german translators ;-))
Regarding IP rights of other companies: Those rights only encompass the names and likely art work - there isn't anything preventing Paizo from reenvisioning them in a similar fashion as older rule editions, is there?
Especially WotC's new turn on cosmology makes it very unlikely that any "copyright" issues about 4e and PRPG similarities should arise, should there?
Especially WotC's new turn on cosmology makes it very unlikely that any "copyright" issues about 4e and PRPG similarities should arise, should there?
Just because WotC has released a new edition doesn't mean they don't still hold copyright on the older editions.
I also believe Paizo has expressed their preference to avoid recreating old monsters with new names just for the sake of avoiding IP issues (i.e. not remaking a floating eye monster with lasers as an 'Eye Tyrant' or something). They'd rather make something new.
Creative Director
|
Again... I'm aware of the fact that "daemon" and "demon" are pronounced the same in "real life." But so are the words "there" and "they're" and "their." Whereas the words "wind" (wind up the clock) and "wind" (the wind is blowing) are not pronounced the same way but are spelled the same way. One of the charming parts of the English language, and perhaps THAT'S why having two similar words to denote two similar types of fiends doesn't bother me. It's probably that plus the fact that daemons have been around since the early days of the game, having first been introduced in D3: Vault of the Drow and then graduating into the first edition Fiend Folio in the early '80s. We can't call them yugoloths, in any case, since that's intellectual property owned by WotC, and any other name we make up is equally arbitrary and contradicts all the work we've already done in Pathfinder AND all the work that's been done over the course of the game already. Returning to calling them daemons (and pronounciung the word like Matt Damon's last name) is the Paizo-Preferred Method, and is the one we'll be carrying into the PF RPG.
I know it would be too late to change anything. Doesn't mean it isn't confusing.
And I say it is a bit different than the different "their"s, since it's often quite hard to tell these two apart.
If someone talks about encountering a daemon, especially in German. - Does he mean Dämon or Daemon? And even if he writes it? Is Daemon really Daemon, or just Dämon with an ae instead of an ä because they're (yes, that was intentional ;-P) keyboard doesn't support it?
|
|
I know it would be too late to change anything. Doesn't mean it isn't confusing.
And I say it is a bit different than the different "their"s, since it's often quite hard to tell these two apart.
If someone talks about encountering a daemon, especially in German. - Does he mean Dämon or Daemon? And even if he writes it? Is Daemon really Daemon, or just Dämon with an ae instead of an ä because they're (yes, that was intentional ;-P) keyboard doesn't support it?
You could still refer to Yugoloth - and let people ponder whether daemons from the Balkan are meant...;-)
D&D has quite a history of confusing/ misleading names. As long as there is a consence on written names... In the end it's anyway up to you to find other better fitting names in german. Hopefully the german Pathfinder RPG will find the optimal blend of traditional and inspiring new names....
Cheers,
Günther
Yugoloth is too 4e for me ;-P
We came up with Daimon for the Horseys. Or we could use Horsey.
The succubus might be the sinking point on the above idea, a devil that is traditionally humanoid and gorgeous. I suppose I would just say throw it out the window, make them ugly and horrible, then give them some kind of alternate form/ high power illusion ability to make them seem pretty all the time.
No, thanks.
2) And yeah, I adored the arcanaloths and ultroloths too. -Alot-. But it's WotC's IP even if they have absolutely no intention of using them at all for their PoL cosmology in 4e (which is a real shame).
In fact... according to some dude who got the 4E MoTP at Enworld, "Shemeska" now is a "Raavasta", anothe race.
If they don't plan to make Loths back, that solution is less worst than trow them as lower demons...
|
Sanguine Descent(Su): omg
<3
I would probably never throw this at my players, but I'd definitely let some details slip if they did enough research to get across the fact that baernoloths are things with which one does not #$@%.
Honestly, as far as all the fiends went in Planescape, the baernoloth's design came the closest to actually bothering me.
|
Director of Narrative
|
THAT SAID: Yes, demodands are in Golarion. We've got a LOT of different categories of fiends, in fact. Several are already mentioned; demons, devils, demodands, daemons, rakshasas... there are others too, mostly based on other cultures, like oni and divs and asuras and more.
Wow! I totally missed much of this thread. I'm really shocked by how much squabbling is going on about devils and demons, when in all honesty, this world has been visited by far more different types of fiends than just these two groups. And really, in historical and cultural folklore, demons and devils are just extremely vague divisions. There is so much evil in the world, represented in folklore for generation upon generation, of all kinds of evil acts and behaviors.
|
Director of Narrative
|
Reading my post again, it comes off kinda antagonistic, which was totally not my intention.
I also forgot to mention that I am seriously digging this thread. I love hearing everyone's take on the East Coast/West Coast/South Coast fiend battle, and I greatly appreciate Todd and James' input.
What's not to love about fiends?
|
Again... I'm aware of the fact that "daemon" and "demon" are pronounced the same in "real life." But so are the words "there" and "they're" and "their." Whereas the words "wind" (wind up the clock) and "wind" (the wind is blowing) are not pronounced the same way but are spelled the same way. One of the charming parts of the English language, and perhaps THAT'S why having two similar words to denote two similar types of fiends doesn't bother me. It's probably that plus the fact that daemons have been around since the early days of the game, having first been introduced in D3: Vault of the Drow and then graduating into the first edition Fiend Folio in the early '80s. We can't call them yugoloths, in any case, since that's intellectual property owned by WotC, and any other name we make up is equally arbitrary and contradicts all the work we've already done in Pathfinder AND all the work that's been done over the course of the game already. Returning to calling them daemons (and pronounciung the word like Matt Damon's last name) is the Paizo-Preferred Method, and is the one we'll be carrying into the PF RPG.
I've been pronouncing Daemons as Day-mons...
Off-topic again: did anyone ever design a good-aligned counterpart to the baernaloths?
Well, if I can ignore the 118 replies and just address the original post; I 100% agree and have done pretty much exactly that in every setting I've ever spent any time developing cosmology for. A fiend is a fiend is a fiend, and any hostile outsider is a fiend. Demon, daemon and devil are all interchangeable "in game" and at best serve as stat differentiators in a metagame sense. The Hells are a big bubbly mass of outer realms, some of them reachable from a shadowy "porch" plane, some of them only reachable by passing through several other hellish realms on the way there. Prime Hellish real estate is closer to the Material Plane, but there are various reasons why fiendlords might want to set up their kingdoms deeper in.
The distinctions in game don't make much sense to me, or at least I don't feel they are worth preserving. Like I said, any evil... heck, any hostile outsider is a fiend. A given kingdom might have creatures that are written up as devils, demons or yugoloths all mixed together, while another kingdom might have a completely different mix of the same. Efreets and slaad---are they really thematically different than fiends? Not to me. They're in the mix as well.
Well, if I can ignore the 118 replies and just address the original post; I 100% agree and have done pretty much exactly that in every setting I've ever spent any time developing cosmology for. A fiend is a fiend is a fiend, and any hostile outsider is a fiend. Demon, daemon and devil are all interchangeable "in game" and at best serve as stat differentiators in a metagame sense. The Hells are a big bubbly mass of outer realms, some of them reachable from a shadowy "porch" plane, some of them only reachable by passing through several other hellish realms on the way there. Prime Hellish real estate is closer to the Material Plane, but there are various reasons why fiendlords might want to set up their kingdoms deeper in.
The distinctions in game don't make much sense to me, or at least I don't feel they are worth preserving. Like I said, any evil... heck, any hostile outsider is a fiend. A given kingdom might have creatures that are written up as devils, demons or yugoloths all mixed together, while another kingdom might have a completely different mix of the same. Efreets and slaad---are they really thematically different than fiends? Not to me. They're in the mix as well.
I take a similar approach to outsiders in my campaign setting - all outsiders, in fact. My CS is very Prime Material Plane-centric, and the inhabitants know little about the cosmology. Creatures from the "Without," which is to say creatures from planes aside from the elemental, transitive, or material, are all known as "daemons" (which is part of the reason I'm not keen on the return of Yugoloths to their roots, though it matters little for my CS one way or another). Priests of the churches of Eirias and Rhiannon, who police outsider incursions, are just as likely to banish celestials as they are devils - outsiders upset the delicate balance of the plane, and often drive people who encounter them insane.
But, for a setting that's keeping its roots close to classic D&D, I appreciate the attempt at retaining canon while reinvigorating it. I do rather dig the overarching philosophies of the various fiendish denizens, so kudos to that.
Again... I'm aware of the fact that "daemon" and "demon" are pronounced the same in "real life."
-snip-
Returning to calling them daemons (and pronounciung the word like Matt Damon's last name) is the Paizo-Preferred Method, and is the one we'll be carrying into the PF RPG.
Fair enough. Sorry if I'm being overly kvetchy. I get odd about random things.
Also, I would have to guess... not having access to most of the Daemons/Yugoloth D&D material might actually be kind of exciting from a certain perspective.
I mean, the Hells are practically all already written out for you, and all the major actors have memorized their scripts. And despite the theoretical infinity of the Abyss, groundwork's been laid there as well. People have expectations. From the stats of the Balor to the refs/riffs on Dante's Inferno, players know what they expect from classic D&D demons and devils.
With most of the offical work in the D&D book closed on them, you really have the chance to make the most of an entire class of fiends from the ground up, preserving what you think is the core Daemon experience and filling in any of the holes with your own creative matter. That sounds like a lot of fun to me! ^.^
It's some consolation to not being able to get Ultradameons out of their contract, at least, eh?
[QUOTE="James Jacobs"
Also, I would have to guess... not having access to most of the Daemons/Yugoloth D&D material might actually be kind of exciting from a certain perspective.
-snip-
It's some consolation to not being able to get Ultradameons out of their contract, at least, eh?
Um, it's worth noting I'm trying to say I think this is kind of cool. As much s I'd like having my favorite daemons around, the Paizo gang does a darn good job with their creations, and I think it's kind of exciting waiting to see what new daemons will fill the emptied ranks and roles. I do rather like the Leukodaemons, after all!
|
I get the feeling I'm not as enthused about Daemons in Pathfinder as I ought to be for a couple of reasons:
1) The name. I'm pretty sure Daemon is pronounced like Demon, though I suppose I can differ them by pronouncing it Day-mon instead of Dee-mon, which is outside of actual traditional linguistic stuff for the word. I really miss Yugoloth. That was the one fiendish rename that I thought really really worked. Still, not a huge deal.
2) My favorite Daemons, the Ultraloths, Aranoloths, and those... tongueoloths, are closed content. It is worth noting, the Tome of Horrors does reference Ultradaemons and Arcanodaemons, even though they aren't statted in the book.
On the other hand, those Leukodaemons are pretty darn awesome.
Tongueloths are called canoloths just for the record. And my personal favourite among the yugoloths were the nycaloths. Green skin, two pairs of arms, big bat wings and usually a big friggin polearm.
Tongueloths are called canoloths just for the record. And my personal favourite among the yugoloths were the nycaloths. Green skin, two pairs of arms, big bat wings and usually a big friggin polearm.
Oh, right, Canoloth, thanks! ... But you have to admit, Tongueoloth is fun to say.
Concerning a revamp of specific monsters, I have to bring up the Bebilith.
In its fluff text, it is described as a scary demon-hunter, which is a cool fluff in my opinion.
But what are its special abilities? Poison and Rend Armor.
But AFAIK demons are immune to poison and don't wear armor.
In my opinion, the Bebilith doesn't make sense as-is and needs a revamp. Maybe rule that its poison is the only on known to have full effect on demons despite their immunity, and make its Rend Armor ability affect creatures with natural armor somehow?
|
Creative Director
|
Concerning a revamp of specific monsters, I have to bring up the Bebilith.
In its fluff text, it is described as a scary demon-hunter, which is a cool fluff in my opinion.
But what are its special abilities? Poison and Rend Armor.
But AFAIK demons are immune to poison and don't wear armor.
In my opinion, the Bebilith doesn't make sense as-is and needs a revamp. Maybe rule that its poison is the only on known to have full effect on demons despite their immunity, and make its Rend Armor ability affect creatures with natural armor somehow?
Those are indeed some interesting observations, and good examples of things we'll be looking at to change or adjust or rework when we're stating up the monsters for the Bestiary. Rend armor's already a troubling ability (as are all equipment destroying powers), since the rules for fixing damage and death to people are MUCH more well-supported than doing the same for objects. The PF RPG's already made a few strides toward addressing the way you fix items, but still... that demons don't actually wear armor is a good point.
If I were redesigning the bebelith, I'd certainly change his poison into a SUPER poison that ignores poison immunity, or just change it so that it just deals ability damage on a bite rather than poison. And I'd change the rend armor to something that, if it hits you and you fail to resist, could hurt your natural armor as well. In any case, this is a good example of a monster with great flavor text that needs to have the rules adjusted so that the rules support that text.
|
Well, if I can ignore the 118 replies and just address the original post; I 100% agree and have done pretty much exactly that in every setting I've ever spent any time developing cosmology for. A fiend is a fiend is a fiend, and any hostile outsider is a fiend. Demon, daemon and devil are all interchangeable "in game" and at best serve as stat differentiators in a metagame sense. The Hells are a big bubbly mass of outer realms, some of them reachable from a shadowy "porch" plane, some of them only reachable by passing through several other hellish realms on the way there. Prime Hellish real estate is closer to the Material Plane, but there are various reasons why fiendlords might want to set up their kingdoms deeper in.
The distinctions in game don't make much sense to me, or at least I don't feel they are worth preserving. Like I said, any evil... heck, any hostile outsider is a fiend. A given kingdom might have creatures that are written up as devils, demons or yugoloths all mixed together, while another kingdom might have a completely different mix of the same. Efreets and slaad---are they really thematically different than fiends? Not to me. They're in the mix as well.
If I remember correctly, in the earlier, pre-Islam culture, Efreet, Genies, etc were all demons.
I have fiends and celestials. These serve Demon Lords, Diabolical Princes and Angelic Hosts. These are powerful outsiders, borderline divine-possible lowest levels of divine- capable of granting spells.
I do also have elementals which fulfill the same roles as fiends and celestials, just with different fluff.
Essentially my planes are composed of two circles. Outer Plane and Inner Plane. Outer Plane is split into good vs evil. Pretty much is all there is. Inner planes are essentially law vs chaos for me.
If I were redesigning the bebelith, I'd certainly change his poison into a SUPER poison that ignores poison immunity, or just change it so that it just deals ability damage on a bite rather than poison. And I'd change the rend armor to something that, if it hits you and you fail to resist, could hurt your natural armor as well. In any case, this is a good example of a monster with great flavor text that needs to have the rules adjusted so that the rules support that text.
This.
If PF retains their flavor as hunting demons, they need to have some notation that their poison either breaks poison immunity as a blanket case, or that it specifically affects demons.
In my own campaign I let bebeliths break poison resistance on demons, but only demons. It fit their nature as being predators of demons. For the campaign I situated them as manifestations of Pale Night's self-loathing and masochism at having birthed the first tanar'ri (rather unwillingly). They were literally bits of the Abyss/her seeking to cleanse itself of the taint brought about by the introduction of tanar'ri into the Abyss and the rape of the Mother of Demons.
And that's a spiffy idea on it harming natural armor as well.
I certainly don't want PCs to recognize difference between devils and demons on sight. If appearance can mislead them, all the better.
For me, as difference between people is how they act and not how they look, I think it's very appropriate to be the same with fiends.
Similar to Kytons, can Retrievers be moved outside of the Demon section? They're DEFINITELY not demons: They're not even Outsiders.
I'm actually looking forward to the Pathfinder rendition of the Demodands. I thought they were awesome when I was a kid and every monster in my 1st Ed MM2 was a glowing spot of cool new critter (and their 2E Planescape fluff was intriguing,) but when I got older (3E) I was a bit lukewarm on those fiends for a while... What, only 3 varieties? What, Chaotic Evil, are they steppin' on the demons' turf? (I admit it, I got jaded at some point.) Then, they showed up in the Shackled City Adventure Path, and I rather fell in love with them all over again.
I can't wait to see what Paizo does with them now!
If I were redesigning the bebelith, I'd certainly change his poison into a SUPER poison that ignores poison immunity, ...This.
If PF retains their flavor as hunting demons, they need to have some notation that their poison either breaks poison immunity as a blanket case, or that it specifically affects demons...
This reminds me of a note in the 3.5 DMG or MM (not sure) mentionning that specific poisons could be made to work against a creature normaly immune to poison.
I always thought it was a very cool story hook concept but never got around to using it. It might be worth a few lines of either crunch or fluff in the Beastiary.