|
just had a flick through my Monster Manuals, seeing what is taken from folklore/myth/whatever and thus could have a legitimate pathfinder brush up.
Banshee – straight lift from myth
Catoblepas – straight lift from myth
Effigy – Seems to have come from a random name generator. Effigy would be better used for some kind of golem made in an individual's image that possessed something of the individual's spirit/nature/personality.
Firbolg – These guys also have much unused potential: a species that contested with the gods in ancient times and the gods were so impressed with them that they let them have a dominion!
Fomorians – How do impressively wild and spirited god-like beings become stupid, deformed hulks? These could do with pathfinder improvements.
Grimalkin – lift from myht, with room for improvement.
Jahi – Is a cool mythical demon needing a new lease of life.
Leviathan – straight lift from myth
Linnorm – straight lift from myth
Megalodon – straight lift from myth. My favourite Megalodon story is in the first McSweeneys' Anthology.
Mooncalf – is from folklore and has grear abberation potential.
Moon rats – are a type of mole.
Phoenix - straight lift from myth
Sundew – are carnivorous plants
Eidolon – are cool types of spirit/atral doubles that need pathfinderisation away from the 3.5 construct
sylph - straight lift from myth
Tempest - ...
Armand – is a French name, meaning “of the army”
Chelicera – are mouth parts of spiders
Mastodon - straight lift from prehistory
redcap - straight lift from myth
Susurrus – just means 'whispering'.
Leucrotta - straight lift from myth
Peryton - straight lift from myth
Revenant - straight lift from folklore
Do any more spring to mind?
just had a flick through my Monster Manuals, seeing what is taken from folklore/myth/whatever and thus could have a legitimate pathfinder brush up.
Catoblepas – straight lift from myth
Pet peeve here:
This creature (I believe) was adopted from Pliny's Inventorum Natura, a codex of flora and fauna compiled from second hand reports of animals from various parts of the world. The document certainly described many fantastic creatures (that Pliny thought were real) but the Catoblepas is suspected to have been nothing more than a description of a wildebeest or some such.
If it is to be kept on, I would love to see a well-researched Paizo treatment of the concept. Maybe it's just the 2e illustration of the critter, but I've never liked this one.
Also, your list includes Peryton and Revenant as mythical? Please elaborate?
And Formorians are from Celtic mythology, IIRC.
I think the revenant might be from norse mythology. They had the undead that were the source for wights, but I think they also came looking for their murderers.
Also cool mythological creatures are naga, rackshasa and oni. They appear either in name (naga) or shape (oni/Ogre Mage), but one could elaborate on their backgrounds.
And I would also direct to slavic mythology. There's some neat stuff to find. For example the Lich is a 1 to 1 adaptation of the undead wizard Koschei.
Creative Director
|
Revenants may be mythological lifts... but the word itself is common enough and used to apply to the vengeful dead in far more places than D&D. In any event, we updated the revenant in Pathfinder 2.
And the peryton's from myth; it's tied to Atlantis, in fact. We're updating them in Pathfinder 19.
Anyway, yeah; a lot more of the monsters from early D&D and pre-Monster Manual 3 3rd edition books are from myth and can be rebuilt easily enough. I suspect that past MM3, WotC's decision to focus more heavily on brand new monsters rather than those that are inspired by myth is so that they can retain control and IP of their new monsters, in fact.
Any chance on the poor old Flumph?
|
Creative Director
|
Because it's a snow day and I love chatting monsters... I'm gonna look at each of the ones mentioned above, in fact! Very few of these, in any case, will likely be getting into the first Bestiary, since that book's mostly about the standard SRD monsters plus some old favorites from Tome Of Horrors...
Banshee: Will appear in Pathfinder #17
Catoblepas: Not yet scheduled, but will very likely appear some day in a Paizo monster book.
Effigy: If we use this as a monster name, we'd have to build something entirely different with it than the MM2 monster. Which means we won't be using this name as a monster. Even though WE can't officially use effigies in Pathfinder, that doesn't mean that gamers can't use them (or anything else that's closed content) in their home games, and by not making a new effigy, we do our part to try to avoid too much confusion since our effigy would have to be a totally different creature. In the case of something like a banshee or catoblepas, since it draws upon a mythological root, a new version we make would be similar enough to the closed content one (not necessarily crunch-wise, but certainly flavor-wise) that the duplicate names aren't nearly as much of a problem.
Firbolg: Not scheduled, but some day, perhaps!
Fomorians: These are from myth, but I'm actually quite fond of the deformed underground giant version that Gygax created way back in the early days of the game; these monsters first appeared in the old 1st edition adventure "Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth." Which was, I believe, the FIRST adventure published for the game (although in a super limited run, later to be republished and expanded into the fourth installment in the "Special Adventures" line of modules in the early '80s). Anyway, since I'm fond of the current D&D version, Pathfinder's unlikely to try to "rebuild" this name into something closer to myth. I reserve the right to change my mind on this count, of course!
Grimalkin: Not scheduled for Pathfinder yet.
Jahi: There's an open version of the jahi in Green Ronin's "Book of Fiends." That's the version we'll probably use.
Leviathan: Not scheduled. This word's kind of become almost a bit too generic today to serve as a monster... but maybe not. I suspect it'll show up in a Paizo monster book sometime.
Linnorm: We've got these in Golarion already. They'll be statted up by this time next year, I suspect.
Megalodon: This is basically just a more accurate name for the monster currently in the game as "dire shark." I don't really see the need to make it a separate creature. One of the funny things about MM2, in fact, is that the legendary shark and the megalodon are essentially the same creature, but even though the megalodon is physically larger than the legendary shark, it's got fewer hit dice. Amusingly enough, with its fewer hit dice and lower AC, its CR is higher than the weaker legendary shark's CR. Hmm.
Mooncalf: Like the effigy, if we make a new mooncalf, it'd be 100% different than the MM2 monster. It's also just a cool word to use to describe a freak or deformed baby; mooncalves in Golarion (monsters or not) are Lamashtu-associated.
Moon rats: The version of moon rat in the MM2 may share the name as a type of mole, but they're their own creatures. If we were to make some form of this monster, we'd call it something else and give it different powers; no need to remake this one, in other words.
Phoenix: This one'll probably be in a Pathfinder product by this time next year.
Sundew: We'll probably do a giant sundew sometime; they're really cool!
Eidolon: The rogue eidolon's one of the monsters in MM2 that I invented, and I'm pretty fond of it still (even though the MM2 version took away its associations with Tharizdun). The word "eidolon" is one of my favorite words, and I suspect that there'll be eidolon type monsters showing up in Paizo products someday. They'll be different from the rogue eidolon, of course.
Sylph: This'll probably show up in a Paizo product some day.
Tempest: This word, even more so than "leviathan," doesn't work well as a monster name today. It's better to let it keep working in game as a word for "big storm."
Armand: Silly name for a monster. Silly monster too. This is one that I'm 100% not sad at all is closed content.
Chelicera: We won't be making a chelicera monster. It's a spider body part. We won't be making any monsters called "leg" or "eye" or "stomach" either. Unless we put an adjective before the word. Like "Badleg" or "Wintereye" or "Walking Stomach."
Mastodon: These'll show up by this time next year, I bet. These, or wolly mammoths.
Redcap: These appeared in Pathfinder #4.
Susurrus: Yeah; it's a real word and already associated with a monster. I'm cool withg it remaining off the list (and I think it MIGHT be in the Tome of Horrors anyway...)
Leucrotta: These are in Pathfinder #17.
Peryton: These will be in Pathfinder #19.
Revenant: These were in Pathfinder #2.
Looking at the Monster Manual 2, there's a few other mythological monsters that might show up in a Paizo monster book some day, including: the malebranche devil, all of the dinosaurs, variations on the giants, the juggernaut (although it'd have to be a different design), legendary animals (although I'd probably do this as a template and go a different route), moonbeast (the H. P. Lovecraft version, though), and the sirine (already did this one in Pathfinder #14, in fact).
|
Creative Director
|
Any chance on the poor old Flumph?
He's already updated! He's in the Tome of Horrors. All 3.5 and good to go!
And as a result, he's also available to be updated to PF RPG some day. Not anytime soon, though. He's near the back of the line, chillin' with the dire corbys and the assweres.
Was Tempest ever used as the name for a mythological creature? Outside D&D, that is. D&D doesn't count, because apparently, everything can be used as a monster name.
And I prefer my leviathans with 5000 armour and a primary weapon that can obliterate anything with one attack - and power cores with two. ;-)
I'd settle for a really big fishy dragon-like critter, though.
|
|
Any chance on the poor old Flumph?He's already updated! He's in the Tome of Horrors. All 3.5 and good to go!
And as a result, he's also available to be updated to PF RPG some day. Not anytime soon, though. He's near the back of the line, chillin' with the dire corbys and the assweres.
So there is hope for the asswere....
Flumphs and assweres before Dire Corbies? No way.
Was Tempest ever used as the name for a mythological creature? Outside D&D, that is. D&D doesn't count, because apparently, everything can be used as a monster name.
And I prefer my leviathans with 5000 armour and a primary weapon that can obliterate anything with one attack - and power cores with two. ;-)
I'd settle for a really big fishy dragon-like critter, though.
Yeah I think it was across from the siren in the Odessey. Beyond that I know I remember the name from greek mythology.
You're trying to torture me b/c I can't afford the companion subscription right now, aren't ya? Well...mission accomplished!
Edit: It's not Invisible Stalker?
And why wasn't it Wereass?
There are women and weremen everywhere who will not appreciate Heathy's comment. And that makes me sad.
Must add to the bestiary: The Wookalar.
PS @ HD - so then they belong in a future equipment guide.
I kinda think they'd be a bonus anywhere...
I just ate lunch HD, you heartless fiend.
BTW, I can't believe there's not a decent pic of the Wookalar anywhere online.
|
|
And why wasn't it Wereass?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the way I understand it: Lycanthropes are people that change into animals-- the werewolf, for example. But there are also creatures that are the opposite of lycanthropes. These are called therianthropes. They are animals that change into people-- the wolfwere, for example.
Thus, the asswere is not called a wereass because it is a donkey that changes into a person, not the other way around.
One medievel mythological creature I've never seen statted anywhere is the Yale.
Swivelling horns might be cool in a melee.
One medievel mythological creature I've never seen statted anywhere is the Yale.
Swivelling horns might be cool in a melee.
In 1st Edition, in a Dragon magazine issue....it was one of the Creature Catalogues (I'll just be buggered if I can remember which one...I think it was in the first one, in the issue with the first of the Dennis Beauvais (sp?) chess covers (brain in a floating machine manipulating chess pieces).
Someone with the electronic compilation could check though (mine is buried in the garage somewhere :P).
Cheers,
Colin
Lycanthropes vs. therianthropes
This terminology may have been introduced to make this distinction in the game (I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, 2nd edition?), but both terms are used in the larger literature without this distinction being standard (being conservative...I'm not sure it occurs commonly at all.)
Edit: I don't have a lot of time to look around, but nosing about a bit, I think in scholarly literature, therianthropy may sometimes be used as the broader category that lycanthropy is a member of. (For example, Horus and Anubis are often depicted in therianthropic forms, but they are not lycanthropes.)
What about the Thunderbird from native american myth?That's a great example for a monster! We've actually talked about doing one up a few times, already. Just a matter of time, really...
Which version, the single messanger of the Great Spirit (Nuu-chah-nulth legends) or the race of shapeshifting spirits (Cowichan legends)? The Sioux also had their version that fought the Unktehila.
I personally, favor the Cowichan idea of thunderbirds that can take human form. Given the legend of them marrying humans, this version would make for good outsiders.
I could see playing a celestial blodline sorcerer whose father was a thunderbird.
|
In that list... the order of cool probably goes like this.
Dire Corby > Flumph > blank page > Asswere
Dire Corbys are actually mentioned in Into the Darklands, in fact.
Yeah, in that list.
Now if you were to add the Tojanida and Yrthak to that list would those two reviled critters fall between the Flumph and the blank page?
I've always been partial to Dire Corbies and Flumphs. I've used Flumphs in every D&D campaign I've ever run.
Sam
I don't think its been covered, but a Nemian Lion would be very cool.