Problems with the Vulnadaemon as described in Book of the Damned?

[Jek]

Firstly, let me apologize. Most of my posts seem to be about me finding problems, which I realize doesn't really s.ay many good things about me. I really love Pathfinder, though, so I'm sorry I keep bringing stuff up.

In the Book of the Damned 3, Horsemen of the Apocalypse (not actually mine. Borrowed it from a friend--I'm broke), page 20 describes the Vulnadaemon. But the description doesn't resemble the Vulnadaemon from the Bestiary 3 at all.

In the Book of the Damned, the daemon is described as taking a true form as a cloud of bloody mist. They are described as impersonating traders to infiltrate a community, and as killing people and disguising themselves as them, switch personae and whatnot.

But in the Bestiary 3, the Vulnadaemon is described as a child with a slit throat--save that the 'throat' is actually a fanged maw. They don't have any shapechanging powers, qualities, or spell-like abilities. They don't even have ranks in disguise. They are described as stalkers who use stealth and invisibility. And while the Book of the Damned calls them the representation of murder, the Bestiary defines them as murder accented by betrayal.

The only part of the Vulnadaemon in the Book of the Damned that is like the Bestiary 3 Vulnadaemon is the picture, and that they are the personification of murder. Apart from that, they are like two entirely different creatures.

Is this something that can be fixed in an errata?

Again, sorry for nitpicking over so many things.

[Todd Stewart]

The vulnadaemon I wrote for BotD III was done independently of the Bestiary 3 version. I didn't have anything from it, and I suspect it didn't have access to my version, and they were being done around the same time as each other. I also suspect the art order for the vulnadaemon was done first, and it's liable to take priority unless they redo it for a later product.

But I'm the lowly freelancer, I don't make the editorial decision here for which one is the 'real' vulnadaemon. ;)

Perhaps make one a subtype of the other vulnadaemon?

[Jek]

I see--an entirely understandable mistake, and one that I suppose higher-ups will be the ones to correct (or whatever it is that company-people do? I don't understand companies/businesses that well).

Since you posted here though, might I slightly derail the topic to just add that I loved Horsemen of the Apocalypse? You further defined the daemons wonderfully and developed them into something even more interesting than the Bestiaries could depict. Thank you.