There are no plans to do half-devil templates, or to expand that further to other fiends.
Okay, so for now, Half-Devil templates aren't in the foreseeable future but what about stats for a reformed devil (like a reformed Erinyes)? I think that would be sorta interesting. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Proteans Introduced please?
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that why Paizo had to go with the daemons instead of drawing on any material concerning the Yugoloths in general? Or is there some yugoloth open content but just not enough to justify it?
Yes. Partially, at least.
When D&D first introduced these neutral evil fiends, they were called daemons. Then, when 2nd edition came along and TSR decided to scrub mention of demons and devils and all related things entirely from the game to bow to pressure from overreactions in the general public, all fiends went away from the game for several years. When they came back, their names had changed; daemons were now known as yugoloths, and it's then (and in Planescape) that they got their flavor of being Blood War mercenaries.
When we decided to do daemons, we didn't want yugoloths. We're pretty nostalgic here at Paizo, and so we went all the way back to the start of when they first started showing up in the game and returned to daemon.
Their role as personifications of death is something we came up with to give them a fresh (hopefully!) Golarion spin.
In any event, even if yugoloths and their mercenary flavor text were open content... I would have gone with our death incarnate daemons any day of the week.
First, +1 to Devils Revisited. Would love that.
I like Pathfinder's Daemons, but really miss the good old Yugoloth. I would really like a way to fusion both interpretations together.
What do you miss about those Yugoloths? Their 100% match with demons? Or their generic looks?
Daemons got better artwork and the only Yugoloth that aren't in pathfinder are the worst of the bunch, Canoloth is a bummer tho, but Mezzoloth and Nycaloth I never understood what people liked about those.
The best 'loth type wasn't open content :P
My favorites were, Hydro and Dergho, but I didn't knew by then that Dergho's were gonna be my favorites because D&D made them look horrible :-p
I use both daemons and yugoloths. Yugoloths seem bigger and badder, much more than mercenaries, they are about experimenting and perfecting evil, there are far worse things than death.
Kytons are my heroes on that subject.
What do you miss about those Yugoloths? Their 100% match with demons? Or their generic looks?
Daemons got better artwork and the only Yugoloth that aren't in pathfinder are the worst of the bunch, Canoloth is a bummer tho, but Mezzoloth and Nycaloth I never understood what people liked about those.
I agree that mezzoloth and nycaloth were both kind of meh, but to me the ones that stood out were the canoloth and the ultraloth. I consider both of them to BE the iconic daemons/yugoloths and it's really too bad they couldn't be patherfinderized. Also the lore keeper slot filled by arcanaloths was important to how i viewed yugoloths, but not really their appearance. I had similar feelings on the Marraenoloth and as such didn't really care when their slot was filled by thanadaemons.
I'll be honest, at this point I might actually like daemons more than 'loths.
That said, they're different beasts, and I miss some of the planar niche that the 'loths filled as the oldest of the fiends. The puppetmaster element that was there alongside their mercenary element was nice (though daemonic obsession and tinkering with souls fills some of that same space). And the daemons don't have baernaloths. But they do have horribly corrupt, self-censored history and plenty of dead/missing/perhaps still lurking former Horsemen to fill that niche, and of course the Oinodaemon/Bound Prince that could fill that niche all by his/her/its lonesome if you wanted to play them that way (but you don't have to, and by the book they're powerless and slumbering as it stands).
I adored the juxtaposition of cerebral and mangy that came with arcanaloths, and there's no direct replacement for them where daemons are concerned. Meladaemons are inspired by them in some ways, but they're quite different in other ways, and any real similarities are going to be on an individual basis rather than by a racial/caste basis (Inusalia* does a pretty good arcanaloth impression as an alchemist meladaemon). I could also see an erodaemon filling some of the same niche as a more cerebral, manipulating style of fiend.
*she features in the story 'Hunger' I did for PF Chronicler a few years ago, and she was namedropped in BotD3.
I personally would LOVE a celestials even, but if we could get more in-depth to each sept- angels, agathions, etc.- I would be a happy camper. I hear a lot of people wanting more devil and demon and other fiendish things because it's admittedly fun to play the darker characters sometimes, and it's also fantastic to have the sources for making truly villainous, evil, wretched bad guys.
But why shun the light? After all, a half-elf enemy of a devil or demon might get just a tad less interest than a half-angel enemy. Know what I mean? In all honesty, it was one thing that 4th edition did that tended to bug me. They focused on tieflings, a lot of more evil creatures, and gave stats for them as playable things, and for a long while neglected the good side of the pond. I'd just like to see the opportunity for those of us who enjoy playing the clerics and paladins a lot to get some fun to dabble in the holy side of things just a little more.
Regardless, I am always in love with Pathfinder's worlds, and now that I have a job and all, I'll be able to fill my gaming library with yet more books. And more!