And I suppose Bahamut as well, although I realize thats specifically a D&D creation.
I wasn't sure if they were OGL or not.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tiamat does exist but she is very and I mean very minor in Golarion. Like she might as well not exist. See the book gods and magic where is briefly mentioned.
Dahak is more like the evil dragon god in this version.
As for Bahamut...no mention of him in any lore of Golarion.
Ah, okay. Thanks for the quick response. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I do know that Bahamut is also in Final Fantasy as well as arabic myths (except he/it's a fish).
Tiamat was a Babylonian myth (and a dragon), but I think she was related to the seas.
It might be possible that they can't be made as the dragon gods they were for D&D, but they should still be allowed by other terms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apsu is the equivalent of both Bahamut and Io in Pathfinder, his lover/baby momma is Tiamat, and their love child is Dahak. Dahak is the manifestation of all things bad, and is considered about on par with Rovagug, where as Tiamat is so bad that even the guys that worship Dahak or Rovagug don't mess with her, as a result she has no followers. I have yet to find a PF version of her that has domains and favored weapon(s) because of that fact.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have mentioned Tiamat before... but we won't be in the future. Tiamat and Bahamut as dragon gods are very much D&D intellectual property, and while we could skirt that edge quite a bit since both names are from mythology... we'd rather focus on similar deities like Apsu and Dahak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No Paladine or Takhisis either.
The fun thing is, Tiamat could be utilized in the Creation Myths as there is some belief she might have been an Earth Goddess whose faith on Earth was superseded by the faiths of Babylonian deities such as Marduk. And the Babylonian myths have Marduk creating the universe out of Tiamat's corpse (which he dismembered).
If you do decide to use her, go with the mythology, not the D&D version. It's much more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want Tiamat in your game, then she's in your game, in whatever form or fashion you desire. As soon as you pick up the reins, it's your game; do what you want with it.
And now, a pet peeve.
Pathfinder is a game system.
Golarion is a campaign setting.
They are not the same thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now, a pet peeve.
Pathfinder is a game system.
Golarion is a campaign setting.
They are not the same thing.
<nitpick mode>
Actually, strictly speaking, the campaign setting is called the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. Golarion is the name of the planet that most of the material for that setting is placed on.And, strictly speaking, the game system is the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
</nitpick mode>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have mentioned Tiamat before... but we won't be in the future. Tiamat and Bahamut as dragon gods are very much D&D intellectual property, and while we could skirt that edge quite a bit since both names are from mythology... we'd rather focus on similar deities like Apsu and Dahak.
This is a touch misleading, regarding Tiamat.
Tiamat as a dragon god — that is, a god who is also a dragon — is decisively public domain as she has been around for several thousand years.
Tiamat the dragon god — a god worshipped by dragons — is a D&D invention, however, you could easily make a public domain case here too. She had many monsters for children.
Tiamat as a hydra with the five chromatic dragon heads is definitely a D&D intellectual property, methinks.
This is all in the interest of clarity. I quite like what Pathfinder is doing apart from the old dragon god ideas.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have mentioned Tiamat before... but we won't be in the future. Tiamat and Bahamut as dragon gods are very much D&D intellectual property, and while we could skirt that edge quite a bit since both names are from mythology... we'd rather focus on similar deities like Apsu and Dahak.This is a touch misleading, regarding Tiamat.
Tiamat as a dragon god — that is, a god who is also a dragon — is decisively public domain as she has been around for several thousand years.
Tiamat the dragon god — a god worshipped by dragons — is a D&D invention, however, you could easily make a public domain case here too. She had many monsters for children.
Tiamat as a hydra with the five chromatic dragon heads is definitely a D&D intellectual property, methinks.
This is all in the interest of clarity. I quite like what Pathfinder is doing apart from the old dragon god ideas.
Tiamat's D&D legacy as a 5 headed dragon that incorporates the 5 chormatic dragons is what's WotC's intellectual property, and presenting her in Pathfinder OR Golarion as anything other than that is an unnecessary and unwelcome retcon to the past several decades of how she's been presented in the game. I suspect the vast majority of folks who want to use her in their Golarion or Pathfinder games want to use THAT version, and I'm not interested in ruining that by making up an entirely different version of her as a dragon god in Golarion. This is also why we don't use Demogorgon in Golarion.
My original comment was basically an attempt to say all of that quickly and without going into detail, but the internet abhors brevity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have mentioned Tiamat before... but we won't be in the future. Tiamat and Bahamut as dragon gods are very much D&D intellectual property, and while we could skirt that edge quite a bit since both names are from mythology... we'd rather focus on similar deities like Apsu and Dahak.This is a touch misleading, regarding Tiamat.
Tiamat as a dragon god — that is, a god who is also a dragon — is decisively public domain as she has been around for several thousand years.
Tiamat the dragon god — a god worshipped by dragons — is a D&D invention, however, you could easily make a public domain case here too. She had many monsters for children.
Tiamat as a hydra with the five chromatic dragon heads is definitely a D&D intellectual property, methinks.
This is all in the interest of clarity. I quite like what Pathfinder is doing apart from the old dragon god ideas.
Tiamat's D&D legacy as a 5 headed dragon that incorporates the 5 chormatic dragons is what's WotC's intellectual property, and presenting her in Pathfinder OR Golarion as anything other than that is an unnecessary and unwelcome retcon to the past several decades of how she's been presented in the game. I suspect the vast majority of folks who want to use her in their Golarion or Pathfinder games want to use THAT version, and I'm not interested in ruining that by making up an entirely different version of her as a dragon god in Golarion. This is also why we don't use Demogorgon in Golarion.
My original comment was basically an attempt to say all of that quickly and without going into detail, but the internet abhors brevity.
Yep :3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My original comment was basically an attempt to say all of that quickly and without going into detail, but the internet abhors brevity.
:D ...or I just like being a know-it-all.
I would like to point out that 'Demogorgon' is actually more a title in mythology, then a name, i.e. 'the Demogorgon'. So, you could use it.
But I'm assuming same reason as Tiamat you don't...in the eyes of people it means the two-head Demon Prince of the Abyss, which is WoTC, and you don't want to invent something else holding the title.
==Aelryinth
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that 'Demogorgon' is actually more a title in mythology, then a name, i.e. 'the Demogorgon'. So, you could use it.
But I'm assuming same reason as Tiamat you don't...in the eyes of people it means the two-head Demon Prince of the Abyss, which is WoTC, and you don't want to invent something else holding the title.
==Aelryinth
The real-world "Demogorgon" is a made-up word that a monk put into a book back in the middle ages becasue he needed a scary-sounding name. That name worked. It was picked up later by Milton, Melville, and many other authors, including Gygax, to serve as the name of something scary. Gygax was the only one who associated that name with a two-headed tentacle armed demon lord. And as far as I know... that's the only time a creature associated with the name Demogorgon has been physically described.
So... it's the exact same reason as to why we don't use Tiamat.
If we used Demogorgon in our game, whatever we used it to represent would have to be something other than what he's been represented as in the game for the last 40 some years. And that would suck.
Of course, that does not preclude anyone from putting them in their own games, just nothing official from Paizo, correct?
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that 'Demogorgon' is actually more a title in mythology, then a name, i.e. 'the Demogorgon'. So, you could use it.
But I'm assuming same reason as Tiamat you don't...in the eyes of people it means the two-head Demon Prince of the Abyss, which is WoTC, and you don't want to invent something else holding the title.
==Aelryinth
The real-world "Demogorgon" is a made-up word that a monk put into a book back in the middle ages becasue he needed a scary-sounding name. That name worked. It was picked up later by Milton, Melville, and many other authors, including Gygax, to serve as the name of something scary. Gygax was the only one who associated that name with a two-headed tentacle armed demon lord. And as far as I know... that's the only time a creature associated with the name Demogorgon has been physically described.
So... it's the exact same reason as to why we don't use Tiamat.
If we used Demogorgon in our game, whatever we used it to represent would have to be something other than what he's been represented as in the game for the last 40 some years. And that would suck.
Demogorgon is described by Boccaccio (and illustrated here) but Boccaccio mistook the vague demonic figure with the Platonic/Gnostic Demiurge (demiourgos). This description and nature has nothing to do with Gygax's depiction of him.
|
Creative Director
|
Of course, that does not preclude anyone from putting them in their own games, just nothing official from Paizo, correct?
Correct.
But if we DID put a new version of Tiamat or Demogorgon into our game that was 100% different from the versions folks know and want to play with, that WOULD cause problems, since a lot of folks take world canon we provide very seriously. That's the essential disconnect I want to avoid.
After all, if we made up a new evil dragon god from scratch, it would have no more attachment to the name "Tiamat" than it would to any other mythological figure associated with dragons... say, like Dahak.
That way, we get a dragon god based on a mythological figure and don't imply to folks that if you put Tiamat into your game, you have to decide what version to use.
Thanks for all the responses.
I was only asking because I had an idea for a wonderous item (for the contest), but since I've run out of time with that, it really doesn't matter anymore.
I could have kept it vague-enough, and only concentrated on some of the RW (mythological) bits, but whatever. Its over, so no big. Thanks again, everyone.
And sorry for the misspelling. {embarrassed}
EDIT: And I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Jacobs here. When I create any game-content myself (and I am BIG on cosmology stuff), I try to do it in a way in which ALL sources are still relevant, so as to not limit someone's elses creativity. Once you define something down to the nth detail, you are basically saying, its not "this, this, or this". Thats 'subtractive design'. Leaving Tiamat and Bahamut alone allows Pathfinder players (playing ON Golarion) to use them in the traditional, D&D way, or even use something closer to the original myths. Isn't that what PF was all about? Building upon what came before, and making it all better? If you can't play with someone else's toys, then just leave them alone; no need to go and break them.
Although... I don't think it would be all that hard to create a Golarion version that doesn't override older versions (ALL of them). Gods can change their forms whenever they want, and also appear amongst different followers in different guises (aliases), so all versions can be correct at the same time. They can even appear as two (different) avatars at the same time, if they wish to.