|
Graz'zt, the Dark Prince.
So what do you guys think of this article? Frankly, I loved it, and I am eager to hear what the Paizo community thinks. Of course they couldn't go wrong with James writing the article. I am curious how different it was writing for digital output and not print. Were there any volume restrictions? Were you able to include all the information that you wanted?
Thanks
Tam
Graz'zt, the Dark Prince.
So what do you guys think of this article? Frankly, I loved it, and I am eager to hear what the Paizo community thinks. Of course they couldn't go wrong with James writing the article. I am curious how different it was writing for digital output and not print. Were there any volume restrictions? Were you able to include all the information that you wanted?
Thanks
Tam
Check out the thread under the Dragon Magazine general discussion on this very subject!!
Oh and it was very cool article.
Creative Director
|
I didn't approach the writing of the Graz'zt article any differently than any other Demonomicon article; it's very much not a 4th edition piece, and Wizards didn't make any changes to it that I can see to change that. It's the same article that would have appeared in Dragon's print edition, had we still been doing them for print. SO: I'm glad you liked it! :)
|
Creative Director
|
Hey James, can you say what the next one will be, or maybe when?
At this point, I haven't been asked to write any more Demonomicons for the digital initiative or Dragon.
I suspect that Graz'zt will be the last one written by me, in any event. The changes to demons in 4th edition pretty much make the Demonomicon as I've envisioned it outdated and wrong. I'm certainly not interested in writing a Demonomicon entry that shoehorns the flavor into the new version of the Abyss (with no succubi and its ties to elementals among other things). In fact, unless they maintain the older, traditional history and setup for demons in some campaigns, I'd honestly rather not see any more Demonomicon articles, which is kind of depressing, since I was really, REALLY looking forward to some day writing Obox-ob's entry. And Pale Night. And Yeenoghu. And Orcus. And even Juiblex.
:(
|
Hey James, can you say what the next one will be, or maybe when?At this point, I haven't been asked to write any more Demonomicons for the digital initiative or Dragon.
I was really, REALLY looking forward to some day writing Obox-ob's entry. And Pale Night. And Yeenoghu. And Orcus. And even Juiblex.
Are any (or all) of these names owned by Wizards? Or could you possibly be able to do similar articles in Pathfinder?
Are any (or all) of these names owned by Wizards?
Yes, though I'm not 100% sure about Juiblex.
*quickly references her "A Field Guide to Demons, Fairies, Fallen Angels and Other Subversive Spirits"*Nope, sorry, he's not available either, but there is a host of demons, devils and other naughtiness from the real world that one could use in a Pathfinder Planar Bestiary.
Ah, and I really would have liked a Pale Night article. She would make the first (well, second, in a theoretical timeline where Obox-ob gets an article) Obryth Lord to get such an article (Pazuzu does not count). What little we know about her intrigues me so... Though the monster they gave in connection to her in MM V... Does not seem a thing like her.
I also would have liked to see more information on the Lomura. They were pretty intriguing, and it would have been nice to learn more about them. Maybe detail a Lomura Lord or two.
And that's what is really annoying me about 4e- An end to some of the best articles I've ever read, articles that are rich with history and pregnant with ideas. I want to hope that 4e will have such articles and flavor, but even if it does, it just will not be the same.
DOH! How the hell did I forget Dagon?! I actually liked that one, too... That makes it all the more unforgiveable... (Didn't much like the monster he came with, but for the most part, I dislike Form of Madness anyway...)
As for that beast in MMV... I forget its name, but it's some weird green spindly monster with three legs, like a spider or something, and Pale Night apparently makes them from the bones surrounding her castle, and their Form of Madness (again with the... Ahem...) makes you think something's growing inside you and you become Sickened...
Maybe I'm speaking from ignorance (wouldn't be the first time...) but it didn't say "Pale Night" to me.
Actually, Dagon was the first full-on obyrith to get a Demonomicon article.
I actually haven't really looked through MM V; what was the Pale Night monster in there?
James, it's called a Draudnu. I don't know about making it a Pale Night creation, but it's a cool Obyrith IMO. Very nice art, too. Pp. 24-26 of MM V.
|
|
Are any (or all) of these names owned by Wizards? Or could you possibly be able to do similar articles in Pathfinder?At this point, I haven't been asked to write any more Demonomicons for the digital initiative or Dragon.
I was really, REALLY looking forward to some day writing Obox-ob's entry. And Pale Night. And Yeenoghu. And Orcus. And even Juiblex.
I'm fairly certain 'Orcus' (greco roman origin) as a name is not owned by wizards, but 'Orcus. demon Prince on Unlife' is.
Hey James, can you say what the next one will be, or maybe when?At this point, I haven't been asked to write any more Demonomicons for the digital initiative or Dragon.
I suspect that Graz'zt will be the last one written by me, in any event. The changes to demons in 4th edition pretty much make the Demonomicon as I've envisioned it outdated and wrong. I'm certainly not interested in writing a Demonomicon entry that shoehorns the flavor into the new version of the Abyss (with no succubi and its ties to elementals among other things). In fact, unless they maintain the older, traditional history and setup for demons in some campaigns, I'd honestly rather not see any more Demonomicon articles, which is kind of depressing, since I was really, REALLY looking forward to some day writing Obox-ob's entry. And Pale Night. And Yeenoghu. And Orcus. And even Juiblex.
RATS! We were all looking forward to Obox-Ob... Freakin' WotC and their revisionist history. Next up: EXTRA, EXTRA! SOUTH WINS CIVIL WAR!
RATS! We were all looking forward to Obox-Ob... Freakin' WotC and their revisionist history. Next up: EXTRA, EXTRA! SOUTH WINS CIVIL WAR!
This happens, if you read Harry Turtledove.
Well, that's more "alternate history" than "revisionist history" but yeah.
I was in a way somewhat dissappointed with this article. Not the article as such - which was indeed a real treat - but the rather short sequence of articles on one and the same demon lord. The Book of Vile Darkness had him, the recently published Fiendish Codex I as well ... so I would have hoped for different, yet unseen or unheard of Abyssal Lords.
Anyway ... I haven't dug too deep into Pathfinder, but do Demon Lords feature in there as much as in "Core D&D"?
|
|
Hey James, can you say what the next one will be, or maybe when?At this point, I haven't been asked to write any more Demonomicons for the digital initiative or Dragon.
I suspect that Graz'zt will be the last one written by me, in any event. The changes to demons in 4th edition pretty much make the Demonomicon as I've envisioned it outdated and wrong. I'm certainly not interested in writing a Demonomicon entry that shoehorns the flavor into the new version of the Abyss (with no succubi and its ties to elementals among other things). In fact, unless they maintain the older, traditional history and setup for demons in some campaigns, I'd honestly rather not see any more Demonomicon articles, which is kind of depressing, since I was really, REALLY looking forward to some day writing Obox-ob's entry. And Pale Night. And Yeenoghu. And Orcus. And even Juiblex.
Damn, that sucks. Damn you WotC! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
In fact, I'll quote Mr. Hat here...You got to Hell! You got to Hell and you DIE!"