Can we rename Daemons for PF2?


Monsters and Hazards


6 people marked this as a favorite.

"Daemon" is an alternate form of "Demon". Same pronunciation, same definition. Using the "two" words for two different races is like having an Aethereal Plane that's distinct from the Ethereal Plane, or Magick users who are different from Magic users.
I cannot see any reason for both in Pathfinder unless it's either a demonic plot to cause chaos and confusion, or a daemonic plot to cause linguists to commit suicide.

Looking in the playtest Bestiary, there are no Daemons listed, which means maybe now's the time to give them a different name? Please. I'm tired of having to refer to them as "Daemons with an 'A'" every time they come up in conversation.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Yugoloth is already taken

They aren’t pronounced the same, actually.

Demon is Dee-mon.

Daemon is Day-mon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Daemon is Day-mon.

I just pronounce it like I pronounce Matt Damon's name...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

According to the dictionary (and Warhammer for a slightly less authoritative example) the two are indeed both pronounced Dee-mon.

That said, english language tends to take a backseat when you're stuck with PF's system. Still, making up some fantasyese for them would be better honestly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Please do change it. I know that a lot of English-speakers read it as "Daymon" but even for the untrained the word can be really close to demon in print. At least at a glance.

For my own part I studied Linguistics and it is impossible for me to not say the "Demons and the Demons" when I read it. It's a curse.

Edit: I actually houseruled that they were called Fiends years ago because I couldn't stop doing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, keep the name daemon. Just have it refer to the kind of spirits one uses for Golems instead (since a daemon is, according to the Greeks, a guiding spirit and according to the Geeks, a background process)

this is a joke


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I would endorse a change, I've been stumped to come up with a good, evocative term for them as a group.

From an anecdotal perspective, I've incorporated the fact that they're really supposed to have the same pronunciation into my understanding of world lore. So the lay people just call 'em all "demons" without any distinction between Demons and Daemons. They're all just fiends beyond their ken to most folks. The more knowledgeable folks would make the distinction by calling them "demons from the abyss" or "daemons from abaddon," letting the origin be the distinguishing factor rather than the pronunciation.

Out-of-character I'll either call them "daemons with an a." Or if I'm feeling lazy I'll call 'em "day-mons," but doing that gives me the mental feeling most equivalent to not brushing my teeth.

It would amuse me to call them "Langoliers" since their shtick is all about consuming reality, but I suspect there would be legal issues with doing so, and too many people would have no idea what the heck it means.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Yugoloth is already taken

They aren’t pronounced the same, actually.

Demon is Dee-mon.

Daemon is Day-mon.

It uses the Greek style ae, where only the e is vocalized, just like aegis or aetna.

Scarab Sages

Scythia wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Yugoloth is already taken

They aren’t pronounced the same, actually.

Demon is Dee-mon.

Daemon is Day-mon.

It uses the Greek style ae, where only the e is vocalized, just like aegis or aetna.

I thought those were pronounced aygis and aytna, so apparently I'm wrong about a lot of stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd vote for a different name for sure, one derived from a mythological entity associated with death. For example, Azrai (from Azrael, archangel of death and destruction), or Vaath (from Vanth, an obscure death deity associated with massacres), or the like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Scythia wrote:
It uses the Greek style ae, where only the e is vocalized, just like aegis or aetna.

None of this is actually Greek. In Greek, the word is δαίμον (daimon), and αιγίς (aigis) for the shield. The spelling with a is the latinicized from when the romans stole their words from the Greek.

Sovereign Court

Would "daimon" be more distinct from "demon" then? Pronunciation stays the same but the writing is more obvious.


Zaister wrote:
Scythia wrote:
It uses the Greek style ae, where only the e is vocalized, just like aegis or aetna.
None of this is actually Greek. In Greek, the word is δαίμον (daimon), and αιγίς (aigis) for the shield. The spelling with a is the latinicized from when the romans stole their words from the Greek.

Right, ae isn't even a thing in actual Greek lettering, but it is popular in transliterated words.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
According to the dictionary (and Warhammer for a slightly less authoritative example) the two are indeed both pronounced Dee-mon.

And according to Paizo's James Jacobs, it's pronounced "Day-mon", and given that it's their system...


Scythia wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Scythia wrote:
It uses the Greek style ae, where only the e is vocalized, just like aegis or aetna.
None of this is actually Greek. In Greek, the word is δαίμον (daimon), and αιγίς (aigis) for the shield. The spelling with a is the latinicized from when the romans stole their words from the Greek.
Right, ae isn't even a thing in actual Greek lettering, but it is popular in transliterated words.

I will note that, at least in the classical pronunciation of Latin, you would end up with effectively Die-mons from the current spelling (the ee sound is used with a single i instead)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
modus0 wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
According to the dictionary (and Warhammer for a slightly less authoritative example) the two are indeed both pronounced Dee-mon.
And according to Paizo's James Jacobs, it's pronounced "Day-mon", and given that it's their system...

Yeah, it's their system and they could have "apple" pronounced like "fish" if they really felt like it. Doesn't change the fact a not insignificant amount of people are going to get tripped up over the pronunciation because unlike most fantasy babble, "daemon" is an actual (if archaic) word pronounced a different way than JJ says it is (even if its best intentions at work due to the demons over yonder).


Leedwashere wrote:

While I would endorse a change, I've been stumped to come up with a good, evocative term for them as a group.

...

They're all just fiends beyond their ken to most folks.

We could call them Fiends?

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Silly English native speakers have problem with demon and daemon, but are fine with comb, bomb and tomb. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious how having a problem with /ˈdiːmən/ and /ˈdiːmən/ and not with /koʊm/, /bɑm/, and /tuːm/ makes us silly.

And you might have a point about JJ saying it's pronounced /ˈdeɪːmən/ IF a pronunciation guide were included in the Bestiary (eg how they helpfully point out that coup de grace is "coo day grahs" in the Core Rulebook), rather than a forum post. Do they consider the Off-Topic Discussions board required reading? Wouldn't that make it On-Topic?


Kind of skilled through real quick.. but just pipping in

mythologically, and xenobiology/cryptozoologically, Demon. Daemon. and Deamon are all actually different things.

Fiends cover Demon and Deamons though but not Daemon.
Daemon's are meant to be the creators of Demons and Deamons. So not the same species so to speak?
Deamons are sentient to a high level. regardless of what form (and can in fact have no form)
Demons cover most other things though.
The difference between the two is realistically negligible though..
The golem discussed previously, could be either one, depending entirely on what it was made of, how, and whether it was sentient of its own or not.
Well also, for the record. Fiends typically refer to animalistic/beast style demon.. but again, negligible.

But yeah. colloquially, demon, deamon and fiends are functionally the same for 90% of people. Daemon's used to be more varied thanks to pop culture stuff but thats been altering since the 2000s. Really only Persona, and Dragonquest, and some obscure B movies still make use of the functional differences.

but i realize this is probably not helpful for the discussion but my brain wouldnt' let me not write this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qazyr wrote:

I'm curious how having a problem with /ˈdiːmən/ and /ˈdiːmən/ and not with /koʊm/, /bɑm/, and /tuːm/ makes us silly.

It's just a joke because they are written the same way and they are pronounced differently, while demon and daemon would not be pronounced differently if English just had a systematic way of translating letters to sounds

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My current head canon for daemons:

Daemon (ah-ah-ah)
Fighter of the Nightman (ah-ah-ah)
Champion of the Sun (ah-ah-ah)
You're a Master of Karate
And Friendship
For Everyone!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Leedwashere wrote:

While I would endorse a change, I've been stumped to come up with a good, evocative term for them as a group.

...

They're all just fiends beyond their ken to most folks.

We could call them Fiends?

That’s the general term for all Evil Outsiders. Changing it to just mean Daemons would not work out well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Instead, I'd suggest renaming devils Daimons, Quippoth Daymons, Kytons Nightmons, Inevitables Digimons, and outsiders in general Pokémons.

To be serious, though, I'd prefer if we didn't have two groups with nearly the same name.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladins without the correct skill training just call them all evil nasty things that need to be smote.


Qazyr wrote:

"Daemon" is an alternate form of "Demon"

I cannot see any reason for both in Pathfinder

Am I missing something?

Demons are Chaotic , meaning that they can never be predictable in there behaviour, even if it is not beneficial to them.
Daemons are Neutral, meaning that they behave in a manner that best suites them at that moment.
Devils are Lawfull, meaning they cannot behave against there rules, even if it would benefit them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dr Styx wrote:
Qazyr wrote:

"Daemon" is an alternate form of "Demon"

I cannot see any reason for both in Pathfinder

Am I missing something?

Demons are Chaotic , meaning that they can never be predictable in there behaviour, even if it is not beneficial to them.
Daemons are Neutral, meaning that they behave in a manner that best suites them at that moment.
Devils are Lawfull, meaning they cannot behave against there rules, even if it would benefit them.

You're missing the fact that, barring a pronunciation guide, the default pronunciation in English for the first two are exactly the same, which gets confusing.


Dr Styx wrote:
Demons are Chaotic
Leedwashere wrote:
You're missing the fact that, barring a pronunciation guide, the default pronunciation in English for the first two are exactly the same, which gets confusing.

So the topic of the OP that there is no reason to have two names for the same type of creature.

Which I think is incorrect,because they act differently, making them two different creatures.
Your problem is that the names are confusing.
Which is to my thinking what a Chaotic creature would do on purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dr Styx wrote:
Dr Styx wrote:
Demons are Chaotic
Leedwashere wrote:
You're missing the fact that, barring a pronunciation guide, the default pronunciation in English for the first two are exactly the same, which gets confusing.

So the topic of the OP that there is no reason to have two names for the same type of creature.

Which I think is incorrect,because they act differently, making them two different creatures.
Your problem is that the names are confusing.
Which is to my thinking what a Chaotic creature would do on purpose.

Let's try this:

1. Demon and Daemon are two different types of creatures in Pathfinder.
2. Demon and Daemon are both spellings of the same word, and are pronounced the same way.
3. Number 2 is a problem, because of number 1.
4. (Hidden premise)In-game alignment of monsters has no bearing on the utility or usefulness of real world naming.
Conclusion: Another name for Daemon would be useful in the real world.


Scythia wrote:

Let's try this:

1. Demon and Daemon are two different types of creatures in Pathfinder.
2. Demon and Daemon are both spellings of the same word, and are pronounced the same way.

I completely agree with the above 1 and 2

Scythia wrote:
4. (Hidden premise)In-game alignment of monsters has no bearing on the utility or usefulness of real world naming.

I don’t think there is anything hidden about Alignment in game. There are very specific spells and abilities that are tied directly to something’s Alignment.

(Take the Paladin and Anti-Paladin as names that reflect Alignment)

Scythia wrote:
3. Number 2 is a problem, because of number 1.

I completely agree with this, but I also think that is the point.

Scythia wrote:
Conclusion: Another name for Daemon would be useful in the real world.

Yes it would, but probably what was intended.

It has to be remembered that in the real world Alignment is just a concept.
But in game Alignments are the driving force of the Outer Plains. Especially with creatures that come from the Outer Plains, its backbone of what makes them what they are.


Dr Styx wrote:
Scythia wrote:

Let's try this:

1. Demon and Daemon are two different types of creatures in Pathfinder.
2. Demon and Daemon are both spellings of the same word, and are pronounced the same way.

I completely agree with the above 1 and 2

Scythia wrote:
4. (Hidden premise)In-game alignment of monsters has no bearing on the utility or usefulness of real world naming.

I don’t think there is anything hidden about Alignment in game. There are very specific spells and abilities that are tied directly to something’s Alignment.

(Take the Paladin and Anti-Paladin as names that reflect Alignment)

Scythia wrote:
3. Number 2 is a problem, because of number 1.

I completely agree with this, but I also think that is the point.

Scythia wrote:
Conclusion: Another name for Daemon would be useful in the real world.

Yes it would, but probably what was intended.

It has to be remembered that in the real world Alignment is just a concept.
But in game Alignments are the driving force of the Outer Plains. Especially with creatures that come from the Outer Plains, its backbone of what makes them what they are.

Given that Mr. Jacobs apparently thinks it's pronounced "day-mon", I think you're overthinking it a bit. Also you missed the point entirely. What is a real concept or driving force in game has no relevance to what terminology we use in the real world to describe it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I know it's pronounced the same as demon in the real world.

It's that the tradition of neutral evil feinds being "daemons" dates back to 1st edition D&D. That's important to some of us, if only from a nostalgia viewpoint.

That said, renaming them to something else WOULD allow us to move away from Wizards of the Coast's IP and do some new stuff, but doing so would pretty much require us to abandon the daemons that are D&D's property we're able to use via the Tome of Horrors. Would folks still be okay having them be renamed knowing that old classics like the derghodaemon, the hydrodaemon, the piscodaemon, and the Oinodaemon would more or less be written out of Pathfinder continuity?

Renaming them kinda comes with a price. I MIGHT be willing to pay that price to go somewhere new with them, maybe even make Divs the de-facto neutral evil fiend race, but it's not all up to me...

Now, all THAT said, the tradition of using similar monsters or similar monster names is an important one. It's good for the game to have a wide range of monsters, to keep things from being repetitive. And the more monsters that get created, the more repetition there is. So you have to be comfortable with at least a certain amount of thematic overlap... or else be comfortable with using the same creatures in every campaign.

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:


Renaming them kinda comes with a price. I MIGHT be willing to pay that price to go somewhere new with them, maybe even make Divs the de-facto neutral evil fiend race, but it's not all up to me...

D:


James Jacobs wrote:

I know it's pronounced the same as demon in the real world.

It's that the tradition of neutral evil feinds being "daemons" dates back to 1st edition D&D. That's important to some of us, if only from a nostalgia viewpoint.

That said, renaming them to something else WOULD allow us to move away from Wizards of the Coast's IP and do some new stuff, but doing so would pretty much require us to abandon the daemons that are D&D's property we're able to use via the Tome of Horrors. Would folks still be okay having them be renamed knowing that old classics like the derghodaemon, the hydrodaemon, the piscodaemon, and the Oinodaemon would more or less be written out of Pathfinder continuity?

Renaming them kinda comes with a price. I MIGHT be willing to pay that price to go somewhere new with them, maybe even make Divs the de-facto neutral evil fiend race, but it's not all up to me...

Now, all THAT said, the tradition of using similar monsters or similar monster names is an important one. It's good for the game to have a wide range of monsters, to keep things from being repetitive. And the more monsters that get created, the more repetition there is. So you have to be comfortable with at least a certain amount of thematic overlap... or else be comfortable with using the same creatures in every campaign.

You already have things like the Ankhrav in PF2, which is literally just a renamed Ankheg. Why can't you rename "whatever daemons X Y and Z" to something else, and still otherwise have them be the same creatures in the same way?


James Jacobs wrote:

I know it's pronounced the same as demon in the real world.

It's that the tradition of neutral evil feinds being "daemons" dates back to 1st edition D&D. That's important to some of us, if only from a nostalgia viewpoint.

That said, renaming them to something else WOULD allow us to move away from Wizards of the Coast's IP and do some new stuff, but doing so would pretty much require us to abandon the daemons that are D&D's property we're able to use via the Tome of Horrors. Would folks still be okay having them be renamed knowing that old classics like the derghodaemon, the hydrodaemon, the piscodaemon, and the Oinodaemon would more or less be written out of Pathfinder continuity?

Renaming them kinda comes with a price. I MIGHT be willing to pay that price to go somewhere new with them, maybe even make Divs the de-facto neutral evil fiend race, but it's not all up to me...

Now, all THAT said, the tradition of using similar monsters or similar monster names is an important one. It's good for the game to have a wide range of monsters, to keep things from being repetitive. And the more monsters that get created, the more repetition there is. So you have to be comfortable with at least a certain amount of thematic overlap... or else be comfortable with using the same creatures in every campaign.

Sorry, I once had an English teacher who insisted that "victuals" wasn't pronounced 'vittles', so I don't assume even when I otherwise think a person credible.

I can relate to the nostalgia angle, although I started in 2nd Ed. after the Panic had seen the creatures renamed to their less biblical sounding versions. As such, it seems strange to me to use the names that are both original and in PF. It's strange how the era one gets into the hobby can have such an influence.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Todd Stewart wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


Renaming them kinda comes with a price. I MIGHT be willing to pay that price to go somewhere new with them, maybe even make Divs the de-facto neutral evil fiend race, but it's not all up to me...
D:

Don't make Todd cry ;_;


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

That said, renaming them to something else WOULD allow us to move away from Wizards of the Coast's IP and do some new stuff, but doing so would pretty much require us to abandon the daemons that are D&D's property we're able to use via the Tome of Horrors. Would folks still be okay having them be renamed knowing that old classics like the derghodaemon, the hydrodaemon, the piscodaemon, and the Oinodaemon would more or less be written out of Pathfinder continuity?

Renaming them kinda comes with a price. I MIGHT be willing to pay that price to go somewhere new with them, maybe even make Divs the de-facto neutral evil fiend race, but it's not all up to me...

To be fair, just off the top of my head, I can name and describe a number of devils, I can name and describe a number of demons. I can't do the same for daemons.

So, who knows, maybe renaming them could spawn a whole lot of creativity and a whole new generation of neutral evil beings (and all Paizo property).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

I know it's pronounced the same as demon in the real world.

It's that the tradition of neutral evil feinds being "daemons" dates back to 1st edition D&D. That's important to some of us, if only from a nostalgia viewpoint.

That said, renaming them to something else WOULD allow us to move away from Wizards of the Coast's IP and do some new stuff, but doing so would pretty much require us to abandon the daemons that are D&D's property we're able to use via the Tome of Horrors. Would folks still be okay having them be renamed knowing that old classics like the derghodaemon, the hydrodaemon, the piscodaemon, and the Oinodaemon would more or less be written out of Pathfinder continuity?

Renaming them kinda comes with a price. I MIGHT be willing to pay that price to go somewhere new with them, maybe even make Divs the de-facto neutral evil fiend race, but it's not all up to me...

Now, all THAT said, the tradition of using similar monsters or similar monster names is an important one. It's good for the game to have a wide range of monsters, to keep things from being repetitive. And the more monsters that get created, the more repetition there is. So you have to be comfortable with at least a certain amount of thematic overlap... or else be comfortable with using the same creatures in every campaign.

I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, I like what exists and I've already rationalized the pronunciation thing in my world.

But on the other hand, you guys at Paizo have at least master proficiency in Lore (Worldbuilding) and I'd be excited to see where you guys take it.

I sometimes have issues with game mechanics, but I've never been anything less than thrilled when it comes to your setting and adventures. So I think I'll be happy either way.


One of the reasons I play Pathfinder is because it was a continuation of D&D with a better rule set. Not sure yet what I'm going to do in terms of jumping on board PF2 or not, but changing "lore" and re-concepting monsters to move further away from D&D and its traditions would be a definite turn off for me. I don't like having elements I'm used to having in the game taken away with a new edition. And yes, I know I can bring back and use whatever I want in my homebrew, but please, please don't start changing all the flavor and ret-conning monsters. (like the aforementioned Ankheg...I don't get renaming it at all).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As much as I see the point about Daemon, I would rather keep the name than anything else. Daemons are one of the best developed evil outsider groups in pathfinder, and feel far more Paizo-infused than either demons or devils, which sort of follow the same template as what DnD does.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I see Paizo moving away from OGL monsters names in PF2. I guess it's because they can't use them outside pnp RPG products without potentially risking a slap from WotC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I deeply, deeply don’t care.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Renaming them kinda comes with a price. I MIGHT be willing to pay that price to go somewhere new with them, maybe even make Divs the de-facto neutral evil fiend race, but it's not all up to me...

I could be on board with that. I'm also not particularly attached to daemons in general. I could name a few examples of devils and demons, since they're all so iconic. Imps, succubi, balrogs balors... But I can't name any daemons from memory. (Nor divs, but that's beside the point)

And on a tangential note, why are aeons true neutral?

Black Stars Beckon spoiler:
Especially the bythos aeon at the end of Strange Aeons. Caring only that the PCs are using time travel, and not that they're using it to prevent Hastur from waking, seems pretty lawful neutral to me.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Monsters and Hazards / Can we rename Daemons for PF2? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.