| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind something of a reexamination of golems similar to the one genies got, personally. The idea of "golems are like elemental robots that can be themed around any kind of material" is very D&D, regardless.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would welcome golems which have more flavour to them. We know paizo can do it - they have done it in PF1 like for the Tophet.
It occurs to me that all of the agathions who have been brought to 2e are non-OGL. The devs also talked about how some celestials have animal traits, but the celestials they hinted at (lillend, hound archon) are OGL. Could Nirvana's children finally be in the first core monster book? I am cautiously optimistic.
ETA: The golem will probably be changed to fit the lore better. Existing golems seem to me to be a little too close to OGL golems.
Golems in PF usually struck me as not that inspired and pretty boring. I want Paizo to hit them full strength with their awesome powers of creativity.
Could we have Golem as an Ancestry ?
The back-matter of the construct Ancestry is basically this with a soul attached.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OG chain devil/kyton/velstrac/ is out, the Velstracs as a whole are a Paizo invention so we'll probably just see a rework in some of their abilities.
I mean it is just the chain devil, so that means the evangelist and kyton name depending on the origin.
I would be surprised if they lost the chain theme tbh, as that is more heavily tied to the whole hellraiser / clive barker themes that paizo gave velstracs as a whole than the traditional chain devil themes.
The gaze effect i can see being removed to further differentiate them though. But "evil humanoid that controls chains" isn't something that I imagine would be easy to claim :p.
|
The OG chain devil/kyton/velstrac/ is out, the Velstracs as a whole are a Paizo invention so we'll probably just see a rework in some of their abilities.I mean it is just the chain devil, so that means the evangelist and kyton name depending on the origin.
I would be surprised if they lost the chain theme tbh, as that is more heavily tied to the whole hellraiser / clive barker themes that paizo gave velstracs as a whole than the traditional chain devil themes.
The gaze effect i can see being removed to further differentiate them though. But "evil humanoid that controls chains" isn't something that I imagine would be easy to claim :p.
Yep yep.
I wouldn't mind something of a reexamination of golems similar to the one genies got, personally. The idea of "golems are like elemental robots that can be themed around any kind of material" is very D&D, regardless.
Have we gotten any details on the genie reexamination by the by? I've been hoping for them to be more jinn and less Disney for a long, long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how liches will fair. Because from what I understand, while evil necromancers have existed for ages, DND coined the word "lich" for them. Before that, lich was just a Germanic word for a non magical corpse. However, the lich being an undead necromancer called a lich has clearly spread so far as to probably be fine, but not guarantied. But how similar can Paizo get? can it store souls in a soul cage? It not being called a phylactery is already a good start. can its abilities stay, or is that just generic undead? That is up to Paizo legal.
There are Liches in Warcraft and Warhammer Fantasy, which I'm pretty sure are not OGL products.
I would not be upset if liches lose the paralyzing touch. They should be casting spells, not slapping people. Tucking a soul away is a common fantasy trope, (harry potter, for instance) so I expect that's safe.
Wait, we could loose lich because of the work of a bigoted author?
Alas, we hardly knew ye! Good luck, ActiBlizz!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not be upset if liches lose the paralyzing touch. They should be casting spells, not slapping people. Tucking a soul away is a common fantasy trope, (harry potter, for instance) so I expect that's safe.Wait, we could loose lich because of the work of a bigoted author?
Alas, we hardly knew ye! Good luck, ActiBlizz!
No. That's just an example of another place it's used. Mythology and fairy tales have plenty of folks hiding their soul/life/death away somewhere. Lich + phylactery was just a way D&D packaged the trope, and I would imagine lich + soul cage will be fine.
Paizo moved off of "Phylactery" before WotC did right? Like the D&D Beyond article for Lich still includes the word "Phylactery".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo moved off of "Phylactery" before WotC did right? Like the D&D Beyond article for Lich still includes the word "Phylactery".
A Phylactery is a specific type of Jewish religious/ceremonial paraphernalia. The use of the term for an evil undead wizard to store their sole as part of a profane ritual is pretty on point for anti-Semitic tropes.
Them not using that terms any more is a really easy decision.
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OG chain devil/kyton/velstrac/ is out, the Velstracs as a whole are a Paizo invention so we'll probably just see a rework in some of their abilities.I mean it is just the chain devil, so that means the evangelist and kyton name depending on the origin.
I would be surprised if they lost the chain theme tbh, as that is more heavily tied to the whole hellraiser / clive barker themes that paizo gave velstracs as a whole than the traditional chain devil themes.
The gaze effect i can see being removed to further differentiate them though. But "evil humanoid that controls chains" isn't something that I imagine would be easy to claim :p.
Chain devil and kyton are both OGL, but velstrac and evangelist are us. My guess would be if we keep the evangelist we'll maybe move away from the chain motif or not, but losing one velstrac from them all is a pretty minor adjustment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the scary part of the cenobites in Hellraiser (aside from the alien mindset combined with stark amorality) is more the hooks and blades than the chains.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, since we're definitely losing that demon lord to WotC, it would be cool to see "koscheis" become a monster or something. A martial lich!
I'd also love soul cages to get a rework to be more distinct from "phylacteries", with a more unique mechanic around destroying one than "hit it really hard". Right now, it's sort of on the GM to make it a challenge once you get to the magic box itself. A soul cage that acts like a useful cursed item that can captivate the bearer, One Ring-style, could be really neat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, since we're definitely losing that demon lord to WotC, it would be cool to see "koscheis" become a monster or something. A martial lich!
Isn't Koschei a figure from slavic folklore, much like Baba Yaga?
Graveknights are specifically about their armor, though--nothing so distinctive as "they made a pact with hags to put their soul in a needle in an egg in a chest in a hole at the bottom of the sea". You're right, though, that graveknights probably have the niche covered.
|
Creative Director
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the time we concepted the graveknight, the idea was this:
Of the four classic adventuring classes of cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard, we have fun thematic choices for three to become bespoke undead—clerics work well as mummy pharaohs, wizards work well as liches, thieves work well as vampires, but we don't have a place for the weapon and armor trope. Let's give them graveknights!
Obviously you can have a cleric lich or a rogue graveknight or a fighter vampire or a wizard mummy pharaoh... but that's what we originally wanted with the graveknight. Also for us to tell death-knight adjacent stories with, of course, since death knights are OGL but the idea of an undead general is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tarrasques are from folklore. The D&D interpretation of them is pretty clearly Pathfinder's inspiration, but the specifics of them being Spawn of Rovagug and whatnot might be enough for them to get away with it?
'The Petit Tarrasque and other monsters'
Dragon magazine #329March 2005
A great historical article concerning tarrasques, hags, basilisks, cockatrices, golems and other monsters.
So how based in folklore/not OGL are devourers? Something tells me the specific concept of "thing that traps the souls of those it kills in its ribcage" isn't that old but I really have no idea.
That idea has kind of popped up elsewhere...off the top of my head at the very least one of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies plus the Bill Murray Scrooge movie.
I'm not aware of any folkloric or mythological precedent though. Maybe a name change would be sufficient?
Just had a thought, will some Qlippoth stuff need to change? First instance of them as the fiends from before demons arrived showed up in Green Ronins Book of Fiends after all (heck the lesser known Qlippoth Lord Shigarreb is from that book), and a number of them originated there too. Would some renaming/redesigning be in order to protect one of my favourite families of fiends?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just had a thought, will some Qlippoth stuff need to change? First instance of them as the fiends from before demons arrived showed up in Green Ronins Book of Fiends after all (heck the lesser known Qlippoth Lord Shigarreb is from that book), and a number of them originated there too. Would some renaming/redesigning be in order to protect one of my favourite families of fiends?
That's a good question...I am not sure what the legal status of things created by a third party but shared using the OGL would be. Presumably WotC can't sue Paizo, since they themselves are not associated with the IP.
|
Creative Director
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since James Jacobs himself worked on the obyriths in the past (Obox-Ob was his baby), I'm pretty sure he's stated the qlippoth were meant to be Golarion's lawyer-friendly obyriths.
It's the reverse. Obyriths are the "can be branded as new and non-OGL intellectual property of D&D" versions of the qlippoth.
Then I got hired to help write the 3.5 demon book, and as part of my assignment I pitched the creation of two new types of Abyss denizen, one of which was more about demonic posession themes, and one that was very heavily inspired by the ideas and themes that Erik started to explore with the qlippoth. The latter became the obyriths (a word I made up).
Obox-ob was a name I got from AD&D's Monster Manual II and played the role of the main god of evil in my homebrew; he got all his flavor replaced by a differend god from my homebrew, Rovagug (who was the god of fear and the Darklands and nightmares).
As for whether qlippoth will show up in Monster Core... not sure yet, but there's no entanglements with Wizards of the Coast or D&D there at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for whether qlippoth will show up in Monster Core... not sure yet, but there's no entanglements with Wizards of the Coast or D&D there at all.
If something doesn't have OGL entanglements, but is also not in the Monster Core there's no reason a Paizo adventure printed in the future wouldn't use it, correct?
|
Since James Jacobs himself worked on the obyriths in the past (Obox-Ob was his baby), I'm pretty sure he's stated the qlippoth were meant to be Golarion's lawyer-friendly obyriths.It's the reverse. Obyriths are the "can be branded as new and non-OGL intellectual property of D&D" versions of the qlippoth.
** spoiler omitted **
Whoops! Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Jacobs. :)
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for whether qlippoth will show up in Monster Core... not sure yet, but there's no entanglements with Wizards of the Coast or D&D there at all.If something doesn't have OGL entanglements, but is also not in the Monster Core there's no reason a Paizo adventure printed in the future wouldn't use it, correct?
It's got OGL entanglements, since the reason we can use them is because they're in the OGL. That's different than Wizards of the Coast or D&D entanglements. It's a different thing to navigate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think more than anything else, I hope the concepts relating to qlippoth land safely in the remaster in some form or another. I love me these alien demons from beyond reality, even if it's kind of weird that they're a kind of fiend while the same general theme also exists at the centre of the universe as the aberration aliens of the Dark Tapestry. Not having any more lore exploring the role of qlippoth and who they are in the cosmic ecosystem would be a staggering blow for me... but I suppose even should that happen I can take refuge in the excellent lore of what has already been written and run with the OGL 2e statblocks to my homebrew grotto where I shall cackle onto the night and wee hours of the morn.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think more than anything else, I hope the concepts relating to qlippoth land safely in the remaster in some form or another. I love me these alien demons from beyond reality, even if it's kind of weird that they're a kind of fiend while the same general theme also exists at the centre of the universe as the aberration aliens of the Dark Tapestry. Not having any more lore exploring the role of qlippoth and who they are in the cosmic ecosystem would be a staggering blow for me... but I suppose even should that happen I can take refuge in the excellent lore of what has already been written and run with the OGL 2e statblocks to my homebrew grotto where I shall cackle onto the night and wee hours of the morn.
Qlippoths do not come from outside reality. They originated in the Abyss itself before invaders aka Demons started crowding it. And the Abyss is part of reality. Just like the Maelstrom itself BTW.
Any monster based on mythology is safe.
Any monster created by WotC is out.
Qlippoths are the representation of evil or impure spiritual forces in Jewish mysticism, the polar opposites of the holy Sefirot.
Rakshasas are a race of usually malevolent beings prominently featured in Hindu mythology.
Daimon or Daemon originally referred to a lesser deity or guiding spirit such as the daimons of ancient Greek religion and mythology and of later Hellenistic religion and philosophy.
Demons and devils are usable, but not the ones WotC used first. Demon Lords and Archdevils named after "real" demons/devils are fine.
|
|
Any monster based on mythology is safe.
Any monster created by WotC is out.
The line is quite blurred with many creatures however. There's also "would Hasbro cause massive lawyer fees to protect this, even if they lost?" Derro might be safe, but Paizo is estimated as a $30 million company. Is it worth spending 10% of the company to protect derro?
Another example. Gygax had a bag of weird minis from a pre-d&d source. Someone put an owl's beak on a bear and had no idea what Gygax's chainmail variant would do with it. That person should own the owlbear ip, right? But Hasbro would fight so hard for owlbears, even if I'm right (I am not a lawyer, but I work in utility law.) It's not worth a million dollar legal fight to protect owlbears.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Demons and devils are usable, but not the ones WotC used first. Demon Lords and Archdevils named after "real" demons/devils are fine.
They've said they reworked the Imp, and the Succubus is straight out of mythology, but the rest of the big names are going to be gone. We will still probably have Tyrant Devils and Fire Demons as those terms are from Paizo, but they won't bear much resemblance to the pit fiend or the balor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The line is quite blurred with many creatures however. There's also "would Hasbro cause massive lawyer fees to protect this, even if they lost?" Derro might be safe, but Paizo is estimated as a $30 million company. Is it worth spending 10% of the company to protect derro?Any monster based on mythology is safe.
Any monster created by WotC is out.
Like I said, any creature that was created by WotC for DND is out. Derros are out, in this case.
Want a bigger case? The Tarrasque. THAT's owned by WotC. HOWEVER, the REAL Tarasque, that turtle/lion/snake hydridized dragon from French mythology, is open source for Paizo to use.
Less threatening, but still :P
Another example. Gygax had a bag of weird minis from a pre-d&d source. Someone put an owl's beak on a bear and had no idea what Gygax's chainmail variant would do with it. That person should own the owlbear ip, right? But Hasbro would fight so hard for owlbears, even if I'm right (I am not a lawyer, but I work in utility law.) It's not worth a million dollar legal fight to protect owlbears.
That's a trademark case. If Gygax trademarked the Owlbear's design, then the person who made the mini has no hold.
That,s like if you talked to your friend about making a video game where you fling squirrels with a slingshot, and your friend trademark that idea using birds instead ^^;
|
|
Another example. Gygax had a bag of weird minis from a pre-d&d source. Someone put an owl's beak on a bear and had no idea what Gygax's chainmail variant would do with it. That person should own the owlbear ip, right? But Hasbro would fight so hard for owlbears, even if I'm right (I am not a lawyer, but I work in utility law.) It's not worth a million dollar legal fight to protect owlbears.That's a trademark case. If Gygax trademarked the Owlbear's design, then the person who made the mini has no hold.
That,s like if you talked to your friend about making a video game where you fling squirrels with a slingshot, and your friend trademark that idea using birds instead ^^;
If creating a cake is art, then creating a mini is art. Art is automatically protected at creation. "Beak-Bear," to the extent it is copyrightable, belongs to the mini guy. Paizo should be able to work with that guy to get their own "Beak-Bear." Now, WotC has used the owlbears as a trademark, like Disney is trying to convert Mickey Mouse. I only know what John Oliver told me about converting from copyright to trademark, but he described it as murky. If Disney successfully converts Mickey to a trademark, that could have implications for d&d creature fights, but that battle will go on for years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The line is quite blurred with many creatures however. There's also "would Hasbro cause massive lawyer fees to protect this, even if they lost?" Derro might be safe, but Paizo is estimated as a $30 million company. Is it worth spending 10% of the company to protect derro?Any monster based on mythology is safe.
Any monster created by WotC is out.Like I said, any creature that was created by WotC for DND is out. Derros are out, in this case.
Want a bigger case? The Tarrasque. THAT's owned by WotC. HOWEVER, the REAL Tarasque, that turtle/lion/snake hydridized dragon from French mythology, is open source for Paizo to use.
Less threatening, but still :P
Derro as a spelling is gone, but Dero themselves are from real world occult lore (specifically the Shaver mysteries), and the version in Pathfinder is pretty close to the Shaver version.
IF WotC wants to bury Paizo in lawsuits to shut them down, they are going to find someway of doing so. I don't think Paizo should cede all of fantasy on the risk of merit-less lawsuits.