Creative Director
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of THE VOID(I really am going to sad if they don't rename plane to The Void despite that being best alternate name used for plane in both pathfinder and starfinder), Darvakka are fine right because they are already changed quite lot from nightshades?Were Nightshades even part of the OGL to begin with? Either way I think they're fine, I'm just curious if they were ever an OGL property.
The three original ones (nightwing, nightwalker, and nightcrawler) first showed up in one of the D&D boxed sets in the parallel D&D track apart from AD&D back in the 80s. They were brought into 3rd edition D&D from the start, since the game at that time had a paucity of undead options above 12th level or thereabouts (since previous editions of AD&D kinda "capped" undead at the level of lich), and the new game wanted more undead for higher level PCs to fight. Graduating these three from the boxed set D&D games made sense from a nostalgia and branding stance.
So yes, they're in the same category as things like kytons and dark creepers—monsters that were created for D&D and not based on a specific real-world myth or public domain literary source, and that we've done a lot of work adding our own specific Golarion lore to and have expanded significantly with new entries. In fact, the nightshades are a bit more complicated than the kytons and dark creepers simply because there were THREE of them brought in from the OGL rather than one (the kyton/chain devil) or two (the dark creeper and the dark stalker).
New names and looks for these creatures have been applied in Book of the Dead, pages 82–85, to distance them further, but the core parts for the nightwing, nightwalker, and nightcrawler (nightwaves were all us) pose some challenges for how these critters will make a transition into the ORC version of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Building on this idea:
Introduce the Keythong (essentially a wingless griffon) with various varieties, such as lion+eagle (regular), your cheetah+falcon (speed), wolf+corvid (smarts), and... bear+owl (strength)! Etc.
Clearly the strength one should be a hippo+cassowary, the bear+owl is actually the stealth one. Also the wolf+crow should get a full on troop variant being pack animals and all.
|
Speaking of THE VOID(I really am going to sad if they don't rename plane to The Void despite that being best alternate name used for plane in both pathfinder and starfinder), Darvakka are fine right because they are already changed quite lot from nightshades?Were Nightshades even part of the OGL to begin with? Either way I think they're fine, I'm just curious if they were ever an OGL property.The three original ones (nightwing, nightwalker, and nightcrawler) first showed up in one of the D&D boxed sets in the parallel D&D track apart from AD&D back in the 80s. They were brought into 3rd edition D&D from the start, since the game at that time had a paucity of undead options above 12th level or thereabouts (since previous editions of AD&D kinda "capped" undead at the level of lich), and the new game wanted more undead for higher level PCs to fight. Graduating these three from the boxed set D&D games made sense from a nostalgia and branding stance.
So yes, they're in the same category as things like kytons and dark creepers—monsters that were created for D&D and not based on a specific real-world myth or public domain literary source, and that we've done a lot of work adding our own specific Golarion lore to and have expanded significantly with new entries. In fact, the nightshades are a bit more complicated than the kytons and dark creepers simply because there were THREE of them brought in from the OGL rather than one (the kyton/chain devil) or two (the dark creeper and the dark stalker).
New names and looks for these creatures have been applied in Book of the Dead, pages 82–85, to distance them further, but the core parts for the nightwing, nightwalker, and nightcrawler (nightwaves were all us) pose some challenges for how these critters will make a transition into the ORC version of the game.
The nightwing definitely reminds me of the Dire Wraiths' Deathwing. I wonder which came first.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This revision is exciting.
Everything old in new again.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I know there's going to be a diabolic dragon (I'm so so hyped!) but what do people think the other divine dragon will be? Also fiendish? Or maybe heavenly? Or maybe Paizo wants to emphasize their unique monsters and it'll be a psychopomp-style creature?
I know some people struggle with metallic dragons and integrating them into games so I'm super hyped for holy dragons to show up eventually.
The name was revealed at Paizocon.
Empyreal Dragon.
So out other Divine dragon is going to be Celestial themed.
|
Not exactly certain if this is the correct thread for this...musing? Question? I just felt it'd be better to ask here than start an entire new thread just for this.
Anyway: tritons did make an appearance in Bestiary 2, but I don't think they've really been used much beyond that, in favor of azarketi. You think it'd be safe to assume the azarketi have effectively taken over the tritons' "niche" in the setting? Like any triton PC from D&D could pretty much seamlessly be converted into an azarketi PC in Pathfinder?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not exactly certain if this is the correct thread for this...musing? Question? I just felt it'd be better to ask here than start an entire new thread just for this.
Anyway: tritons did make an appearance in Bestiary 2, but I don't think they've really been used much beyond that, in favor of azarketi. You think it'd be safe to assume the azarketi have effectively taken over the tritons' "niche" in the setting? Like any triton PC from D&D could pretty much seamlessly be converted into an azarketi PC in Pathfinder?
In 1e the Tritons were probably the aquatic people who had the biggest problem being on land (with the 5' speed, and no easy options to fix it). Whereas the Azarketi are the aquatic people who really have very little problems being on land (they just need to be damp occasionally). So they're not really the same thing. Since Triton was a guy in Greek Mythology and later "triton" just became a name for a merman, so there's no OGL reason they would have to drop them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 1e the Tritons were probably the aquatic people who had the biggest problem being on land (with the 5' speed, and no easy options to fix it). Whereas the Azarketi are the aquatic people who really have very little problems being on land (they just need to be damp occasionally). So they're not really the same thing. Since Triton was a guy in Greek Mythology and later "triton" just became a name for a merman, so there's no OGL reason they would have to drop them.Not exactly certain if this is the correct thread for this...musing? Question? I just felt it'd be better to ask here than start an entire new thread just for this.
Anyway: tritons did make an appearance in Bestiary 2, but I don't think they've really been used much beyond that, in favor of azarketi. You think it'd be safe to assume the azarketi have effectively taken over the tritons' "niche" in the setting? Like any triton PC from D&D could pretty much seamlessly be converted into an azarketi PC in Pathfinder?
Merfolk had the 5 foot flop as well.
Merfolk had the 5 foot flop as well.
But they also had the "Strongtail" Alternate Racial Trait that sets their land speed at 15 in exchange for less swim speed. Basically every merfolk character in PF1 took that one.
One really disappointing thing is that assistive items would have been really good future proofing for races with difficulty moving on land (like merfolk and tritons), but Paizo decided to make the wheelchair that overrides your base land speed or aquatic creatures a level 9 item.
|
|
In 1e the Tritons were probably the aquatic people who had the biggest problem being on land (with the 5' speed, and no easy options to fix it). Whereas the Azarketi are the aquatic people who really have very little problems being on land (they just need to be damp occasionally). So they're not really the same thing. Since Triton was a guy in Greek Mythology and later "triton" just became a name for a merman, so there's no OGL reason they would have to drop them.Not exactly certain if this is the correct thread for this...musing? Question? I just felt it'd be better to ask here than start an entire new thread just for this.
Anyway: tritons did make an appearance in Bestiary 2, but I don't think they've really been used much beyond that, in favor of azarketi. You think it'd be safe to assume the azarketi have effectively taken over the tritons' "niche" in the setting? Like any triton PC from D&D could pretty much seamlessly be converted into an azarketi PC in Pathfinder?
I just feel like there's very little point to make triton a playable ancestry when the azarketi are right there, and both fill the "aquatic humanoids who aren't merfolk" niche, kind of like how the athamaru will be taking the locathah's place in the "fish people who aren't merfolk" niche.
I dunno, maybe the number of triton PC players in "the other game" is exaggerated or something, but I thought tritons were popular enough to the point that the azarketi's increased spotlight was to be more legally distinct from tritons because they were getting more popular in the other game due to things like popular Actual Play shows and the Theros tie-in with M:TG.
|
|
A question for James: Given that they are your company mascot, is there a reason, other than perhaps the chance that previous attempts didn't match quality/editorial standards or that it is a bit "on the nose" for tastes of the game, that there hasn't been a Paizo or Play Golem published so far?
The name itself and theming seems like it could really easily lean into it being a kind of (play) Dough Golem, a low-level smaller Golem that is easy to construct, typically friendly, and not so deadly. I could see it being availible as a monster, NPC, or even as a Special/Unique Familiar in PF2 quite easily.
seems like the term "demodand" would probably be out. based on "deodant" from some Vancian work, but "demodand" seems to have first been used in TSR products - later turned into Gehreleths, and then back to demodands.
While I agree on the name, Paizo demodand lore with the titan connection is pretty different, and while they do need some rework in their designs I don't think that as a monster race they should be completly out.
But I do believe that it would take a while for us to see, us demodands are both high level creatures and titans having very little plots with them as main villians in the setting.
Will Paizo offer name change explanations, such as "this monster is renamed as such, as a reference to this mythology's monster of the same name" ?
|
seems like the term "demodand" would probably be out. based on "deodant" from some Vancian work, but "demodand" seems to have first been used in TSR products - later turned into Gehreleths, and then back to demodands.
While I agree on the name, Paizo demodand lore with the titan connection is pretty different, and while they do need some rework in their designs I don't think that as a monster race they should be completly out.
But I do believe that it would take a while for us to see, us demodands are both high level creatures and titans having very little plots with them as main villians in the setting.
the thanatotic titans are pretty cool BBEGs for a high-level AP/adventure. the demodands and their emphasis on placing sleeper-agents in mortal societies might make for a great espionage-style campaign, build-up for the real big bads from the abyss.
I was just digging into a possible backstory for a patron for a witch PC I'm thinking about and demodands came up.
|
A question for James: Given that they are your company mascot, is there a reason, other than perhaps the chance that previous attempts didn't match quality/editorial standards or that it is a bit "on the nose" for tastes of the game, that there hasn't been a Paizo or Play Golem published so far?
The name itself and theming seems like it could really easily lean into it being a kind of (play) Dough Golem, a low-level smaller Golem that is easy to construct, typically friendly, and not so deadly. I could see it being availible as a monster, NPC, or even as a Special/Unique Familiar in PF2 quite easily.
While it hasn't been made for PF2E, a Paizo golem is very much a thing. It had its stats written up back in 2009.
Also, if I am remembering rightly, James said that demodands were going to have less emphasis placed on them going forward, if any at all. It's why we haven't seen them in 2E yet.
Hmm combined with demodands being OGL, that means likely they are completely removed unless they get inspired to create new CE fiends (that might or might not be titan related) to fill in their place
I'm guessing that the state of golems going forwards is that there are all manner of constructs in the world, but only the very special ones rise to the level of "being golems". Like a golem should be an intelligent creature with a personality (like the golem of prague or frankenstein's monster) not "mindless thing you fight."
This distinction also lets them keep the Paizo Golem.
The Thanatotic vs Elysium Titans is very much a DnD thing. So it wouldn't be surprising if they had to go taking Demodands with them.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing that the state of golems going forwards is that there are all manner of constructs in the world, but only the very special ones rise to the level of "being golems". Like a golem should be an intelligent creature with a personality (like the golem of prague or frankenstein's monster) not "mindless thing you fight."
This distinction also lets them keep the Paizo Golem.
Frankly, I'd be fine if they just stopped calling them "golems" and went with something like "construct," much like how "phylactery" was replaced with "soul cage." I'm not Jewish myself, but a lot of Jewish folks I've heard speak on the topic are frustrated with how often fantasy media in general appropriates that term for just any ol' artificial creature/being, discarding the specific and important meaning the Golem has in Jewish culture.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rage of the elements renamed the Brass Golem into Brass Bastion, so it definitely seems like we will see less of the name. It also got a pretty big aesthetic overhaul and lost golem antimagic for damage resistance to spells (except water, which it was susceptible to before) equal to its physical resistance.
So golems as we know them are gone, but it remains to be seen if we will get them in some more narrow manner like PossibleCabbage theorized above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like it seems to me they might want to keep (in addition to the company mascot) the Quantium Golems that Nex built. It does seem like "indefatiguable protectors of a people" is entirely consistent with what a golem is *supposed* to be in folklore.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure going forward golems are going to be built out of clay, stone, brick, mud, that sort of thing.
Wait what is the issue with the word golem?
Allegedly, some have scruples about the term being used since it comes from a real-world religious belief. I personally think that's daft since the context is completely different from how "phylactery" was appropriated (though even with that I contend there were magic items unrelated to liches that bore the term as well and axing those alongside the less savoury version was an overreaction).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo did business with a Jewish sensitivity reader to check on the word "Nephilim" (which is what aasimar, tieflings, etc. are called now) so presumably they could get that same person's input on Golem. Which is probably different from the input their lawyers gave them.
But remember, that even though "Red Dragon" and "Gold Dragon" are OGL trade dress, Paizo can still have a specific individual dragon who is Red (e.g. Choral) or Gold (e.g. Mengkare). They're just singular beings rather than representatives of classes of things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh* really that's it? That's why the name is changing? I don't even know what to say to that reason.Wait what is the issue with the word golem?Original first usage of the word was from Jewish mysticism, they were legendary constructs that could be created by inscribing words in Hebrew on their foreheads.
The most famous legend is the Golem of Prague from the 1500s, which was created by a rabbi to guard the Jewish people of the city from anti-Semitism. The golem goes mad on the Sabbath and eventually has to be shut down by the rabbi.
I can see an argument for it being problematic since it pulls from non-mainstream folklore. On the other hand, so do genies and kami, and they clearly aren't going away (and most people would argue they aren't problematic).
My Jewish friends like them because it's fun to see your culture represented in the game. For them, I get the impression that it's comparable to seeing Tian Xia if you have Asian ancestry, or Rusalkas if you have Slavic ancestry. Makes you feel more welcome. But I can see the counterarguments to the contrary, and I certainly don't want to argue with anyone Jewish who's offended by it.
I suspect the name is changing for OGL reasons more than anything else.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a "gold dragon" (that is, a dragon that is gold) is not the issue here. As you say, that would be open to flagrant abuse. It's perfectly acceptable to have a gold dragon in your non-D&D-related fiction. Even one that breathes fire.
The issue is that the Pathfinder gold dragon isn't just a dragon that happens to be gold. It's a dragon that happens to be gold...and breathes fire...and has the option to exhale weakening gas...and can breathe underwater...and is the most powerful of dragonkind...and is almost always lawful good. And also, its color happens to determine its breath weapon/moral outlook/personality.
This is a whole lot different from the situation you're describing, where by happy coincidence you have a dragon that happens to be gold and is referred to as a "gold dragon". This is blatantly taking everything from the D&D "gold dragon" and then saying "actually, it's not a D&D gold dragon, because the words 'gold' and 'dragon' can't be trademarked."
Paizo is not that dumb. Again, the two words "light" and "saber" cannot really be trademarked. But lightsabers absolutely can be. Likewise, the phrase "stormtrooper" originated in WW1 for elite German units, but if your RPG has a bunch of white-clad clones running around with blaster pistols calling themselves stormtroopers, guess what, Lucasfilm is going to be giving you a call.
Wow, a person that understands intellectual property law, that's a rarity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I don't think there is a problem with Paizo saying:
- Mengkare is a dragon.
- Mengkare has gold scales.
- Mengkare is very powerful.
- Mengkare can breathe fire (and probably other stuff too.)
Since that is all juxtaposed by all the other stuff about Mengkare (being driven by grief at the murder of his family, being bitterly disappointed with humanity, being a cruel tyrant who runs eugenics experiments, having a messianic complex, etc.)
Like they're probably eventually going to do something with Choral who is similarly a singular individual.
|
|
I'll be a bit bummed if golems do end up going, but ah well. I was sort of hoping they would go the other route, lean more into the golem's mythical and religious roots. I was imagining a series of constructs animated through the power of divine words with different kinds of abilities, and maybe personalities if they weren't mindless, based on the specific words or phrases used in their construction and animation, with some sort of consequence or flaw that manifests itself if they are used improperly, or not given time to rest, or required to do something antithetical to their words, etc.
That would leave out creatures like Frankenstein's Monster that is also a big inspiration for PF/DnD's "golems".
I'll be a bit bummed if golems do end up going, but ah well. I was sort of hoping they would go the other route, lean more into the golem's mythical and religious roots. I was imagining a series of constructs animated through the power of divine words with different kinds of abilities, and maybe personalities if they weren't mindless, based on the specific words or phrases used in their construction and animation, with some sort of consequence or flaw that manifests itself if they are used improperly, or not given time to rest, or required to do something antithetical to their words, etc.That would leave out creatures like Frankenstein's Monster that is also a big inspiration for PF/DnD's "golems".
Is that the case for anything other than Flesh Golems? I'm not seeing a lot of parallels otherwise.
|
|
Is that the case for anything other than Flesh Golems? I'm not seeing a lot of parallels otherwise.I'll be a bit bummed if golems do end up going, but ah well. I was sort of hoping they would go the other route, lean more into the golem's mythical and religious roots. I was imagining a series of constructs animated through the power of divine words with different kinds of abilities, and maybe personalities if they weren't mindless, based on the specific words or phrases used in their construction and animation, with some sort of consequence or flaw that manifests itself if they are used improperly, or not given time to rest, or required to do something antithetical to their words, etc.That would leave out creatures like Frankenstein's Monster that is also a big inspiration for PF/DnD's "golems".
There are several golems created from stitched parts of creatures or similar : Carrion Golem, Flesh Golem, Fossil Golem.
The Alchemical Golem incorporates a humanoid brain.
Also all golems are animated through infusion of elemental soul, or positive energy, which is reminiscent of the Monster being animated by lightning. AFAICT the legendary golem did not use this kind of animation process.
The Mithral Golem seems also based on yet another fictional creature. In this case, the T1000 Terminator.