Has anyone created an official list on what new Dragon's we've received and have been announced via second edition?
Has anyone created an official list on what new Dragon's we've received and have been announced via second edition?
There you go. The Draconic Codex table of contents has them all.
|
I'm also going to go ahead and add in the dragons that were unveiled in Alien Core:
Abysium Dragon:
Arcane Dragons that use the power of radiation. Radioactive material grows in and on their bodies, leading them to experiment with cybernetics and robotics (the former because the radiation can be painful, the later because being radioactive means it's hard to find company among organics). They often spend a lot of time making devices and seeking out radiation resist materials.
Akashic Dragon:
Occult Dragons that love to live in places surrounded by knowledge and general brag often about the fact that they know everything... mostly because they can freely access the Akashic Records, so they can back up the boast. They fire laser beams from their single Cyclopean eye instead of breath attacks.
Cosmic Dragon:
Divine Dragons who are basically Solarian Dragons dedicated to the balance of the universe and helping others. They also, when shape changed, will start every conversation with, "Hello there. I'm a dragon that has taken on a different shape to put you at ease."
Host Dragon:
Primal Dragons that are in a bizarre symbiotic relationship with a massive swarm of insects, which serve as weapon and emergency food source (for both sides). While intelligent, they think more like insects then anything else, and they HATE it when people ask them questions or try to research them.
Has anyone created an official list on what new Dragon's we've received and have been announced via second edition?There you go. The Draconic Codex table of contents has them all.
THANK YOU SO MUCH! I SHALL SEND YOU COOKIES! ^^
Hmmm...did they get rid of the Planar Dragons from 1st edition?
Or did they just remake them?
Like, the Paradise Dragon, Infernal Dragon, Apocalypse Dragon (etc etc)?
Did they get remade or is that coming later?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm...did they get rid of the Planar Dragons from 1st edition?
Or did they just remake them?
Like, the Paradise Dragon, Infernal Dragon, Apocalypse Dragon (etc etc)?
Did they get remade or is that coming later?
Delight Dragon is the old Havoc Dragon. Diabolic and Empyreal are connected to Hell and Heaven respectively. Requiem is similar to the old Crypt.
In short, some amount of the divine dragons are tied to the planes that the planar dragons were.
Hmmm...did they get rid of the Planar Dragons from 1st edition?
Or did they just remake them?
Like, the Paradise Dragon, Infernal Dragon, Apocalypse Dragon (etc etc)?
Did they get remade or is that coming later?
I believe the stance for a lot of stuff not yet brought over from 1st Edition, including a lot of the missing dragons, is "We've not had the chance yet to bring them over, but they still exist in the world and lore of Pathfinder."
Unless it's a select few things, like the Drow in the Remaster (but not in Starfinder 2E), some select gods (like Tiamat or Kostchtchie), or some concepts (like Chromatic/Metallic Dragons). Those things are retcon'd or faded into the background until a new, Paizo-flavored replacement is made.
Otherwise, they may or may not get to it. But Paizo is pretty interested in making new things, too.
They got rid of Kostchtchie? Why? What lore changes were there, if any?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They got rid of Kostchtchie? Why? What lore changes were there, if any?
He was a D&D-made deity that Pathfinder was using, and with pretty minimal changes. While he's certainly got some allusions to Koschei the Deathless, the misogynistic frost giant deity part of it is D&D's work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Akashic Dragon:
Occult Dragons that love to live in places surrounded by knowledge and general brag often about the fact that they know everything... mostly because they can freely access the Akashic Records, so they can back up the boast. They fire laser beams from their single Cyclopean eye instead of breath attacks.
This one in particular should be converted to Pathfinder, because the Akashic Records, which is a separate plane of existance, exists in that time period as well :O
The fire damage could remain no problem, now "beams of superheated light", but inforsphere-related spells could be substitute for books :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it's a select few things, like the Drow in the Remaster (but not in Starfinder 2E), some select gods (like Tiamat or Kostchtchie), or some concepts (like Chromatic/Metallic Dragons). Those things are retcon'd or faded into the background until a new, Paizo-flavored replacement is made.Tiamat was never in Pathfinder, was she?
She was in the incredibly incredibly early days when they were still figuring out what they could get away with, but was removed early on (the most recent source the wiki lists for her was from 2012). That said, even after books stopped mentioning her directly she still played a major part in the lore (what with being Apsu's mate) and was occasionally brought up indirectly, with it not being until Divine Mysteries that we actually got a name for her canonical replacement in Sarshallatu.
I feel Pathfinder's Tiamat is fine. She being a dragon isn't even a D&D thing since she was a dragon in sumerian myths as well. I don't think they will use her since it would thread on D&D a bit, but keeping her as "Apsu's wife in the origin of times" is fine since that's straight up borrowed from IRL myths.
Edit: I didn't know she was already retconned lol. I think its fine either way. Now they probably can use her for something.
|
I feel Pathfinder's Tiamat is fine. She being a dragon isn't even a D&D thing since she was a dragon in sumerian myths as well. I don't think they will use her since it would thread on D&D a bit, but keeping her as "Apsu's wife in the origin of times" is fine since that's straight up borrowed from IRL myths.
Edit: I didn't know she was already retconned lol. I think its fine either way. Now they probably can use her for something.
IIRC James Jacobs said they did not want to use Tiamat because the average RPGer is likely to expect the D&D Tiamat and not the original myth.
And the D&D Tiamat is so easily recognizable as WOTC IP.
Very similar to the Drow situation actually.
Not to mention Paizo was eager to develop its own creations.
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. Tiamat for the vast majority of gamers is the D&D version; a five-headed devil dragon (who they renamed Takhisis for Dragonlance). And that version also happens to be my favorite version of her as well, so it always felt a bit disappointing and lame to me to NOT be able to feature that version in Pathfinder. Tiamat's inclusion in Golarion crept in a little bit under the radar in those early days before we even started the actual Pathfinder RPG... and we probalby shouln't have ever done any of that stuff in the first place since that whole element of her is in a shady gray area of the OGL content (which focuses on the rules side of things and not so much the lore side) that has, as we've moved further and further away from 3.5 SRD/OGL rules over the decades, become an increasingly fraught proud nail that, when we shifted over to 2nd edition, we decided to wrench out and leave behind.
Gamers who prefer Tiamat can of course use her in their Pathifnder games or any game they play, along with beholders and mind flayers and carrion crawlers. But publishing that stuff when you're not writing for official D&D content is not only fraught and potentially actionable... it's also in my opinion kinda disrespectful. Paizo owes a LOT to D&D's legacy, for sure; being able to stand on those giant shoulders in the early days with the magazines is what made the company work, and being able to still stand on them after the license to do the magazines ended is what let the company stay afloat long enough to get where we are today... but now, Pathifnder and Starfinder are increasingly intellectual properties that are able to stand on their own. And as we all saw a few years ago with the latest OGL crisis, being able to stand on your own is key to survival.
And on top of that, I respect what TSR/WotC have done to build the staying power of characters and concepts like their Tiamat, or mind flayers, or Greyhawk, or all of that stuff. Loved it then, and love it now. Golarion is a different thing, and focusing on new stuff inspired by the same things that inspired that is a much more satisfying way forward for us, while also respecting and honoring TSR/WotC by not trying to ride those coat-tails and letting them revel in their successes by going forward with new content on those topics without us nipping at their heels.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They got rid of Kostchtchie? Why? What lore changes were there, if any?
A lot of the 1st edition AD&D demon lords were inspired by real-world mythologies. Some of them, like Pazuzu, leaned into those real world mythologies stronger than others, like Kostchtchie. Since we could continue to explore Pazuzu as a wind/sky demon (that being inspiration taken from real world myth), we did so. But Kostchtchie's role as a demon in AD&D and eventually in Pathfinder was as a deity of evil giants and misogyny... which is pretty different than his differently-named real world mythology. So we set him aside when we switched to 2nd edition, and the role of "cold demon lord" now belongs to Sithuud. This same thing is why we no longer use Orcus in Pathfinder as well.
This is similar to what happened with Baphomet. His role as a demon lord of minotaurs is pure D&D, but his role as a goat-headed manipulator of cults is real world mythology, and that version (as well as his appearance) is based on those real world myths, so when we switched to 2nd edition, we just shed the minotaur god angle for him and the vast majority of the remaining lore we'd built for him over 1E Pathfinder could stay in place.
And then there are purely-created-for-D&D demon lords like Juiblex/Jubilex and Fraz-Urb'Luu, which we were able to use in the OGL days because of the Tome of Horrors loophole, but that's also no longer stuff we include as of 2nd edition.
The transition from using OGL content to non-OGL content is incredibly complicated and strange and weird and different folks have different takes on what is and isn't allowed... but when you see us stop using things like Tiamat or drow or Kostchtchie but kept using things like Baphomet or mimics... that's the reason. We decide all those things on a case by case basis.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which honestly makes me happy, because it means we may get a more direct Koschei analog in future. He'd be a real fun baddy to have show up in Irrisen or somewhere, hiding things inside of things inside of things inside of a lake.They got rid of Kostchtchie? Why? What lore changes were there, if any?He was a D&D-made deity that Pathfinder was using, and with pretty minimal changes. While he's certainly got some allusions to Koschei the Deathless, the misogynistic frost giant deity part of it is D&D's work.
Irrisen dolls...
After all, those cargoes of Stavian tech might have a stowaway or two.
We decide all those things on a case by case basis.
If you don't mind me asking James, what was the decision made on some of the Archdevils? Can Asmodeus and Dispater still be used?