Quote Originally Posted by colanderman View Post
You're thinking of the Pathfinder RPG. Adventure paths set in the Pathfinder universe were released as early as 2007 (they were based on 3.5). In particular, Divs were introduced in 2009.

However Qlippoth is a special case, as it is a mythological being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qliphoth. It is not infeasible that there exists a 3rd party Qlippoth which dates from ~2004, with similar qualities to the Pathfinder version.

Indeed this is not without precedent – the current MitD "frontrunner", the Haguenemnon Protean, was also a mythological being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus), a 3rd party monster from ~2004 (http://www.charles-reace.com/Hobbies...ndex.php?id=55), and exists as a class of Pathfinder monsters (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/a...s/protean.html) with similar properties.

Hence why I believe Qlippoths may be a fruitful search path.
Oh, sure, but 2007 is still well after strip #100 so all of Pathfinder would be out. That doesn't mean that anything appearing in Pathfinder is null and void, simply that we can't use the Pathfinder versions of anything as evidence for MitD.

I agree that Qlippoths as a category (along with Ancient Baatorians, if anyone ever finds one that's old enough and actually statted out) are a promising place to look for candidates in terms of general capabilities. However, if you're looking for a specific candidate, you can't use a Pathfinder version because all of the Pathfinder versions for everything came out years too late. The specific candidate has to come from somewhere else.

Pathfinder can be a good starting place to find candidates, and a Qlippoth candidate could work out well, but a Pathfinder Qlippoth just isn't viable. Similarly, I was excited to see all those nifty Pathfinder Haguenenmons, but proposing any of them is pointless unless we can find a older version.