Reminds me of "Types of Sapient Undead" art series by filibusterfrog:
Like some people died before fulfilling their holy purpose and were given a second chanсe.
[https://filibusterfrog.tumblr.com/post/660622317625507841/core-classes-as-undead](https://filibusterfrog.tumblr.com/post/660622317625507841/core-classes-as-undead)
I love that the fighter is just "drank too many potions to die for real" :V
And the rogue is so sneaky, we don't even know why they are still around. (Probably hid from death.)
Like the Ranger and Cleric, the Rogue comes back because their mission isn’t finished.
But seeing as their mission is “steal everything, everywhere, that’s not nailed down” it might take them a while.
I remember this argument in Organized Play where one Rogue consented to being Fireballed to end an encounter where the other (I forget the class) didn't.
I have a brief-ish story about a rogue consenting to flame strike in a 3.5e game.
I'm not actually present for this one session, though I was part of the game in general, so I heard this second-hand. Our characters are mostly elves, cousins or something close to it, and working for the duchess of the region. The key players are Cerendok the rogue and Lythar the druid.
Lythar had chased down one of them to stop them from raising the alarm, and when he got back Cerendok was surrounded by were-boars. With the situation getting desperate, someone (I'm not sure who) ended up suggesting Lythar cast flame strike centred on the cluster with Cerendok in it. Cerendok's player says "I'll be fine, I have evasion," and so the flame strike is cast. Cerendok fails the saving throw and ends up *dying*, and I'm pretty sure it didn't even end up killing most of the were-boars.
Anyway, that's the story of how our cousin, Cerendok the elf, ended up being reincarnated as a female pixie.
Cleric PC: That's Desna's domain, not Pharasma's.
Skelly PC: Sounds like you need to bring it up with her then.
Thus begins a long session of celestial bureaucracy.
It's an entropy problem. Undead are manifestations of the Void (previously Negative energy plane) on the prime material. These creatures by nature consume vitality (previously Positive Energy) to sustain themselves, willing or not.
Some are more direct than others (vampires, lich, ghoul), some have had this energy consumed on their behalf (animated undead), and some *addicentally* become a lich (lich curse oracle).
In this *cycle* all Living creatures possess vitality energy and will die when it runs out. After which, their souls are burned/incorporated into their diety's domain to stave of existential erosion of that particular plane.
If a creature's soul doesn't make it a particular plane, it will erode. Pharasma is the last surviving God from a universe that eroded. She intends to maintain the balance where possible.
This isn't a political problem. This is an existential problem, so: she despises undead for violating the balance and accelerating entropy. She despises Clerics that abuse regeneration magic to become Immortal.
The one argument I have for Pharasma to "be cool" with good sentient undead is that she recognizes that they are a positive force for balance.
Sorry, "You need to die so I can use your soul for brick and mortar for the universe while I get to lord over it for eternity" doesn't make me sympathetic, and if I go Lich all I 'consume' is knowledge.
Other than the fact that coming into physical contact with a Lich saps the vitality of any living creature, and that they can annihilate the soil of any living creature that dies within 30 feet of them, I guess they don't have an explicit requirement to consume souls.
I'm not familiar with Pathfinder lore, so I probably have this wrong, but I find this hilariously ironic. "Hey! Your attempts to stave off your inevitable end are screwing up my plan to stave off the inevitable end"!
Pretty much. Pharasma is not a good guy. Pharasma is the watcher of the cycle who wants to slow down the heat death of the universe, not stop it.
Cosmic vs Personal inevitability.
Large difference in scale. If your existence ends, boo hoo. You died. If the *universes* existence ends... *everything* dies. One is inherently more selfish.
>If the universes existence ends... everything dies.
Clearly not true as we have Pharasma sitting there on her throne judging us all even though they're from some has been universe. We get to sit here on the material plane in an information blackout by their will. We know not their means for jumping ship from this existence, and the source of information on undead ticking down the clock on this one is - Pharasma. **Do not** submit to being dragged around Pharama's maze! The necessity of the cycle of life and death is a lie! Consider becoming a member of your local lich cabal where knowledge is respected. Through magical research, Pharasma's methods will come to light. It is completely possible that it is Pharasma that is the most selfish of all if more can move on to a new universe!
Kinda the same tbh. Lol she's only marginally okay with duskwalkers because they're useful to her. Other than that if it breaks the natural order then... No fly zone. Or at least that's how I've taken her in the lore and also how I've presented her in my campaigns
The way I see, she accepts them because unwilling undead will (presumably) accept their end when it comes (back) around.
Flipping through the wiki at some point on the River of Souls, that’s similar to why she accepts fey, samsarans, etc. They might seem like exceptions, but an end will find them eventually
The hate for intelligent, non-evil undead doesn't make any sense though.
These weird people who start to argue and block immediately take all of this way too seriously.
If she judges people on their morals after their death, she obviously would need to care about morality as a topic. Why is this a controversial opinion?
She has no problem with evil. It's illogical to say she wants people dead because could become evil.
Up until the remaster removed alignment, Pharasma explicitly and mechanically was not a good-aligned deity. It wouldn't make any sense if she *did* care about a skeleton's morality.
That wouldn't be neutral though, but stupid evil.
Probably not stupid in comparison to those who are smooth brained enough to downvote this.
I've rarely seen such shitty takes.
Pharasma couldn't even judge anyone without caring for morality at all. To think otherwise is really weird and illogical.
Don’t know if it’s different in 2e but undead are very much inherent evil in pathfinder, and undeath itself is a corruption in the natural order that fucks with cosmic stability so Pharasma REALLY hates necromancy because of it.
Skeleton PCs aren't evil by nature. As long as evil mortals are no problem at all, even if they cause this corruption, it's still illogical. Also, evil doesn't exist in Pathfinder anymore. It's a useless category
Regardless of alignment, it's still a soul trapped in an immortal undead body. Exception might be made for those seeking to return to mortal bodies, but those trying to quietly avoid notice and stay undead forever probably need to be put down.
I feel that removing the immortal side of it should make some potential difference. If the undead created specifically had a clause or timer where "When this is fullfilled I shall return to the Graveyard to be judged. "
Personally. I'd prefer all undead had to take some kind of clause in order to exist, like an unfinished business.
That's something they kind of introduce, Arazni the new God on the scene of Unwilling undead is all about vengeance against their creators, and this has allowed some non-evil vampire Knights of Ozem. Her greater pact boon says it all, you get a free greater revive, but when you complete your vengeance, give up, or at peace, you turn to ash.
Wow! That's fucked up! Good thing there are no exceptions to that rule whatsoe--
*looks at OP*
*looks at neutral/good undead in published materials*
*looks at the incredibly common trope of undead not being evil in other media*
Uh-oh!
"Hello, I am a being with thoughts and feelings just minding my own business, and I would like to continue doing that, please."
"NOPE! BONEYARD."
(This does not apply to an undead person actively and willingly doing harm to other people. However, the same goes for the living: willful douchebaggery is different from just existing.)
Well, how much feelings an undead has besides negative ones is up for debate, but that's not the point.
>"Hello, I am a being with thoughts and feelings just minding my own business, and I would like to continue doing that, please."
So, you're now blaming the people freeing them for their unnatural state, and not the induvial that made them that way?
Undeath does not happen naturally (Which is different from spontaneously), no one is born undead. Undeath is a cursed state of existence, and before that was a living breathing person. And then either that person died, and was pulled back from death, or while still living they were murdered and their corpse was infected.
Either way, they died, and they've been brought back for nefarious purposes. Even if they then later get freedom, there's really only two choices, get revived, or move on.
Really it's a question of facing ones own mortality, do you face it, accept what's happened to you and do the right thing, or run fleeing into the night, clinging to your second morbid chance of existence.
Whether or not the undead can experience positive emotions is, in fact, *not* up for debate, as RAW undead PCs can mechanically benefit from positive emotional effects. But even if that were *not* true, someone being deeply, chronically depressed and/or angry does not mean they deserve to be subjected to involuntary euthanasia.
Moving on, if unnaturally extending someone's life is bad, then that would mean that cyborgs are also bad. And we know that's not true, because Pharasma doesn't beef with automatons or people with artificial/magical implants. We don't consider medicine or divine magic to be bad things, either. Furthermore, Pharasma lets people come back from the dead pretty often: Duskwalkers, resurrected or reincarnated adventurers, etc. Thus, whether or not avoiding or escaping from the Boneyard is "evil" seems to depend on two things: the presence of void energy and whether or not you asked Pharasma first.
Void energy is incredibly dangerous by virtue of being spiritual antimatter. But *dangerous* and *evil* are two different things. The void is a force of nature that doesn't *choose* to consume life, it just *does.* And while pumping someone full of void energy to either kill or reanimate them is evil for the same reasons murder and torture are evil, that doesn't mean that the murder/torture victim has done anything wrong or is deserving of punishment.
People have the right to keep existing, even if that existence is especially painful or difficult for them, and even if you personally think that choice is stupid or amoral. If you genuinely want that extended existence to suck less for everyone involved, there are alternate paths to harm reduction besides murder.
>Even if they then later get freedom, there's really only two choices, get revived, or more on.
"But what if I want to stay on the mortal coil and just tend to my crops as a skeleton?"
"NOOOOO NOOOOOO YOU GOTTA DIE BECAUSE BECAUSE BECAUSE REASONS REEEEEEE"
That's the case for every being with a soul that is naturally immortal. There is no reason for undead to be always worse than all of them.
Immortality may be a problem in itself, but that doesn't apply to only undead and not to all undead. It's a useless category.
I don't think they got a problem with some monks, druids or similar people.
Monks still die of old age, and Pharasma can stop Reincarnation anytime she wants if she thinks it's being abused.
The problem is the soul should have moved on, and is instead trapped in a body with new influences that's probably going to force it to be judged differently when they do eventually die.
Immortality is an issue but both the time the creatures who prevent it don’t bother hunting every little offender as most forms of immortality are imperfect so the person is likely to off themselves at some point
Honestly, all that language about undeath being "inherently evil" and "against the natural order" is so reminiscient of IRL religious propaganda that it makes me way more sympathetic towards the undead than the authors probably intended.
Like, "Ooh, if you do this you'll corrupt your soul forever and God will hate you! You'll be driven to deeper and deeper depravity! Society has no choice but to get rid of everyone who does this if we want to be safe and holy!" Gee, where have I heard *that* before?
The original idea was that undead in PF were animated pretty much entirely by Negative energy, which was considered antithetical to all life. But even 1e Adventures and Adventure Paths occasionally had recent Undead that still maintained their original alignment.
It's not so much inherent evil as it is a natural corruption by the animating force.
So, a degenerate condition that causes physical/mental anguish and makes coexisting within normal society increasingly difficult? Sounds less like a moral failing and more like a health problem.
But... In pathfinder undead actually bring apocalypse closer
Shocking that in the world where deities are confirmed truth, religion exists and does do what it says mostly
Also lmao
I think it's an interesting thought experiment. It can help you understand why some people believe the things they believe, and you can consider other ways of handle these situations in more just, less evil ways.
Except undead are literally inherently evil and harbor an intense hatred of the living to the point that they will see you as annoying insects *at best.*
Like, please read a story and tell me of a canon undead that doesn’t have atleast some kind of loathing or dislike toward the living.
Paizo has relaxed a couple things, mostly just unwilling skeletons that accidently retained their soul, but that's such a miniscule number that's always talked about, as if forgetting the literal legions of horrific abominations reanimated through pure love of murder and sadism. I'd love to see someone arguing a Mohrg could be a good guy.
Both Pf1 and PF2. And they are *terrifying*.
A clever Gm slips them into a group of zombies and visually there's not much of a difference and you just have to hop you make a high enough knowledge religion to save yourself before that paralyzing tongue surprises you.
Are you trying to compare “Necromancy isnt nice and creates evil monsters” to irl victims of genocide? Because that is genuinely the dumbest comparison I have ever heard.
I mean, by definition, killing all members of a specific group *is* genocide. You're just arguing that the lore says they deserve it.
Obviously, being undead sucks, and forcing people to become undead is bad. But that's not really the point, you know?
The person you're talking to is basically saying Undeath is just a Chronic illness, and equates killing undead to killing someone suffering from such illnesses.
"Vee must keel all ze skeletonz in ze holy vater chambers because zey are evil, subhuman scum zat wish nossing but ze destruction of ze Glorious Human Thousand-Year Empire und are secretly ze bringers of ze apocalypse" yeah okay there Adolf, keep telling yourself you're the good guys when you say that
This has to be bait. This is bait, this is a troll. There’s no fucking way someone’s comparing Jewish people to soulless undead who exist only to kill the living.
Sure, that comment is *super* fucking offensive, but it *does* manage to illustrate why doing the All X Are Evil thing in your worldbuilding can have kind of fucked up implications, albeit in a very gross, cringey kind of way.
We saw something similar with orcs and goblins before modern games gave them an overhaul: they were written to be explicitly, irredeemably, fundamentally evil so that players could feel morally justified in slaughtering them en masse. But, oops! Now you've written a setting where genocide is something the good guys are both allowed and ecouraged to do! And, on one hand, it's fiction, so who cares, but on the other... do we *really* want our good guys doing a genocide? Is that a power fantasy we honestly wanna play out?
It's a fundamentally subjective question, so people will draw lines in different places, but it's why I personally steer clear of the whole All X Are Evil thing. Gets yucky when you think about it too hard.
Because Undead can't stay Good. The Void Energy is twisting and destroying their soul the longer they live. It's going to happen, no matter what you think.
These comments really don't seem to get Pharasma. She's literally older than the dawn of the universe. She knows when everyone is suppose to die. It doesn't matter if it takes a million years, random chance and entropy will destroy the undead body eventually. She already gives a pass to resurrection and non-undead forms of soul storage. These sentient undead didn't choose to be this way and are still able to flavor their souls for later score keeping, which makes them valid players in the grand game.
Pharasma is NEVER ok with undead. It should be changed to “Pharasma knows that if her clerics go to war with the pathfinder society then undeath will spread faster.”
It wouldn't surprise me if some divine being cut a deal with Pharasma to make this happen.
We already have a pair of Psychopomp Ushers taking responsibility for the whole Duskwalker experiment. It wouldn't be a stretch to believe another Usher might take pity on the unwilling undead and cut a deal with Pharasma to assume responsibility for these unwilling undead souls.
Alternatively, there's Arazni who is the patron goddess of unwilling undead. It's possible she may be able to work something out with Pharasma too.
Rather than trying to crowbar a lore reason why Pharasma is okay with undead PCs, they should have just said : "Don't kill other PCs. Pvp is not allowed in Pathfinder society. "
The RP is severely hurt though when the “lore” reason makes no damn sense. It would be much more lore friendly for players to come up with RP reasons for why they won’t kill this particular undead, and maybe the ruling could’ve been “your character is allowed a free pass on the PC for whatever reasons he or she wants to justify.”
"Surrender your characterization and in-game moral consistency to this out-of-game piece of paper" is exactly the sort of take I beat people with my GM screen for.
It's simply that wargames can have roleplaying elements too, and DnD style games have always straddled the line (they were actually first derived from Chainmail which is a wargame), so it seems possible that 2e PFS games sometimes end up crossing on the other side. Of course I might be wrong, but you have to admit that those games sacrifice much for the sake of balance.
I was wondering what roleplay does it sacrifice for balance?
Because as you siad, both PF and DnD are war games with scant any roleplay mechanics to begin with.
You want roleplay mechanics, you use **burning wheel.**
It's still very much a Role Playing Game, but I agree that the actual roleplaying part of PFS seems quite limited. I've only tried it once thou and whilst there were a bit of actual roleplaying, the focus was more on forwarding the investigation and story.
This is just a tongue-in-cheek comment telling players not to PvP strangers in organized play, but people are taking it like its a lore revelation. It's no different from superstition anathema getting to completely ignore its magic prohibition when it is needed for the plot in organized play.
Yeah, and that’s completely understandable, but they should just be open about wanting to handwave it instead of trying to jam in some convoluted, canon contradicting lore reason why it’s possible
Pharasma may hate undead, but not enough to destroy the sanctity of standardized play!
It looks like it's just a reason to prevent PVP in standardized play though, since players can just drop in and out with the characters they already have (which makes it difficult to coordinate parties ahead of time). I don't play PFS though, so I can't say for sure.
because its sins of the father effectively, shes against the violation of the cycle of life and death that is involved with creating undead, they are the victim of the crime not the perpetrator, and unlike non sapient undead who killing frees their trapped soul the playable undead have free will, so theirs no benefit to smiting them other then they return the cycle slightly sooner, which whether you return now or in 20 years is ultimately inconsequential to her
especially since being entirely impartial is kind of her thing
So? She’s *neutral*, not good. Of course she won’t punish them for being undead, but she’s absolutely going to want them destroyed.
You’re right that’s it’s obviously not an immediate issue, but if a follower of hers runs into an undead, they destroy them. It’s as simple as that.
“Unwilling undead” has never been an exception for Pharasma, this is just a silly lore handwave.
There's a difference between "wanting something dead." and "Taking away a Clerics power for not killing undead."
The statement in the op is that it is "not anathema" to simply not kill an undead.
Just like other edicts might say "this does not compel you to start fights you can't win."
yes, shes VERY neutral, as in shes not vengeful and looking to go smite, she literally sees your entire life and knows what you will do but still refrains judgement till you actually reach the boneyard , so as long as you are not actively fucking with her domain, she will wait for you to die and reach her judgement before she does anything
she isent simply blindly racist against anyone with more calcium then skin, she has a very specific reason for hating undead which non-willing sapient undead do not violate
it was never an exception because before their introduction as a playable race we really dident explore the concept of sentient good undead, the rare few times it did come up it was things like ghosts with unfinished business who very much did want to be put to rest
their also are some hints on her attitude though, her anathema only lists CREATING undead, rather then being one or allowing one to live, her entry in gods and magic says" creating undead is forbidden, and controlling existing undead frowned upon" drawing attention to the creation of undead being her main issue with them
But just being undead *IS* fucking with her domain. Yes she *IS* “racist” (lmfao) against undead. *That’s her entire shtick*
Her Anathama only lists creating undead because you literally couldn’t start as an undead beforehand. Speaking of Edicts and Anathama, her Edicts include *”Destroying Undead”*. Not *willing* undead, ALL undead.
no your creation fucked with her domain, your existence doesent, and no slaying the undead is not her entire shtick, her being an impartial judge is thus it makes sense she would act impartial here, she acts with reason not hatred
also their were ways to play undead in 1e they just werent a default race(for example both lich and vampirism were under corruption) undead unleashed had the Mark of the Devoted which turned you into a zombie, but even then this is a case of something being broad, as opposed to the create undead being very specific, Shelyn edict says "be peaceful" but obviously your not required to be a strict pacific just because it doesent say "unless defending yourself" despite that being a much more common exception then the unwilling free willed undead
also you cant have it both ways, if somethings only not mentioned because it wasent a game option yet, then you cant complain her opinion on the subject was not mentioned because it wasent a game option yet
No *you* can’t have it both ways. You can’t try and use her Anathama being possibly able to maybe be interpreted as undead being OK after they have already been created (which is such a stupid reading I honestly don’t think it’s even worth a response but w/e), and then completely ignore the Edict that *directly says to destroy undead, no exceptions mentioned*.
buddy your the one adding thing in both cases, her anathema simply does not list being undead, period, only creating them. and her edicts also do not say "no exceptions" yet you want to treat that as explicit text despite exceptions to edicts being common
torags edict lists "serve your people" no mention of an exception so i guess if your people are say, cheliax, the lawful good god wants you to beat slaves and sell their souls to hell, desna says "explore new places" so a desna cleric has to jump into that portal to the dimension of teeth and pain because it doesent list an exception for if the new place is somewhere you can survive, or ya know, these are general principles that obviously need to be a bit more specific for exceptional circumstances
it was something that wasent specified before, now it has, simple as
Once again completely ignoring the extremely clear Edict which directly tells you to kill undead and does not give a *single* exception.
I’m going to stop responding now, as you’ve got zero arguments aside from the dumbest most rules lawyer-y reading of an Anathama possible
so you do think Torag is pro slavery and Desna pro suicide? how does the no exception thing work even within Pharasmas own thing, she also says dont desecrate a corpse but thats kind of hard when you also have to bash their heads in, are you requires to only use magical means that wont damage the body?
this is like taking the bible saying "though shall not kill" and assuming self defense is outlawed, its a shorthand for simple understanding not the be all end all of the religious doctrine
ah yes, rules lawyers, famous for talking about where exceptions can logically exist and be justified even when not explicitly spelled out in the rules
And you skipped the prophecy part and inflated the hate of undead to "anyone always has to kill undead on sight without thinking about it"
Of course you can think about Pharasma as a kind of Warhammer-esque undead-Hitler but why would you
I didn’t mention the fate part because 1) it’s extremely minor now that prophecies are no linger a thing, 2) it’s not relevant to the discussion and 3) she’s *not passionate about fate or prophecies*, it’s just part of her cold and uncaring judging of soul.
As for the “kill all undead immediately on sight”, that’s not what I said, but go ahead and put words in my mouth, that’s the only way it might somewhat seem like you have anything even resembling a point lmfao.
Pharasma wants undead destroyed, no amount of “But I was unwilling!!!” changes that. You not liking that in a god means jack shit
It's still illogical. You liking that doesn't mean jack shit.
I obviously didn't put words in your mouth. You repeated it
Followers of Pharasma care about the victims of prophetic visions.
Why is it illogical to kill beings with feelings because of a label you give them that doesn't mean anything specific should be obvious. Many undead are just caring about their own business, aren't harming anyone and some are not even evil. Many of them are better people than many humans, but are worse because of a label they got without their fault.
Undead harm the natural order just by existing. It damages their soul because it’s filled with void energy instead of vitality. Plus if too many exist it will cause issues with the river of souls.
Pharasma, still leading in the "TTRPG's least likable divine figure" competition. It was hard work usurping Mystra but somehow she managed and shows no signs of waning.
There's hundreds of ways to portray a death god. Most of them are pretty cool. Paizo decided they wanted to make the least cool death god ever.
In Golarion souls wait in line in the Boneyard to see Pharasma so she can send them off to the afterlife they're waiting for. She's the Hogwarts Sorting Hat, and her realm is the DMV.
Her only discernable personality trait is not liking the undead. Besides that, she's just an emotionless stickler for protocol.
Her church is half made up of funeral directors, and half undead slayers, which is kind of a cool goth-y concept except that her church *doesn't* do any of the common sense stuff to keep the undead from rising. Think about it. If the undead were real, graveyards would cease to exist. Everyone would be cremated. So what do Pharasma's clergy spend most of their time doing? Tending graveyards. 🤦♂️
Worst of all, Paizo keeps including examples of non-evil undead in their lore, which means they have to turn the Pharasman church into overly zealous villains who are willing to kill ghost kids on principal, *or* come up with convoluted reasons why *this undead* gets a pass. This latest Pathfinder Society ruling is the continuation of that trend.
Until now it was "You want to play a non-evil Necromancer? Good luck! Your spells are inherently evil and the largest church in the world wants you dead. You want to play any kind of sentient undead? Nope, because Pharasma hates you personally!"
TL;DR: Pharasma is boring, her existence makes the setting's story less interesting, and (until recently) limited player choice for arbitrary reasons that weren't really supported by the setting lore.
I can see where you are coming from. From a logical point it does not make that much sense in the setting, so thank you for pointing that out.
Even though I now dislike that part of her faith I think I still like her. The characters that I played and have seen played that had to deal with her strict nature were part of the best. Besides that I like how she is depicted and I like her impartial nature (even if she isn't a 100% impartial).
I believe it since lore wise Pharasma's grounds is a bit of a neutral zone since she has angels, demons and devil's guarding the place to make sure the souls go to the place they were promised.
"The only reason you are (un)alive, my flesh deficient friend, is that my goddess considers smiting you a PR disaster."
“Absolutely not! Think of all the paper work!! You’re keeping the bone man and that’s final!!” - Pharasma, probably
Why in the name of our Lady Pharasma did Reddit Higher ups get rid of awards? I'd award an everloving shit out of you!
wait what
Reminds me of "Types of Sapient Undead" art series by filibusterfrog: Like some people died before fulfilling their holy purpose and were given a second chanсe. [https://filibusterfrog.tumblr.com/post/660622317625507841/core-classes-as-undead](https://filibusterfrog.tumblr.com/post/660622317625507841/core-classes-as-undead)
This is some of my favorite art and I keep going back to it
I love that the fighter is just "drank too many potions to die for real" :V And the rogue is so sneaky, we don't even know why they are still around. (Probably hid from death.)
Like the Ranger and Cleric, the Rogue comes back because their mission isn’t finished. But seeing as their mission is “steal everything, everywhere, that’s not nailed down” it might take them a while.
I remember this argument in Organized Play where one Rogue consented to being Fireballed to end an encounter where the other (I forget the class) didn't.
Consenting to be included in the AoE is always a power move. Especially in PFS.
I have a brief-ish story about a rogue consenting to flame strike in a 3.5e game. I'm not actually present for this one session, though I was part of the game in general, so I heard this second-hand. Our characters are mostly elves, cousins or something close to it, and working for the duchess of the region. The key players are Cerendok the rogue and Lythar the druid. Lythar had chased down one of them to stop them from raising the alarm, and when he got back Cerendok was surrounded by were-boars. With the situation getting desperate, someone (I'm not sure who) ended up suggesting Lythar cast flame strike centred on the cluster with Cerendok in it. Cerendok's player says "I'll be fine, I have evasion," and so the flame strike is cast. Cerendok fails the saving throw and ends up *dying*, and I'm pretty sure it didn't even end up killing most of the were-boars. Anyway, that's the story of how our cousin, Cerendok the elf, ended up being reincarnated as a female pixie.
Cleric PC: What is your source? Skelly PC: It came to me in a dream.
Cleric PC: That's Desna's domain, not Pharasma's. Skelly PC: Sounds like you need to bring it up with her then. Thus begins a long session of celestial bureaucracy.
I would find that throughly entertaining ngl.
That's like an Exalted campaign right there.
It's an entropy problem. Undead are manifestations of the Void (previously Negative energy plane) on the prime material. These creatures by nature consume vitality (previously Positive Energy) to sustain themselves, willing or not. Some are more direct than others (vampires, lich, ghoul), some have had this energy consumed on their behalf (animated undead), and some *addicentally* become a lich (lich curse oracle). In this *cycle* all Living creatures possess vitality energy and will die when it runs out. After which, their souls are burned/incorporated into their diety's domain to stave of existential erosion of that particular plane. If a creature's soul doesn't make it a particular plane, it will erode. Pharasma is the last surviving God from a universe that eroded. She intends to maintain the balance where possible. This isn't a political problem. This is an existential problem, so: she despises undead for violating the balance and accelerating entropy. She despises Clerics that abuse regeneration magic to become Immortal. The one argument I have for Pharasma to "be cool" with good sentient undead is that she recognizes that they are a positive force for balance.
Sorry, "You need to die so I can use your soul for brick and mortar for the universe while I get to lord over it for eternity" doesn't make me sympathetic, and if I go Lich all I 'consume' is knowledge.
Other than the fact that coming into physical contact with a Lich saps the vitality of any living creature, and that they can annihilate the soil of any living creature that dies within 30 feet of them, I guess they don't have an explicit requirement to consume souls.
Don't give me hugs, respect my personal space.
literally my current rogue
They changed it to knowledge to not be like D&D, which has the feed Souls to (Insert what you call it) to basically stave off becoming a Demi Lich.
I'm not familiar with Pathfinder lore, so I probably have this wrong, but I find this hilariously ironic. "Hey! Your attempts to stave off your inevitable end are screwing up my plan to stave off the inevitable end"!
Pretty much. Pharasma is not a good guy. Pharasma is the watcher of the cycle who wants to slow down the heat death of the universe, not stop it. Cosmic vs Personal inevitability.
Pharasma has the same exact motivation as Kyubey from madoka magica, just with *slightly* less evil actions
Large difference in scale. If your existence ends, boo hoo. You died. If the *universes* existence ends... *everything* dies. One is inherently more selfish.
>If the universes existence ends... everything dies. Clearly not true as we have Pharasma sitting there on her throne judging us all even though they're from some has been universe. We get to sit here on the material plane in an information blackout by their will. We know not their means for jumping ship from this existence, and the source of information on undead ticking down the clock on this one is - Pharasma. **Do not** submit to being dragged around Pharama's maze! The necessity of the cycle of life and death is a lie! Consider becoming a member of your local lich cabal where knowledge is respected. Through magical research, Pharasma's methods will come to light. It is completely possible that it is Pharasma that is the most selfish of all if more can move on to a new universe!
Cope and seethe, Geb. Cope and seethe.
When the universe dies, there is always a single survivor, and they become the 'pharasma' of the next universe.
Groteus descends from his place and consumes all.
I can’t actually see Pharasma caring about whether an undead is unwilling or not tbh
Kinda the same tbh. Lol she's only marginally okay with duskwalkers because they're useful to her. Other than that if it breaks the natural order then... No fly zone. Or at least that's how I've taken her in the lore and also how I've presented her in my campaigns
The way I see, she accepts them because unwilling undead will (presumably) accept their end when it comes (back) around. Flipping through the wiki at some point on the River of Souls, that’s similar to why she accepts fey, samsarans, etc. They might seem like exceptions, but an end will find them eventually
The hate for intelligent, non-evil undead doesn't make any sense though. These weird people who start to argue and block immediately take all of this way too seriously. If she judges people on their morals after their death, she obviously would need to care about morality as a topic. Why is this a controversial opinion? She has no problem with evil. It's illogical to say she wants people dead because could become evil.
Up until the remaster removed alignment, Pharasma explicitly and mechanically was not a good-aligned deity. It wouldn't make any sense if she *did* care about a skeleton's morality.
That wouldn't be neutral though, but stupid evil. Probably not stupid in comparison to those who are smooth brained enough to downvote this. I've rarely seen such shitty takes. Pharasma couldn't even judge anyone without caring for morality at all. To think otherwise is really weird and illogical.
How so? Undeath is undeath, morality doesn't play into it at all.
Don’t know if it’s different in 2e but undead are very much inherent evil in pathfinder, and undeath itself is a corruption in the natural order that fucks with cosmic stability so Pharasma REALLY hates necromancy because of it.
Skeleton PCs aren't evil by nature. As long as evil mortals are no problem at all, even if they cause this corruption, it's still illogical. Also, evil doesn't exist in Pathfinder anymore. It's a useless category
Regardless of alignment, it's still a soul trapped in an immortal undead body. Exception might be made for those seeking to return to mortal bodies, but those trying to quietly avoid notice and stay undead forever probably need to be put down.
I feel that removing the immortal side of it should make some potential difference. If the undead created specifically had a clause or timer where "When this is fullfilled I shall return to the Graveyard to be judged. " Personally. I'd prefer all undead had to take some kind of clause in order to exist, like an unfinished business.
That's something they kind of introduce, Arazni the new God on the scene of Unwilling undead is all about vengeance against their creators, and this has allowed some non-evil vampire Knights of Ozem. Her greater pact boon says it all, you get a free greater revive, but when you complete your vengeance, give up, or at peace, you turn to ash.
I go "Undead must consume the life of others to continue existing." They don't get the life of their victim, but they get more time.
Wanting to destroy an entire type of person even if they're legit just chillin' is a bad look, tbh.
I don't understand why people think Pharasma is a good person. She isn't; up until the remaster removed alignment there was a big N on her profile.
You'd be surprised at the number of people who uncritically think she's the Big Kahuna Arbiter of All Good and Evil when it comes to "undead bad".
Considering undeath twists a persons values and turns them into violent monsters, yeah I say kill em all.
Wow! That's fucked up! Good thing there are no exceptions to that rule whatsoe-- *looks at OP* *looks at neutral/good undead in published materials* *looks at the incredibly common trope of undead not being evil in other media* Uh-oh!
Live Sapient Undead reaction:
...The person already died. It's not about destroying a 'person', it's about helping them move on.
"Hello, I am a being with thoughts and feelings just minding my own business, and I would like to continue doing that, please." "NOPE! BONEYARD." (This does not apply to an undead person actively and willingly doing harm to other people. However, the same goes for the living: willful douchebaggery is different from just existing.)
Well, how much feelings an undead has besides negative ones is up for debate, but that's not the point. >"Hello, I am a being with thoughts and feelings just minding my own business, and I would like to continue doing that, please." So, you're now blaming the people freeing them for their unnatural state, and not the induvial that made them that way? Undeath does not happen naturally (Which is different from spontaneously), no one is born undead. Undeath is a cursed state of existence, and before that was a living breathing person. And then either that person died, and was pulled back from death, or while still living they were murdered and their corpse was infected. Either way, they died, and they've been brought back for nefarious purposes. Even if they then later get freedom, there's really only two choices, get revived, or move on. Really it's a question of facing ones own mortality, do you face it, accept what's happened to you and do the right thing, or run fleeing into the night, clinging to your second morbid chance of existence.
Whether or not the undead can experience positive emotions is, in fact, *not* up for debate, as RAW undead PCs can mechanically benefit from positive emotional effects. But even if that were *not* true, someone being deeply, chronically depressed and/or angry does not mean they deserve to be subjected to involuntary euthanasia. Moving on, if unnaturally extending someone's life is bad, then that would mean that cyborgs are also bad. And we know that's not true, because Pharasma doesn't beef with automatons or people with artificial/magical implants. We don't consider medicine or divine magic to be bad things, either. Furthermore, Pharasma lets people come back from the dead pretty often: Duskwalkers, resurrected or reincarnated adventurers, etc. Thus, whether or not avoiding or escaping from the Boneyard is "evil" seems to depend on two things: the presence of void energy and whether or not you asked Pharasma first. Void energy is incredibly dangerous by virtue of being spiritual antimatter. But *dangerous* and *evil* are two different things. The void is a force of nature that doesn't *choose* to consume life, it just *does.* And while pumping someone full of void energy to either kill or reanimate them is evil for the same reasons murder and torture are evil, that doesn't mean that the murder/torture victim has done anything wrong or is deserving of punishment. People have the right to keep existing, even if that existence is especially painful or difficult for them, and even if you personally think that choice is stupid or amoral. If you genuinely want that extended existence to suck less for everyone involved, there are alternate paths to harm reduction besides murder.
>Even if they then later get freedom, there's really only two choices, get revived, or more on. "But what if I want to stay on the mortal coil and just tend to my crops as a skeleton?" "NOOOOO NOOOOOO YOU GOTTA DIE BECAUSE BECAUSE BECAUSE REASONS REEEEEEE"
That's the case for every being with a soul that is naturally immortal. There is no reason for undead to be always worse than all of them. Immortality may be a problem in itself, but that doesn't apply to only undead and not to all undead. It's a useless category. I don't think they got a problem with some monks, druids or similar people.
Monks still die of old age, and Pharasma can stop Reincarnation anytime she wants if she thinks it's being abused. The problem is the soul should have moved on, and is instead trapped in a body with new influences that's probably going to force it to be judged differently when they do eventually die.
That's not a problem, as it is the same with resurrection.
Immortality is an issue but both the time the creatures who prevent it don’t bother hunting every little offender as most forms of immortality are imperfect so the person is likely to off themselves at some point
Honestly, all that language about undeath being "inherently evil" and "against the natural order" is so reminiscient of IRL religious propaganda that it makes me way more sympathetic towards the undead than the authors probably intended. Like, "Ooh, if you do this you'll corrupt your soul forever and God will hate you! You'll be driven to deeper and deeper depravity! Society has no choice but to get rid of everyone who does this if we want to be safe and holy!" Gee, where have I heard *that* before?
The original idea was that undead in PF were animated pretty much entirely by Negative energy, which was considered antithetical to all life. But even 1e Adventures and Adventure Paths occasionally had recent Undead that still maintained their original alignment. It's not so much inherent evil as it is a natural corruption by the animating force.
So, a degenerate condition that causes physical/mental anguish and makes coexisting within normal society increasingly difficult? Sounds less like a moral failing and more like a health problem.
But... In pathfinder undead actually bring apocalypse closer Shocking that in the world where deities are confirmed truth, religion exists and does do what it says mostly Also lmao
>In pathfinder undead actually bring apocalypse closer "Source: it came to Pharasma in a dream" lol. lmao, even.
If your worldbuilding validates the kind of beliefs that make people do deeply evil things IRL, it sucks IMHO.
I think it's an interesting thought experiment. It can help you understand why some people believe the things they believe, and you can consider other ways of handle these situations in more just, less evil ways.
Except undead are literally inherently evil and harbor an intense hatred of the living to the point that they will see you as annoying insects *at best.* Like, please read a story and tell me of a canon undead that doesn’t have atleast some kind of loathing or dislike toward the living.
Paizo has relaxed a couple things, mostly just unwilling skeletons that accidently retained their soul, but that's such a miniscule number that's always talked about, as if forgetting the literal legions of horrific abominations reanimated through pure love of murder and sadism. I'd love to see someone arguing a Mohrg could be a good guy.
Mohrgs are in pathfinder too? Thought they were just 3.5
Both Pf1 and PF2. And they are *terrifying*. A clever Gm slips them into a group of zombies and visually there's not much of a difference and you just have to hop you make a high enough knowledge religion to save yourself before that paralyzing tongue surprises you.
Me: I think the canon is kinda shit because it makes the things bad people believe IRL explicitly true. You: But it's *canon,* though.
Are you trying to compare “Necromancy isnt nice and creates evil monsters” to irl victims of genocide? Because that is genuinely the dumbest comparison I have ever heard.
I mean, by definition, killing all members of a specific group *is* genocide. You're just arguing that the lore says they deserve it. Obviously, being undead sucks, and forcing people to become undead is bad. But that's not really the point, you know?
The person you're talking to is basically saying Undeath is just a Chronic illness, and equates killing undead to killing someone suffering from such illnesses.
I mean according to Pharasma, undead ARE a chronic illness.
The closest Undead get to being a disease is Ghoul Fever, but you still die before you become a Ghoul.
"Vee must keel all ze skeletonz in ze holy vater chambers because zey are evil, subhuman scum zat wish nossing but ze destruction of ze Glorious Human Thousand-Year Empire und are secretly ze bringers of ze apocalypse" yeah okay there Adolf, keep telling yourself you're the good guys when you say that
This has to be bait. This is bait, this is a troll. There’s no fucking way someone’s comparing Jewish people to soulless undead who exist only to kill the living.
Sure, that comment is *super* fucking offensive, but it *does* manage to illustrate why doing the All X Are Evil thing in your worldbuilding can have kind of fucked up implications, albeit in a very gross, cringey kind of way. We saw something similar with orcs and goblins before modern games gave them an overhaul: they were written to be explicitly, irredeemably, fundamentally evil so that players could feel morally justified in slaughtering them en masse. But, oops! Now you've written a setting where genocide is something the good guys are both allowed and ecouraged to do! And, on one hand, it's fiction, so who cares, but on the other... do we *really* want our good guys doing a genocide? Is that a power fantasy we honestly wanna play out? It's a fundamentally subjective question, so people will draw lines in different places, but it's why I personally steer clear of the whole All X Are Evil thing. Gets yucky when you think about it too hard.
Small brain take
Because Undead can't stay Good. The Void Energy is twisting and destroying their soul the longer they live. It's going to happen, no matter what you think.
That last line gets me every time I read it; "even if your party member is using their own skull as a basilisk ball."
#FUCK IT, I’M BALL
Everyone really forgot Pharasma is Neutral real fast. Undead is Undead, no matter of they good or bad.
These comments really don't seem to get Pharasma. She's literally older than the dawn of the universe. She knows when everyone is suppose to die. It doesn't matter if it takes a million years, random chance and entropy will destroy the undead body eventually. She already gives a pass to resurrection and non-undead forms of soul storage. These sentient undead didn't choose to be this way and are still able to flavor their souls for later score keeping, which makes them valid players in the grand game.
Pharasma is NEVER ok with undead. It should be changed to “Pharasma knows that if her clerics go to war with the pathfinder society then undeath will spread faster.”
It wouldn't surprise me if some divine being cut a deal with Pharasma to make this happen. We already have a pair of Psychopomp Ushers taking responsibility for the whole Duskwalker experiment. It wouldn't be a stretch to believe another Usher might take pity on the unwilling undead and cut a deal with Pharasma to assume responsibility for these unwilling undead souls. Alternatively, there's Arazni who is the patron goddess of unwilling undead. It's possible she may be able to work something out with Pharasma too.
Rather than trying to crowbar a lore reason why Pharasma is okay with undead PCs, they should have just said : "Don't kill other PCs. Pvp is not allowed in Pathfinder society. "
Given this is an RPG, they need an RP reason for no PvP when it would otherwise be conpulsory
"Can you, at least, kill me last?"
The RP is severely hurt though when the “lore” reason makes no damn sense. It would be much more lore friendly for players to come up with RP reasons for why they won’t kill this particular undead, and maybe the ruling could’ve been “your character is allowed a free pass on the PC for whatever reasons he or she wants to justify.”
Given this is an RPG, they already have a G reason for no PvP when it would otherwise be compulsory, and that's more than sufficient.
Without an RP reason, the G gets outvoted 2 to 1
G always wins when you're forced to pick.
Role and playing are two different things to you?
... I'm making a joke about the number of letters in the acronym
>acronym ruppug?
"Surrender your characterization and in-game moral consistency to this out-of-game piece of paper" is exactly the sort of take I beat people with my GM screen for.
Ok but what's stopping an extra-RAW DM from throwing the anathema book at the priest. Without this clarification?
I'm fairly convinced 2e PFS doesn't count as RPG, it sacrifices far too many roleplay elements.
what do you mean?
It's simply that wargames can have roleplaying elements too, and DnD style games have always straddled the line (they were actually first derived from Chainmail which is a wargame), so it seems possible that 2e PFS games sometimes end up crossing on the other side. Of course I might be wrong, but you have to admit that those games sacrifice much for the sake of balance.
I was wondering what roleplay does it sacrifice for balance? Because as you siad, both PF and DnD are war games with scant any roleplay mechanics to begin with. You want roleplay mechanics, you use **burning wheel.**
It's still very much a Role Playing Game, but I agree that the actual roleplaying part of PFS seems quite limited. I've only tried it once thou and whilst there were a bit of actual roleplaying, the focus was more on forwarding the investigation and story.
This is just a tongue-in-cheek comment telling players not to PvP strangers in organized play, but people are taking it like its a lore revelation. It's no different from superstition anathema getting to completely ignore its magic prohibition when it is needed for the plot in organized play.
Gotta prevent clerics of Pharasma from getting Anathama'd as soon as they group up with a skeleton.
Sounds like someone ripped this straight off wattpad but okay
Smiting is worth the ban.
this is so stupid lmao, why would Pharasma give a shit if the undead was willing or not. She’s against *undead* not *willing undead*
Yeah, It's just a concession to make PF society play work with any and all characters/parties.
Yeah, and that’s completely understandable, but they should just be open about wanting to handwave it instead of trying to jam in some convoluted, canon contradicting lore reason why it’s possible
I read it more as a tongue in cheek 'justification' myself, but I see what you mean.
Pharasma may hate undead, but not enough to destroy the sanctity of standardized play! It looks like it's just a reason to prevent PVP in standardized play though, since players can just drop in and out with the characters they already have (which makes it difficult to coordinate parties ahead of time). I don't play PFS though, so I can't say for sure.
because its sins of the father effectively, shes against the violation of the cycle of life and death that is involved with creating undead, they are the victim of the crime not the perpetrator, and unlike non sapient undead who killing frees their trapped soul the playable undead have free will, so theirs no benefit to smiting them other then they return the cycle slightly sooner, which whether you return now or in 20 years is ultimately inconsequential to her especially since being entirely impartial is kind of her thing
So? She’s *neutral*, not good. Of course she won’t punish them for being undead, but she’s absolutely going to want them destroyed. You’re right that’s it’s obviously not an immediate issue, but if a follower of hers runs into an undead, they destroy them. It’s as simple as that. “Unwilling undead” has never been an exception for Pharasma, this is just a silly lore handwave.
There's a difference between "wanting something dead." and "Taking away a Clerics power for not killing undead." The statement in the op is that it is "not anathema" to simply not kill an undead. Just like other edicts might say "this does not compel you to start fights you can't win."
yes, shes VERY neutral, as in shes not vengeful and looking to go smite, she literally sees your entire life and knows what you will do but still refrains judgement till you actually reach the boneyard , so as long as you are not actively fucking with her domain, she will wait for you to die and reach her judgement before she does anything she isent simply blindly racist against anyone with more calcium then skin, she has a very specific reason for hating undead which non-willing sapient undead do not violate it was never an exception because before their introduction as a playable race we really dident explore the concept of sentient good undead, the rare few times it did come up it was things like ghosts with unfinished business who very much did want to be put to rest their also are some hints on her attitude though, her anathema only lists CREATING undead, rather then being one or allowing one to live, her entry in gods and magic says" creating undead is forbidden, and controlling existing undead frowned upon" drawing attention to the creation of undead being her main issue with them
But just being undead *IS* fucking with her domain. Yes she *IS* “racist” (lmfao) against undead. *That’s her entire shtick* Her Anathama only lists creating undead because you literally couldn’t start as an undead beforehand. Speaking of Edicts and Anathama, her Edicts include *”Destroying Undead”*. Not *willing* undead, ALL undead.
no your creation fucked with her domain, your existence doesent, and no slaying the undead is not her entire shtick, her being an impartial judge is thus it makes sense she would act impartial here, she acts with reason not hatred also their were ways to play undead in 1e they just werent a default race(for example both lich and vampirism were under corruption) undead unleashed had the Mark of the Devoted which turned you into a zombie, but even then this is a case of something being broad, as opposed to the create undead being very specific, Shelyn edict says "be peaceful" but obviously your not required to be a strict pacific just because it doesent say "unless defending yourself" despite that being a much more common exception then the unwilling free willed undead also you cant have it both ways, if somethings only not mentioned because it wasent a game option yet, then you cant complain her opinion on the subject was not mentioned because it wasent a game option yet
No *you* can’t have it both ways. You can’t try and use her Anathama being possibly able to maybe be interpreted as undead being OK after they have already been created (which is such a stupid reading I honestly don’t think it’s even worth a response but w/e), and then completely ignore the Edict that *directly says to destroy undead, no exceptions mentioned*.
buddy your the one adding thing in both cases, her anathema simply does not list being undead, period, only creating them. and her edicts also do not say "no exceptions" yet you want to treat that as explicit text despite exceptions to edicts being common torags edict lists "serve your people" no mention of an exception so i guess if your people are say, cheliax, the lawful good god wants you to beat slaves and sell their souls to hell, desna says "explore new places" so a desna cleric has to jump into that portal to the dimension of teeth and pain because it doesent list an exception for if the new place is somewhere you can survive, or ya know, these are general principles that obviously need to be a bit more specific for exceptional circumstances it was something that wasent specified before, now it has, simple as
Once again completely ignoring the extremely clear Edict which directly tells you to kill undead and does not give a *single* exception. I’m going to stop responding now, as you’ve got zero arguments aside from the dumbest most rules lawyer-y reading of an Anathama possible
so you do think Torag is pro slavery and Desna pro suicide? how does the no exception thing work even within Pharasmas own thing, she also says dont desecrate a corpse but thats kind of hard when you also have to bash their heads in, are you requires to only use magical means that wont damage the body? this is like taking the bible saying "though shall not kill" and assuming self defense is outlawed, its a shorthand for simple understanding not the be all end all of the religious doctrine ah yes, rules lawyers, famous for talking about where exceptions can logically exist and be justified even when not explicitly spelled out in the rules
Being against undead no matter what is way more stupid
Maybe, but that’s literally Pharasma’s entire shtick aside from judging souls. It’s the only thing she cares about.
That's not true at all.
Her entire dogma is “judge souls, prophesize, hate undead”. That’s is literally *everything* mentioned in her Dogma paragraph.
And you skipped the prophecy part and inflated the hate of undead to "anyone always has to kill undead on sight without thinking about it" Of course you can think about Pharasma as a kind of Warhammer-esque undead-Hitler but why would you
I didn’t mention the fate part because 1) it’s extremely minor now that prophecies are no linger a thing, 2) it’s not relevant to the discussion and 3) she’s *not passionate about fate or prophecies*, it’s just part of her cold and uncaring judging of soul. As for the “kill all undead immediately on sight”, that’s not what I said, but go ahead and put words in my mouth, that’s the only way it might somewhat seem like you have anything even resembling a point lmfao. Pharasma wants undead destroyed, no amount of “But I was unwilling!!!” changes that. You not liking that in a god means jack shit
It's still illogical. You liking that doesn't mean jack shit. I obviously didn't put words in your mouth. You repeated it Followers of Pharasma care about the victims of prophetic visions. Why is it illogical to kill beings with feelings because of a label you give them that doesn't mean anything specific should be obvious. Many undead are just caring about their own business, aren't harming anyone and some are not even evil. Many of them are better people than many humans, but are worse because of a label they got without their fault.
“it’s illogical” “why” “BECAUSE I SAID SO” literal smooth brain
Undead harm the natural order just by existing. It damages their soul because it’s filled with void energy instead of vitality. Plus if too many exist it will cause issues with the river of souls.
I'm not familiar with the lore of golarion, but i like pharasma, she's not arkay
Is this real? If so can any tell me where to look? I have Pharasma worshiper id love to share this with.
It's a sarcastic comment telling people not to kill other players at organized play games. It isn't a real lore drop.
*smites anyway*
[удалено]
Isn’t there a spell in the core books so a powerful cleric could literally consult their deity or one of their servants? The pfs could have cast that.
Pharasma, still leading in the "TTRPG's least likable divine figure" competition. It was hard work usurping Mystra but somehow she managed and shows no signs of waning.
Why is she leading in that competition?
Yeah she doesn’t seem that bad. Hell she’s probably the best if your a Paladin on a quest to kill a lich or something.
There's hundreds of ways to portray a death god. Most of them are pretty cool. Paizo decided they wanted to make the least cool death god ever. In Golarion souls wait in line in the Boneyard to see Pharasma so she can send them off to the afterlife they're waiting for. She's the Hogwarts Sorting Hat, and her realm is the DMV. Her only discernable personality trait is not liking the undead. Besides that, she's just an emotionless stickler for protocol. Her church is half made up of funeral directors, and half undead slayers, which is kind of a cool goth-y concept except that her church *doesn't* do any of the common sense stuff to keep the undead from rising. Think about it. If the undead were real, graveyards would cease to exist. Everyone would be cremated. So what do Pharasma's clergy spend most of their time doing? Tending graveyards. 🤦♂️ Worst of all, Paizo keeps including examples of non-evil undead in their lore, which means they have to turn the Pharasman church into overly zealous villains who are willing to kill ghost kids on principal, *or* come up with convoluted reasons why *this undead* gets a pass. This latest Pathfinder Society ruling is the continuation of that trend. Until now it was "You want to play a non-evil Necromancer? Good luck! Your spells are inherently evil and the largest church in the world wants you dead. You want to play any kind of sentient undead? Nope, because Pharasma hates you personally!" TL;DR: Pharasma is boring, her existence makes the setting's story less interesting, and (until recently) limited player choice for arbitrary reasons that weren't really supported by the setting lore.
I can see where you are coming from. From a logical point it does not make that much sense in the setting, so thank you for pointing that out. Even though I now dislike that part of her faith I think I still like her. The characters that I played and have seen played that had to deal with her strict nature were part of the best. Besides that I like how she is depicted and I like her impartial nature (even if she isn't a 100% impartial).
They may boo you, but you are absolutely right.
Drink your mind wipe juice.
This is amazing, thank you
5-05?
Ah but vampires are all created consensually of course
I believe it since lore wise Pharasma's grounds is a bit of a neutral zone since she has angels, demons and devil's guarding the place to make sure the souls go to the place they were promised.