Dance of the dead performance and Pharasma


Advice


At 10th level the dirge Bard gets a bardic performance called dance of the dead. It lets raise dead bodies to fight for you, but doesn't have the evil descriptor

Quote:
Unlike animate dead, dance of the dead requires no components and does not have the evil descriptor.

Are those dead bodies fighting for you real undead? As Undead are always evil I'd guess no.

Could a true follower of Pharasma use that ability without offending her?


Here is the link to the archetype:
Dirge Bard


Umbranus wrote:
Are those dead bodies fighting for you real undead?
Yes. There's no indication in the text they aren't.
Quote:
As Undead are always evil I'd guess no.

It's weird for a non-Evil performance to have a clearly Evil effect, but not unheard of. Simulacrum is an unaligned spell that can create Undead creatures too, and it has no alignment descriptor either.

Quote:
Could a true follower of Pharasma use that ability without offending her?

Would a true follower even consider it? No matter how you look at it: you're reanimating the dead.


My take was: If they are just animated puppets that look and behave like undead but are not really undead then I'd say it's ok.

If they really are undead a devout follower wouldn't really consider it.

Or in other words: You can animate a rope, if you would use such a kind of animation on a skeleton, I really don't know if that would be a bad thing for Pharasma or her followers.

There is a spell, defending bone, which animates a bone to fly around you and deflect attacks made against you.

Look at who may cast that spell it states: School necromancy; Level cleric/oracle 2, sorcerer/wizard 2 (Pharasma). So a wizard following pharasma may cast that spell. And it is a necromancy spell that animates a bone.

Sczarni

I'd say Pharasma would not like it due to the statement "functions like animate dead". To me that is bringing dead back to life even if it is for a short time.


If they are animated dead, then no Pharasma would not like it at all.

If they are like animate dead, but are just puppets then perhaps. But the statement "functions like animate dead" pretty much means it functions like the spell, which means they are animated dead, and thus undead, and thus a no-no. I concur with ossian666, but really if you flavor "like" to mean similar to, and your GM is ok with it, then go for it.

Animate is a tricky word here - I get where you are going with the rope analogy - if you use telekinesis on a bunch of bones that happen to be a skeleton... but the keyword is, I guess, "dead". Unlike "animating an object" - a pile of bones that are a skeleton, you are animating a dead individual's skeleton...

FWIW - I have an Oracle of the Bones with the wasting sickness who happens to be a follower of Pharasma. It completely sucks - she can't use some of her revelations. I really just chose Pharasma because I thought she sounded cool, not knowing about the no-undead caveat. (The wasting sickness just makes it extra hard...) I was allowed to use armor of bones thankfully. Just how do you flavor armor of bones? Whose bones are they, and is Pharasma upset by it?
But the more undead revelations - nope! A good DM would make that a real campaign plot-hook - "boy are those revelations mysterious" and let her find some new revelations.... Hmm, maybe I need to create a Oracle's Bones Mystery: alternate revelations for Pharasma worshippers thread...


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'll talk it over with my GM.

What I'd really like to heve cleared up here is the following:

The devs said that in PF undead are always evil, no exception.
This ability is not evil.
If it creates undead it should be evil.

Was it a mistake that it is not evil as was with other undead creating abilities, which were FAQed and now are evil or does this ability create something else but not real undead?

As is it contradicts the rules.
So I'd like to have a FAQ on this.

Scarab Sages

Regardless of if they are undead or not, I would think Pharasma would be upset with the bard making the dead bodies walk around and get torn to pieces by whatever is attacking the bard. Respect the dead.


Umbranus wrote:

The devs said that in PF undead are always evil, no exception.

This ability is not evil.
If it creates undead it should be evil.

Yeah, I agree. It might be better to introduce a generic rule though: Any spell, spell-like ability, performance or other magical phenomenon that creates a creature with an innate alignment, gets that alignment as a descriptor.

Or something like that.


VRMH wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

The devs said that in PF undead are always evil, no exception.

This ability is not evil.
If it creates undead it should be evil.

Yeah, I agree. It might be better to introduce a generic rule though: Any spell, spell-like ability, performance or other magical phenomenon that creates a creature with an innate alignment, gets that alignment as a descriptor.

Or something like that.

That would be bad design. Why would you add a spell descriptor to an ability that is not a spell? Aligned spell descriptors do nothing other than determine whether or not a cleric can cast such spells with their clerical spellcasting, and how they interact with other spells and effects (a protection from good spell will show up on detect evil for example). The alignment subtype of spells is entirely meaningless to bards as well, and since it's not a cleric casting it, it doesn't matter.


Casting spells with evil descripor is evil and makes you evil if you do it often enough.
So it is very important not only for clerics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbranus wrote:

Casting spells with evil descripor is evil and makes you evil if you do it often enough.

So it is very important not only for clerics.

Feel free to cite where it says that in the rules. Go ahead. I'll wait.

In the meantime, I'm going to note that I'm pretty sure an evil wizard standing in a field casting protection from evil isn't going to have a sudden alignment shift. But I could be wrong. Feel free to quote the rules on it. ^-^

Psst... the joke is...no where in the rules does it say that casting a spell with an aligned descriptor changes your alignment, or is otherwise an aligned act. You're free to play that way, but it's not how it works in the core. Casting protection from good isn't going to turn you evil, casting protection from law isn't going to turn you chaotic, and summoning celestial badgers isn't going to save your eternal soul despite you having a penchant for homicide.


James Jacobs wrote:


Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor. Same goes for Good or Lawful or Chaotic. That means that certain classes can't really cast them at all (divine classes of different alignments), but that other classes (arcane spellcasters, for the most part) can cast them as much as they like. But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment, unless the GM doesn't care about alignment and doesn't enforce such changes, in which case the GM should let EVERY player at the table know that alignment doesn't impact the game so that players who do play as if it does have a chance to adjust their play styles as appropriate. Removing the alignment types of certain spells has implications, though, and before you do so make sure that no one in your group is planning on building a character who uses the alignemnt descriptors in their character build!

For me that's good enough.

But I know that there are people who don't accept rules interpretations by devs.

The thread where he wrote it is here .


Umbranus wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor. Same goes for Good or Lawful or Chaotic. That means that certain classes can't really cast them at all (divine classes of different alignments), but that other classes (arcane spellcasters, for the most part) can cast them as much as they like. But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment, unless the GM doesn't care about alignment and doesn't enforce such changes, in which case the GM should let EVERY player at the table know that alignment doesn't impact the game so that players who do play as if it does have a chance to adjust their play styles as appropriate. Removing the alignment types of certain spells has implications, though, and before you do so make sure that no one in your group is planning on building a character who uses the alignemnt descriptors in their character build!

For me that's good enough.

But I know that there are people who don't accept rules interpretations by devs.

The thread where he wrote it is here .

Like I said. I'll wait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Smart ass responses don't accomplish anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
clawoftiamat wrote:
Smart ass responses don't accomplish anything.

To be fair, neither does posting how one person house rules things in their own games.


The thing is, Pharasma isn't against evil, she actually can have evil clerics. She dislikes undead because they are a perversion, not because they have the [evil] descriptor. Thus, the question is, does the dance of the dead create undead? Looks to me like it does, but as was said above, you gotta check with your GM for how you wanna flavor it.


Aratrok wrote:
clawoftiamat wrote:
Smart ass responses don't accomplish anything.
To be fair, neither does posting how one person house rules things in their own games.

Pretty much this. Not all the devs follow all the rules. Most have their own house rules. Many of the devs cannot actually agree on the rules. They've openly said this a few times. Some have posted their house rules (some of them being pretty cool house rules), and some just see things in the rules differently.

However, the fact is alignment subtypes in the game are entirely mechanical. They have no effect on a character's morality unless the GM house rules it so. A lawful good monk is not going to stop being lawful because he spends his days fighting devils and chugging protection from law potions. In fact, a Paladin can happily chug protection from law potions to help dealing with an evil tyrant and his minions (many of a tyrants minions may merely be lawful neutral, so protection from evil would be useless).

Even the quote by James Jacobs from his opinions on alignment really does not tell the whole story. He seems to attribute extra importance to such spells and reference rules that do not exist, presumably because he likes the idea it. However...

Quote:
But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment, unless the GM doesn't care about alignment and doesn't enforce such changes, in which case the GM should let EVERY player at the table know that alignment doesn't impact the game so that players who do play as if it does have a chance to adjust their play styles as appropriate. Removing the alignment types of certain spells has implications, though, and before you do so make sure that no one in your group is planning on building a character who uses the alignemnt descriptors in their character build!

This right here is kind of messed up. Not because of rules or anything (we already noted it's not covered in the rules) but because it paints a very skewed picture to people reading it.

In James' quote, he (perhaps unintentionally) implies that you either must force (though he says enforce) alignment changes for casting aligned spells or the GM doesn't care about alignment and that alignment doesn't affect the game. That's a gross exaggeration, and very misleading. Especially since alignment descriptors are an entirely mechanical aspect of the game. James presented it as either alignment-shifts or bust; but that's a tiny non-existent portion of the alignment subtypes compared to the big picture.


  • Certain creatures can only be slain with alignment subtyped spells, such as horned devils who can only have their regeneration broken by good-aligned weapons and spells (most spells are not aligned, only those with subtypes).
  • Clerics and Druids (only) simply cannot cast spells with aligned subtypes opposing their own alignment (or their deity's). This means that a LG cleric of a LN god cannot cast protection from good even though the deity has no problem with it.
  • Alignment subtypes determine how they interact with other spells. For example, the spell dispel evil automatically breaks magic circle against good even if it was cast by a non-evil wizard. Likewise, whenever you cast detect evil you can detect if aligned spells have been cast in the area and identify those spells. If an erinyes casts unholy blight within the past 1d6 minutes, the Paladin can sense the lingering aura and possibly identify the spell used with a successful Knowledge (Arcana) check. Likewise, casting protection from good can mean that you beep on the radar when people are using detect evil.
  • Similarly, aligned effects naturally oppose their polar opposites. If you cast an aligned spell, then you must accept that the spell is treated as being of that alignment regardless of your own. That means even while a Neutral cleric can cast both [Good] and [Evil] spells, she still has to deal with effects that deal with those alignments, such as dispel evil/good, protection from evil/good, holy/unholy aura and the like. For example, a Neutral cleric who casts holy smite on an enemy still has to deal with the SR 25 against the spell even though the cleric is not a good creature. In essence, these spells ignore your own alignment when they are being used and instead are treated as a specific alignment.

Which is why the implication that not enforcing rules that don't exist suddenly remove point from alignment or the points of the alignment subtypes are misleading. It doesn't. Pretending it does isn't going to help anyone. It's better to actually see what these things do, and why, rather than trying to change the alignment of people because they are using aligned weapons and spells. A Neutral character does not become good merely because he is wielding a +1 holy longsword. He enjoys that it doesn't give him a negative level for holding it, but unless he actually acts in a manner in keeping with Good, he's not going to magically become good. Nor would a Paladin fall because he picks up a +1 axiomatic unholy longsword and attacks a demon with it (being axiomatic, it would deal +2d6 damage vs the demon), but he would suffer a negative level while holding the sword because it is opposed to his alignment. His actual alignment, however, does not change unless he is acting in manner that would change it.

However, that doesn't stop GMs from doing what they want (and I never suggested that it did). According to the alignment section, the GM gets to decide what is and isn't in accordance with an alignment. Most aren't jerks or fools about it, but if a GM wanted to say taking a poop on a Thursday is an act of great chaos, then he or she can do so (I wouldn't imagine anyone playing with said GM for long though). If someone wants to add elements of innate corruption or redemption to spells and weapons, then they can do so (but I think that seriously cheapens alignment and makes it more or less irrelevant if casting aligned spells makes you more that alignment, because the natural order of process taken to its fruition would indicate that bad guys stand around casting protection from evil until they are no longer evil; which is grossly similar to wrongful indulgences).

It doesn't mean the rules say that is how it works, and trying to push that sort of thing off on the rules is IMHO ethically wrong (but we're talking about alignment, so who cares about ethics and morality).


As for Pharasma, I have no idea. She's a goddess of death who hates undead, despite the core rules placing Animate Dead on her domain. I'm sure there's been some sort of alternate domain for her made available somewhere, but it just seems like as a rule anything undead = no.

Of course, I don't know why anyone would care. Pharasma is pretty poor as a deity goes. She's supposedly in possession omniscience and knows someone's fate before it ever occurs, but that directly flies in the face to the idea that there is free will, because if everything you will ever do is already laid out, then free will is an illusion. Stuff like that. I mean, reading over her Pathfinder Wiki Page, I can't really see why anyone cares about her, or would bother to worship her. She stands for quite literally nothing. It seems like her hatred of undead is just there to give her something other than being a judge, and yet makes her less interesting than if she was more focused on being a judge of one's life. If it's just the immortality thing, then she should hate gods, wizards, alchemists, and druids just as much because they all have non-undeath related ways to cheat death by natural causes; which just makes her look like a fool.

Seems to me that if you're a worshipper of Pharamsa, either don't do it or accept that you're doing something your god doesn't like. It's not like that's the end of the world. You're a bard, not a cleric. You might pay homage to her, but you might not be 100% in line with her methods or desires. Maybe you worship her because of the other things she is about (which isn't much honestly), but figure she can sit on it when it comes to your bardic music. What would that mean? Well it would mean you're human; because most people don't adhere to their religions 100% (which is probably good, since honestly I'd hate to have to stone people to death, or put rape victims to death, or anything like that).

If you live a grand and glorious life anyway, then she'll pass you. She might not like undead, but she's supposed to be entirely neutral and a completely fair and impartial judge; indicating that she's an even bigger hypocrite than she already is if she lets her own personal bias get in the way of her judgments.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Dance of the dead performance and Pharasma All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.