Control a golem


Rules Questions


I have a few questions about how golems work. My understanding of them from the rules is that they are pretty much mindless robots that just follow the orders of their creator. This lead me to a few questions.

1. What happens to the golem if the creator dies without any lingering orders given? Does it just go into a standby mode only responding if attacked?

2. Is there a way to take over control of a golem without it being transferred over to you by the creator? If the above scenario happens and you come across the golem, is there a way to take control of it?

Sczarni

Well, there's always the Control Construct spell.

But, for the most part, I imagine this to be in the realm of GM purview.


Yeah. AFAIK Nefreet is right in calling it GM purview.

You are right that golems are supposed to be under control. And if the creator dies without giving it instructions it would probably stand still and do nothing untill attacked.

That said RPG stories have examples of golems that were powered by some sort of elemental soul or something like that. These souls could run amok during combat and/or simply over time.

Sczarni

But, really, if you spent tens of thousands of gold to create a construct, and had it sitting in your Wizard's Tower, amongst all your other expensive, nice things, wouldn't you at least set it to "Guard", or something?

In most modules I've read, that's the exact backstory that the authors used.


To be honest, I'd set it to "obey whoever has the keys to the carAmulet of Control." Because if I had a mindless construct I would have loyal minions with actual minds directing it. Wizard got stuff to do, can't be micromanaging all my 'bots all the time.

But then my wizards don't really go for the whole "crazed reclusive hermit" thing.


Nefreet wrote:

But, really, if you spent tens of thousands of gold to create a construct, and had it sitting in your Wizard's Tower, amongst all your other expensive, nice things, wouldn't you at least set it to "Guard", or something?

In most modules I've read, that's the exact backstory that the authors used.

Well. A golem left to it's own devices will usually follow the last order given (if any)...

@Boring7: The wizard wouldn't need to micromanage the golem. He could give it specific and complex orders and the golem would continue to carry out that order untill new orders were recieved. Granted I do actually think it would be a good idea to give an order to follow whoever had a specific item's orders... That way as you say, an underling could redirect the golem if needed.


boring7 wrote:

To be honest, I'd set it to "obey whoever has the keys to the carAmulet of Control." Because if I had a mindless construct I would have loyal minions with actual minds directing it. Wizard got stuff to do, can't be micromanaging all my 'bots all the time.

But then my wizards don't really go for the whole "crazed reclusive hermit" thing.

I'd probably tell it "Obey whomever has the Amulet of Control, unless I give a conflicting order, in which case obey me." But I'm the paranoid type.


JoeJ wrote:
boring7 wrote:

To be honest, I'd set it to "obey whoever has the keys to the carAmulet of Control." Because if I had a mindless construct I would have loyal minions with actual minds directing it. Wizard got stuff to do, can't be micromanaging all my 'bots all the time.

But then my wizards don't really go for the whole "crazed reclusive hermit" thing.

I'd probably tell it "Obey whomever has the Amulet of Control, unless I give a conflicting order, in which case obey me." But I'm the paranoid type.

Well, obviously. There'd be a standard array of "hard-coded commands" and hierarchy of user permission settings just like any sysadmin methodology.

Which, as a DM, I might take a step further and actually have a system of "hacking" constructs which would probably involve Use Magic Device (fits flavor-wise) and/or spellcraft. Could be interesting, might be too much work, but I'm kind of meandering now.

@Lifat, In my opinion, if you are using a construct in such a way that it would not benefit from direct supervision, you are probably under-using your construct. But I'm of the mind you're better off with an Animated Object than a Golem. Burrowers for mining, flyers for shipping/delivery, and implanted weapon systems (like ballistae) which the construct can't use itself (construct ranged attack is crap, but an auto-loading ballistae aimed and fired by a human warrior is pretty good) and tools which work better with a brain guiding them.

Admittedly, there is still a place for the implacable treasure-room guardian. I'm just more of a builder than a banker.


boring7 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
boring7 wrote:

To be honest, I'd set it to "obey whoever has the keys to the carAmulet of Control." Because if I had a mindless construct I would have loyal minions with actual minds directing it. Wizard got stuff to do, can't be micromanaging all my 'bots all the time.

But then my wizards don't really go for the whole "crazed reclusive hermit" thing.

I'd probably tell it "Obey whomever has the Amulet of Control, unless I give a conflicting order, in which case obey me." But I'm the paranoid type.

Well, obviously. There'd be a standard array of "hard-coded commands" and hierarchy of user permission settings just like any sysadmin methodology.

Which, as a DM, I might take a step further and actually have a system of "hacking" constructs which would probably involve Use Magic Device (fits flavor-wise) and/or spellcraft. Could be interesting, might be too much work, but I'm kind of meandering now.

@Lifat, In my opinion, if you are using a construct in such a way that it would not benefit from direct supervision, you are probably under-using your construct. But I'm of the mind you're better off with an Animated Object than a Golem. Burrowers for mining, flyers for shipping/delivery, and implanted weapon systems (like ballistae) which the construct can't use itself (construct ranged attack is crap, but an auto-loading ballistae aimed and fired by a human warrior is pretty good) and tools which work better with a brain guiding them.

Admittedly, there is still a place for the implacable treasure-room guardian. I'm just more of a builder than a banker.

I respect that. Golems can indeed be more powerful with direct supervision, I just happen to think that a wizard who is spending his time directing a hireling is wasting his time. If he can get a worthless hireling to direct another hireling effectively then it is a lot better action economy wise.


Why not get a simulacrum of himself to direct the hireling? That means he won't be wasting his time, but it still benefits from his direction.

Well, technically he will be wasting his time, but he's a crowd, so to speak.


Alleran wrote:

Why not get a simulacrum of himself to direct the hireling? That means he won't be wasting his time, but it still benefits from his direction.

Well, technically he will be wasting his time, but he's a crowd, so to speak.

A simulacrum would only add another link to the problem, because the simulacrum needs orders aswell.


Not quite - technically, a simulacrum remains under your command, but you could give it an open-ended order ("instruct the golem in accordance with my wishes") and be relatively safe.


Alleran wrote:
Not quite - technically, a simulacrum remains under your command, but you could give it an open-ended order ("instruct the golem in accordance with my wishes") and be relatively safe.

How does the simulacrum know what your wishes are at any given moment? I give you that it probably knows the broad strokes, but will it know specific stuff? I'd say no.


Lifat wrote:
Alleran wrote:
Not quite - technically, a simulacrum remains under your command, but you could give it an open-ended order ("instruct the golem in accordance with my wishes") and be relatively safe.
How does the simulacrum know what your wishes are at any given moment? I give you that it probably knows the broad strokes, but will it know specific stuff? I'd say no.

It'll get closer than a hireling will, since it knows (a good chunk of) what you know.

If you really need to get down to specifics moment-by-moment, then throwing up a telepathic bond with your simulacrum would do the job. Of course, it would also do the job with a regular hireling (though with the regular hireling, you can't rely on it possessing at least some/most of the knowledge you do, while a simulacrum would).

But if you really did need to order a golem around moment by moment, you've probably made a mistake somewhere along the line.


Lifat wrote:
How does the simulacrum know what your wishes are at any given moment? I give you that it probably knows the broad strokes, but will it know specific stuff? I'd say no.

It won't know, but as it's a copy of you yourself it would use the same logic and reasoning you would have used.


VRMH wrote:
Lifat wrote:
How does the simulacrum know what your wishes are at any given moment? I give you that it probably knows the broad strokes, but will it know specific stuff? I'd say no.
It won't know, but as it's a copy of you yourself it would use the same logic and reasoning you would have used.

It isn't a copy of yourself. You'd even have to use the disguise skill to make it look like you. It doesn't know what you know... At least the spell mentions nothing about it. It is a construct that is partially real.

I don't see the justification for having the simulacrum being better at giving precise orders than any other hireling.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Simulacrums are like their real selves in every way, excepting what is specifically called out as being different. Pretty sure that includes memories and mannerisms.


Ravingdork wrote:
Simulacrums are like their real selves in every way, excepting what is specifically called out as being different. Pretty sure that includes memories and mannerisms.

Where on earth are you getting that from? I've read the spell twice now and the spell description does NOT support this.

Simulacrum from the PRD:
Simulacrum

School illusion (shadow); Level sorcerer/wizard 7

Casting Time 12 hours

Components V, S, M (ice sculpture of the target plus powdered rubies worth 500 gp per HD of the simulacrum)

Range 0 ft.

Effect one duplicate creature

Duration instantaneous

Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster's Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.

At all times, the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner. A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum.


The bolded parts were mine for emphasis.

The spell is coming from the "illusion (shadow) school"

Illusion & Shadow from PRD:
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened. & Shadow: A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real.

The simulacrum needs disguise checks to look like the thing it is a simulacrum of (at least if it is supposed to be a specific creature). The observer of a simulacrum can use sense motive against it to notice that the simulacrum is indeed NOT the real creature, these things held together suggests that a simulacrum is not a complete copy of the original and that it has no real memory of the creature it is a simulacrum of.
This means that the caster who wants a simulacrum of himself to boss around the other hirelings would indeed need to give very complex orders to the simulacrum and even then the simulacrum might be ousted as a duplicate.


I will give you that there is something awesome about having a simulacrum that looks like you be in your stronghold, bossing the hirelings around and maybe even have a second simulacrum some place else carrying out different orders. This way any enemy that want to do a tele-frag strategy against you need to first find out which of the "you's" that's actually you :D


On a related note a few Simulacra with permanent telepathic bonds is a great way to keep your stronghold running efficiently even when you're away.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
On a related note a few Simulacra with permanent telepathic bonds is a great way to keep your stronghold running efficiently even when you're away.

And creating low-level magic items would also be an excellent way to use your simulacrum.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lifat wrote:
Where on earth are you getting that from? I've read the spell twice now and the spell description does NOT support this.

Mostly from developer clarifications on the spell. They've made it quite clear that a simulacrum possesses everything their real counter parts do with the exception of what is called out in the spell, and what the GM deems inappropriate.

James Jacobs wrote:
A simulacrum is in all ways identical to the thing it duplicates. A cleric simulacrum could cast spells and pray to get new spells, but just like a cleric, if it does things out of keeping with its religion, it becomes an ex-cleric. So if you're a good guy and you make a simulacrum of an evil priest, then order the simulacrum to do things out of keeping with its alignment and religion, it WILL lose its powers.

Load up one of the developer profiles and run a search for the word "simulacrum." There are dozens of clarifications and adjudications scattered all over the forums, many of which were even asked by myself.


But non of it is RAW in any way before it is added to a FAQ. I will give you that it does hint strongly to RAI... But I don't think this specific quote proves that it has the memories of the creature it duplicates... And it even conflicts the spell's description that requires a disguise check to make it look like a specific creature.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Or rather, to make it look more like a specific creature. You're welcome to believe what you want, I just didn't want you thinking I was making it all up.

I would think it quite odd if it granted all of the class abilities and skills and what not, but none of the knowledge on how to use them or how it got them. Nevertheless, I can readily see the abuses that might arise from my interpretation of the spell so, again, you are quite welcome to run it as best fits your gaming group.


Ravingdork wrote:

Or rather, to make it look more like a specific creature. You're welcome to believe what you want, I just didn't want you thinking I was making it all up.

I would think it quite odd if it granted all of the class abilities and skills and what not, but none of the knowledge on how to use them or how it got them. Nevertheless, I can readily see the abuses that might arise from my interpretation of the spell so, again, you are quite welcome to run it as best fits your gaming group.

You make it sound like my way is the "unofficial" way, but the truth is that the quotes you mentioned aren't part of RAW before they get entered into a FAQ. So if we disregard the quotes then what stands do seem to indicate that they haven't got any memories. I would also add that if it did, then why wouldn't the spell mention it?

And I will always dictate how people should play this game:
Play it the way that is the most fun for you and your group! :D

The discussions in here is about RAW. RAW's only importance is in standardizing and in making sure that everyone around the table is understanding the rules the same way. So I am trying to make it clear how I'd understand what is written. Expecting people to search an entire forum for the answer is to much. The only places people should look are: The Books; Errata & FAQ. This is a big enough place for rules to get lost already. No sense in adding a place (this forum).


Lifat wrote:
I respect that. Golems can indeed be more powerful with direct supervision, I just happen to think that a wizard who is spending his time directing a hireling is wasting his time. If he can get a worthless hireling to direct another hireling effectively then it is a lot better action economy wise.

That was my whole point. I'm a wizard, I know almost NOTHING about shoring up passages and proper mining safety. My leadership feat gives me followers with NPC levels, so I get a level 3 expert in profession: mining, hand him the keys to the Mole Machine (giant mole construct) and tell him to go dig me some mithral (because I used divination magic to find out there was mithral in them thar hills). The Mole Machine is big, strong, and has a burrow speed but no idea WHERE to dig, so it needs guidance, and I got stuff to do. Hence the expert.

Probably have a whole team, really, since you want a safety-first buddy system and rotating shifts of miners. Constructs don't get tired but minions do.

Then there's battle. My castle's under attack by a Dragon because I stole his girlfriend (the one with the cute tail). I want my troops to have a chance of protecting themselves without me (because that makes sense) and I'm also indisposed at the moment because I stole his girlfriend and took her on holiday (Elysium is lovely this time of year).

*writes a whole long list of tactical battle plans, deletes them*

To keep it short, battle is fluid and a brain with good tactics beats a MUCH more powerful foe with no tactics most days of the week.

Combat, construction, mining, harvesting, delivering...all of these things tend to require (or at least do better with) skill checks or someone giving constantly-updated orders.

Now it's probably time I got back to Elysiumother things. *shifty eyes*

For simulacra...the historical trope of a simulacra (which predates D&D) is that it is a copy. Sometimes it's an evil clone, sometimes it's a good clone, sometimes it's an emo clone but it's always a copy of the person it's supposed to be and copies them really well. It was basically what writers and storytellers used for those philosophical "what is identity" explorations before we had the technological understanding to imagine "quantum cloning" or "Star Trek Transporter-made copies."

But maybe you don't care about that history because "how could I know that?" That's perfectly understandable. The rules also state it gets the skills and feats of the subject, so it's fairly reasonable to assume it will act in the same way because it has the same general "knowledge" if not the same specific memories. So it would generally give the same orders, like "take Number 5 and go build that worker barracks" or "Grab half the mole fleet and start digging the canal."


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lifat wrote:
Expecting people to search an entire forum for the answer is too much.

Really? It is literally no more work than looking up the FAQ or Errata pages.

Allow me to help. It took me ~30 seconds to look up and post the following:

James Jacobs on Simulacrum
Sean K Reynolds on Simulacrum
Simulacrum in general on the forums

Also, RAW alone only takes you so far, as everyone knows. RAI can at least help provide some context.


Ravingdork wrote:
Lifat wrote:
Expecting people to search an entire forum for the answer is too much.

Really? It is literally no more work than looking up the FAQ or Errata pages.

Allow me to help. It took me ~30 seconds to look up and post the following:

James Jacobs on Simulacrum
Sean K Reynolds on Simulacrum
Simulacrum in general on the forums

Also, RAW alone only takes you so far, as everyone knows. RAI can at least help provide some context.

A: I get that it is reasonably easy but it is still another place to check. On top of that, untill they decide to make it RAW then it isn't.

B: I agree that RAW only takes you so far. I've been very clear on that. But your interpretation seems to cause more problems than mine... When going away from RAW I would want to create FEWER problems not more. So the only reason to claim that your version is better would be to claim that it is RAW, but my interpretation seem more in line with it (Although that is subjective and others may disagree)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Did I say mine was better? Maybe for my games it is. I would not be so arrogant as to think the same would be true for your games.


Ravingdork wrote:
Did I say mine was better? Maybe for my games it is. I would not be so arrogant as to think the same would be true for your games.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth. I think what we have here is a text to speech conversion issue, where I read more into what you wrote.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Control a golem All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.