The Windsong Testaments: The Three Fears of Pharasma

Thursday, October 31, 2019

“Reality is born. Reality must die. So somewhere in between must dwell both you and I.”

Such was said to be writ upon the Seal, carved in such a way that all would understand regardless of language or intellect. The Seal was the gravestone of the previous reality. The Seal was the foundation stone of the next reality. It was upon the Seal that Pharasma was born into this reality, adrift in the Maelstrom within an unformed metacosmos. She stood, and read the Seal’s Truth, and saw that she trod upon its core. Looking out over the Seal’s eight edges, Pharasma beheld the eternity of probability, a vastness yet formed from the raw entropy of the churning remains of what had come before. She was the Survivor, yet she knew not what she had survived—just that she had.

Pharasma stepped off the edge of the Seal, and as her foot descended to the nothing, the Seal expanded so that she was supported. She stood there a moment on one of the Seal’s eight edges, one step into the new reality, and she could sense that she was already not alone. Something chewed and gnawed out there beyond perception. Something vast, and hungry, and dangerous. Pharasma knew her first fear that very first step—fear of the unknown, fear that something else had survived, fear that she would not.

And so she stepped to the side.

As Pharasma walked, the edges of the Seal grew. The Outer Sphere bloomed beneath her feet as the Seal expanded its power. Where Pharasma walked, the planes themselves followed, and with each circuit around the Seal, she widened her path, walking a deosil spiral of creation that gave those who would follow a place to love and hate, to war and create. As she walked the spiral, the Seal itself grew outward, forming the Spire. It reached toward what lay opposite its beginning. And when Pharasma finished, the Spire had grown to support the Boneyard above, and it would be her home.

The Seal had responded to Pharasma’s spiral path, and as she strode, other divinities were birthed into the new reality. The Speakers in the Depths retreated at once to the heart of entropy and could not be bothered to take part in what followed. Desna marveled at creation, and with a wave of her hand brought the first night to the skies above. Sarenrae followed swiftly thereafter, and was smitten with Desna and her work, and so she chose the brightest of those stars to shine as the suns, birthing the first day. Ihys, who would in time become the First to die, and his brother Asmodeus, who would in time become the First to kill, each defined the other and brought goodness and evil with them. And Achaekek rose to stand between, an arbiter over morality and a judge whose impartial aegis would, in time, crumble to savagery. Yet not all of the first would have names, or even be remembered. One tread forth beyond the Eclipse, but without death yet in the world, this Prince became Bound to a throne in the Spire’s shadow to await his time. And the final would foolishly step forth beyond Pharasma’s first fearful step, and in so doing would be transformed and absorbed by that fear. Whether that fear became Rovagug or whether it was Rovagug who was the devouring fear, not even the gods can remember.

As those First Eight became, so did Pharasma feel something else wake on the far side of time. Just as she had walked a deosil spiral to create, a widdershins spiral wound in opposition at the other side of reality, where the Lurker at the Threshold formed the second anchor of creation. Pharasma thus learned that each cycle required not only a Survivor, but also a Watcher. So that between the two, between Pharasma and Yog-Sothoth, all reality would thus become the Great Beyond. Thus began the Age of Creation.

The pale goddess Pharasma sits on a floating stone throne in judging a line of ghostly translucent souls from the Pathfinder Windsong Testaments fiction.

Illustration by Mark Molnar

And so in the ages that followed, Pharasma remained upon her throne. She watched and judged all who passed from life into death, and as time wore on the number of the dead grew apace to the number of the born. And in time, Pharasma beheld her second fear. An event beyond anticipation fractured fate, and on all worlds, the flow of prophecy was forever altered. Storms raged, empires fell, gods died, and in the least fortunate corners of reality, entire worlds came to an end. Pharasma herself lost track for that brief moment of what had yet to come, and when she opened her eyes again, she saw that the Seal had vanished, leaving behind a featureless void. She reached out to the Watcher to inquire if such a ripple in destiny had ever occurred before, to determine if the loss of the Seal had always been ordained, but the Watcher would not reply.

Yet reality went on. Mortals were born, and mortals were slain. Pharasma’s second fear abated, and she realized that the lost Seal was not an ill omen, but more akin to the passing of a parent or teacher. Now, this cycle of reality had matured to the point where it could continue on its own, and Pharasma knew that, going forward, reality was well and truly on its own. The apogee of creation had passed, and Pharasma knew that her days ahead would forever be in the shadow of her days behind. And while she knew how much time remained, she knew as well that there was more than enough for mortal life to enjoy more glories and triumphs than they could envision.

And even though reality must eventually end, Pharasma does not despair. She knows that the number of the dead has never before eclipsed the number of the born, for even as the Watcher witnesses from outside the cycle, there must always be a Survivor to carry on within the cycle to begin the next. In time, the flux of the born shall cease, and their number shall become a static record. And in those final hours, Pharasma knows she must prepare the next cycle’s Seal, and she must watch and wait as the final count of the dead approaches. And when that final visitant from life steps before her throne to be judged, Pharasma knows that it will be the Survivor who stands before her, and that she will not judge but will herself be judged. And so, with her death, shall this cycle end.

But it is here that Pharasma’s final fear awaits. The fracture of fate and the loss of the Seal has made her conviction falter, and she no longer knows for fact that she shall be the penultimate death. For if she steps before herself to be judged, and leaves behind none to Survive, the cycle shall end and nothing shall wend.

About the Author

James Jacobs is the Creative Director for Pathfinder. While he was there at the beginning of Golarion’s creation, many of the deities worshiped by that world’s heroes and villains had already existed for decades before. Goddesses and gods like Desna and Rovagug, Sarenrae and Abadar, Achaekek and Zon-Kuthon first established their faithful among PCs and NPCs alike in James’ home campaign in the late 80s and early 90s. Sharing them with the world as deities of the Pathfinder setting, seeing players and creators come to love and hate them (and in some cases cosplay as them), has been a career highlight.

About the Windsong Testaments

On the northern reaches of Varisia’s Lost Coast stands Windsong Abbey, a forum for interfaith discussion tended by priests of nearly twenty faiths and led by a legacy of Masked Abbesses. At the dawn of the Age of Lost Omens, Windsong Abbey suffered as its faithful fought and fled, but today it has begun to recover. A new Masked Abbess guides a new flock within, and the Windsong Testaments—parables about the gods themselves—are once again being recorded within the abbey’s walls. Some of these Testaments are presented here as Golarion’s myths and fables. Some parts may be true. Other parts are certainly false. Which ones are which is left to the faithful to decide.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Web Fiction The Windsong Testaments
101 to 150 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Ed Reppert wrote:

James Jacobs said "Dahak is our evil dragon god."

Okay, fair enough. Different worlds and all. But...

"Commander, you are laboring under a misapprehension. I am not in your Moon. I am your Moon." -- Dahak, an Utu-class Planetoid of the Fourth Imperium, in Mutineer's Moon by David Weber.

Did not catch your meaning. Is it about the name Dahak ?


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Yes. In the Pathfinderverse Dahak is an (the) evil dragon god. In other universes he is something else.

Liberty's Edge

Ed Reppert wrote:
Yes. In the Pathfinderverse Dahak is an (the) evil dragon god. In other universes he is something else.

Well, dahak has several meanings IRL. I guess the one Paizo used is : "Dahak, a demon in Zoroastrianism".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Wiki link. I believe this interpretation is the inspiration of Dahak as a three-headed dragon:

Quote:
Aži Dahāka is the most significant and long-lasting of the ažis of the Avesta, the earliest religious texts of Zoroastrianism. He is described as a monster with three mouths, six eyes, and three heads, cunning, strong, and demonic. In other respects Aži Dahāka has human qualities, and is never a mere animal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arcaian wrote:
LordPretzels wrote:
I love all the Windsong Testaments. It would be great if these get picked back up. I've reread this one in particular several times since it was posted.
Just came back to re-read this one yet again, and noticed the comment I was going to make was already here! It's a lovely piece of fiction, and I've love for more work like this to come out.

I'm still hoping for a LO Travel Guide-style book full of Golarion's mythology and stories like this.


James Jacobs wrote:
This is the one that I was most excited for folks to get to, to tell the truth. There's a LOT in this one that reveals things that I've had in my head about the mythology that haven't seen print or even really been hinted at. (The original plot/draft of the "Strange Aeons" adventure path had the PCs learning some of this during the course of the adventure, but that went a different direction when I was moved off that project to instead re-do Curse of the Crimson Throne, alas.)

Super late to the party, I know, but I’m running Strange Aeons in 2e and I can’t help but wonder at what kind stuff you originally planned. Was it relating to Yog-Sothoth and the info you shared here?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Optic_TH wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
This is the one that I was most excited for folks to get to, to tell the truth. There's a LOT in this one that reveals things that I've had in my head about the mythology that haven't seen print or even really been hinted at. (The original plot/draft of the "Strange Aeons" adventure path had the PCs learning some of this during the course of the adventure, but that went a different direction when I was moved off that project to instead re-do Curse of the Crimson Throne, alas.)
Super late to the party, I know, but I’m running Strange Aeons in 2e and I can’t help but wonder at what kind stuff you originally planned. Was it relating to Yog-Sothoth and the info you shared here?

Some of it, yes. Since I shelved those plans, though, they could potentially show up later in a different context. (Originally, one of the things I wanted the PCs to discover in Strange Aeons was a pre-mortal object of some sort that would reveal the "original gods of this cycle of reality" to the PCs, but also start to explore what happens when reality resets, what came before, and what exists Beyond the Great Beyond.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Some of it, yes. Since I shelved those plans, though, they could potentially show up later in a different context. (Originally, one of the things I wanted the PCs to discover in Strange Aeons was a pre-mortal object of some sort that would reveal the "original gods of this cycle of reality" to the PCs, but also start to explore what happens when reality resets, what came before, and what exists Beyond the Great Beyond.)

I would be absolutely jazzed to run or play this material if it ever does see print. Strange Aeons was a blast and while a direct sequel is probably not ideal for reasons that are a spoiler, another spiritually similar AP that gets into the sorts of "deep truths about reality" would be wonderful to see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Optic_TH wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
This is the one that I was most excited for folks to get to, to tell the truth. There's a LOT in this one that reveals things that I've had in my head about the mythology that haven't seen print or even really been hinted at. (The original plot/draft of the "Strange Aeons" adventure path had the PCs learning some of this during the course of the adventure, but that went a different direction when I was moved off that project to instead re-do Curse of the Crimson Throne, alas.)
Super late to the party, I know, but I’m running Strange Aeons in 2e and I can’t help but wonder at what kind stuff you originally planned. Was it relating to Yog-Sothoth and the info you shared here?
Some of it, yes. Since I shelved those plans, though, they could potentially show up later in a different context. (Originally, one of the things I wanted the PCs to discover in Strange Aeons was a pre-mortal object of some sort that would reveal the "original gods of this cycle of reality" to the PCs, but also start to explore what happens when reality resets, what came before, and what exists Beyond the Great Beyond.)

Thanks for the insight. I’m going to take that idea and run with it. The lore is really awesome and your work is stellar.

My group decided to head to Caliphas before taking the Sellen River to Cassomir. They went to the Maiden’s Choir and I seeded some stuff about blasphemous claims by the Old Cults that vaguely hinted at the cycle.


Since this has been bumped up I have a question- why is Yog-Sothoth described as CE? I understand their (its?) followers do chaotic and evil things, but their depiction here and in a few other places seem to suggest more Neutrality.

So neutral it drives you to madness !


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizzare Beasts Boozer wrote:

Since this has been bumped up I have a question- why is Yog-Sothoth described as CE? I understand their (its?) followers do chaotic and evil things, but their depiction here and in a few other places seem to suggest more Neutrality.

So neutral it drives you to madness !

Yog-Sothoth

CN


Quote:

Yog-Sothoth

CN

Real annoyed I didn't double check this. I do stand behind a lack of evidence for a chaotic outlook, but I am on weaker footing now.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

The Remaster eliminates alignment. How will that affect this story, particularly the First Eight?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering that the story doesn't explicitly reference alignment, aside from Ihys and Asmodeus collectively creating and defining goodness and evil, it could be that nothing really needs to change. There are still 8 (+Boneyard) major outer planes around the outer sphere which still adhere to the same basic concepts as when the spiritual essence they were composed of had objective alignment.

Moreover, as a myth and one among many, even if the fundamental reality of the cosmos is different from before because of he remaster (rather than merely our understanding of it), this story doesn't necessarily need to change any more than Asmodeus' account of being personally one of the first two needs to change in reflection of this story.

So, I suspect this story will not be affected--though I wouldn't mind if the remaster brought forth new tidbits of the early multiverse and the myth-shrouded and somewhat conflicting accounts of what actually happened in those days.


The eight initial outer planes could simply be attributed to "the seal had eight sides."

If it had a different number of sides, there would have been a different number of initial outer planes. As to why the seal took the form it did, you would have to ask somebody from the previous universe.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

So, that would mean asking Pharasma, or Yog-Sothoth, or Zon-Kuthon, I guess. ;-)


It could be as simple as "the previous universe was tied strongly to a 3x3 alignment grid, and this universe is much less so." Like this could be a thing we lost along with the Omens.

Liberty's Edge

The eight alignments are the eight steps Pharasma took at the beginning. Which is why she is the center (True Neutral).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
The Remaster eliminates alignment. How will that affect this story, particularly the First Eight?

Won't affect the story at all. We've eliminated alignment as a game mechanic in the remastered rules with a 9-part combo, but the concepts of law, neutrality, chaos, good, and evil are still a part of the setting.

Also, without the nine-axis alignment constraint, this story works a little better, since there's 8 deities created after 2 start out (Pharasma and Yog-Sothoth).

It's true that the nine alignments DID set up and inspire me to write this story, but it still works in any setting, regardless of whether it has classic D&D alignments or not.


If this thread is still open, I recommend renaming Tiamat into Drakaina, from Greek mythology. The first dragons could have been snakelike heads from Drakaina that were blessed by Apsu and became the metallic dragons. After the ordeal with Dahak, the waters rose, took on a more hydra/dragon-like form and named itself Drakaina. Maybe Drakaina has its snakelike heads detached and scouring the planes, searching for Apsu, which return to her body after a time when they don't find him, nor Dahak. Perhaps she seeks to absorb them both into herself for some reason, and that's why Dahak, nor his possible followers, do not reach out to her. Just an idea I thought to put out there though.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

We've pretty much long-ago replaced the role of Tiamat in Pathfinder with Dahak, and with the remaster, we have to abandon the whole concept of metallic and chromatic dragons anyway.


LordZevvel wrote:
If this thread is still open, I recommend renaming Tiamat into Drakaina, from Greek mythology. The first dragons could have been snakelike heads from Drakaina that were blessed by Apsu and became the metallic dragons. After the ordeal with Dahak, the waters rose, took on a more hydra/dragon-like form and named itself Drakaina. Maybe Drakaina has its snakelike heads detached and scouring the planes, searching for Apsu, which return to her body after a time when they don't find him, nor Dahak. Perhaps she seeks to absorb them both into herself for some reason, and that's why Dahak, nor his possible followers, do not reach out to her. Just an idea I thought to put out there though.

You could equally adapt the Greek mythical Echidna, who was also like Tiamat as a mother of monsters and consort of a primordial, though the Greek myths focus more on the destructiveness of Typhon...who is, canonically, a dead Prince of Hell, or at least there was one with the same name, killed by Ragathiel rather than Zeus. Perhaps Echidna still hasn't gotten over it, and is looking to settle the score with her draconic progeny? Echidna arguably fits the archetypal role D&D's Tiamat fills than the real-world mythical Tiamat does.

And anything that related to Greek mythology, particularly if it relates to Iblydos, piques my interest.


James Jacobs wrote:
We've pretty much long-ago replaced the role of Tiamat in Pathfinder with Dahak, and with the remaster, we have to abandon the whole concept of metallic and chromatic dragons anyway.

But isn't Dahak the son of Apsu? That means there must be a mother who begot Dahak! Surely she would not be called Tiamat and would not have five heads, but... does that mean we can expect to see the third dragon deity in Pathfinder Remaster?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
We've pretty much long-ago replaced the role of Tiamat in Pathfinder with Dahak, and with the remaster, we have to abandon the whole concept of metallic and chromatic dragons anyway.
But isn't Dahak the son of Apsu? That means there must be a mother who begot Dahak! Surely she would not be called Tiamat and would not have five heads, but... does that mean we can expect to see the third dragon deity in Pathfinder Remaster?

There's no particularly compelling reason why Apsu must have had a mate nor Dahak a mother. If the Remaster needs a third dragon deity, we may see one, but I wouldn't assume the necessary existence of one based the above.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
We've pretty much long-ago replaced the role of Tiamat in Pathfinder with Dahak, and with the remaster, we have to abandon the whole concept of metallic and chromatic dragons anyway.
But isn't Dahak the son of Apsu? That means there must be a mother who begot Dahak! Surely she would not be called Tiamat and would not have five heads, but... does that mean we can expect to see the third dragon deity in Pathfinder Remaster?

I mean, these are gods. They don't necessarily reproduce in the standard way in Pathfinder or in Earth mythology.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

None of the Pathfinder deities are true gods, they weren't born from another gods skull.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
We've pretty much long-ago replaced the role of Tiamat in Pathfinder with Dahak, and with the remaster, we have to abandon the whole concept of metallic and chromatic dragons anyway.
But isn't Dahak the son of Apsu? That means there must be a mother who begot Dahak! Surely she would not be called Tiamat and would not have five heads, but... does that mean we can expect to see the third dragon deity in Pathfinder Remaster?

Doesn't mean that at all. Deities don't have to be born. They can come into being in any number of ways anyone can imagine.

The problematic point about Tiamat is that she's a five-headed dragon who combines the traditions of the five metallic D&D dragons as far as most gamers are concerned—that's what the vast majority of gamers want and expect and appreciate about that version of Tiamat. She's one of D&D's most iconic and recognizable villains, particularly when you factor in the fact that Takhisis from Dragonlance is the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, Tiamat as a five-headed devilish dragon is D&D's triumph to enjoy, not Paizo's to ride the coat-tails of.

That said, there is absolutely 100% room for more dragon gods in Pathfinder, and we'll introduce them as makes sense. Tiamat won't be one of them though. Neither will Bahamut.

EDIT: This is the exact same sort of problem that faced us with drow. What gamers want is a triumph that I feel D&D should be able to continue to use as one of their most recognizable elements. As we move away from OGL and using D&D content and into the Remastered rules and our own content (either created brand new or adapted from mythology or literature or whatever), things like Tiamat and drow have to be left behind by us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would be interesting to me in particular if the axes of "intradraconic conflict" are not oriented along the traditional good/evil or law/chaos dimensions.

Like the new dragons in the Monster Core are tied to the traditions of magic right? It would be interesting (to me at least) to have the basic dragon conflicts be like material v. mental and spiritual v. vital, particularly since this allows for shifting allegiances (like the Arcane and Divine dragons don't get along, nor do the Primal and Occult, but every other pairing makes for uneasy allies.)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do feel its bit skeptical about how Monster Core seems to focus on making D&D classic things more mythology accurate, but apparently D&D has just stolen some things completely to be unusable as myth accurate. Its not really big deal to me personally(Pathfinder doesn't have all real life mythology deities so it missing one mesopotamian one isn't big deal. That and none of them were strictly dragons, so if they had Ishtar instead as Dahak's(who was in myth some evil emperor with snake shoulders) dragon mommy, it'd be same really :p*), but I just don't believe in it, so I feel compelled to comment on it.

(this is topic I don't really budge on until I see at least some data to suggest its actually the case. Like yeah D&D and Pathfinder player overlap exists, especially with veterans who started to play this game as 3.5 D&D, but its kinda rare to see people jump from 5e to PF2e and even then I don't know how much they would care about whether Pathfinder lore conflicts with D&D lore considering it already does so. That and I think its more likely people associate Tiamat as five headed dragon from Final Fantasy than D&D's multi colored one)

*rather than having Tiamat question is: Do we want Dahak to have mother or third major dragon deity? Pathfinder thus far hasn't really "needed" third one, though it could be cool to have third major dragon deity associated with Apsu and Dahak so options aren't just "good one and evil one"), there are other dragon deities already. As said, it doesn't really need to be either Tiamat, Ishtar or any other mesopotamian deity, it could be original character, not even a dragon, or even just Dahak not having literal mother


Interesting. Some creatures do reproduce without a mate, so there doesn't have to be a mother for Dahak. Deities, full or otherwise , do have control over reality (maybe not as much as some like Monad), so reproduction, or it's possible equivalents such as cloning, is possible for them. An alternate creation story could be that Apsu created all dragons, but the first one, Dahak, became drunk with power, draining his siblings' power, rendering them as mortal dragons. But this led to him becoming insane and infecting certain dragons, turning them largely evil, and destroying everything he creates in his madness. Of course, there could be a female dragon deity out there, maybe a sister or daughter of Dahak who seeks to absorb all dragons and returning them to balance (she could be true neutral for 1e's sake), but Apsu sealed her away somewhere unknown. Just some more thoughts.
Coming up with ideas can be rather fun for me.

As to the remastered rules, I don't mind much about them, it'll take getting used to, but did aasimars and teiflings have to be named nephilim? Its a hebrew term that seems a bit overused and misunderstood in certain genres and I absolutely hate that hebrew term, and I'm jewish. I strongly feel something else should have been more appropriate, like celestial-kin and fiend-kin. But, that's just my 2 cents.
Anyways, any further thoughts on Apsu and Dahak? Like I said, maybe there could be a dragon deity that's an in-between?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually asked about that, apparently sensitivity consultant approved nephilim as term?

(I think its one of those term where it kinda splits on whether people like it or not)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LordZevvel wrote:
Some creatures do reproduce without a mate, so there doesn't have to be a mother for Dahak.

Mythically speaking, Athena sprang from the skull of Zeus after he devoured her mother, Metis, to become his inner conscience, fully formed and armed for battle. Aphrodite rose from the ocean after Kronos castrated Ouranos and threw the, er, bits into the waters, still foaming with creative potential. Egyptian thought had the Kamutef, an archetype where a god could father himself, being his own son, causing himself to come into being. Real life religions should be wary of mythic literalism, but for a fantasy game that's a tremendous narrative canvas. Dahak could have split off from Apsu parthenogenically, he could have been born as Apsu's hateful thoughts physically leaving his skull because they were incompatible with a good god, he could still be part of Apsu, each god one half of a larger being, neither able to prevail over the other, he could be anything.

As for Nephilim, I was under the impression that they were apocryphal to Judaism, unless I'm confusing them with another group of beings? I think doing away with the division between Aasimar and Tiefling is an interesting change, making them two sides of one coin, and hope they retain some of the flavour through heritage options, whatever name they use. Honestly, 1e simply had far too many plane-touched who were basically the same, but descended from a different outsider, and bringing them under one umbrella term is probably for the best.


Fair point, and true that nephilim is/are apocryphal beings. However, not all offspring of the divine beings were called nephilim (or nephil for singular). Some had other names depending on which fallen celestial being was their father, like the Anakim, sons of Anak (sound familiar?). But it's been many years since I've read up on that, particularly since more studies, and continued restoration, are needed on the Dead Sea Scrolls, where most of the legends or terms come from. I'm into occultic (occult is another rather misunderstood term which means hidden or esoteric) Jewish mysticism but rather hard to know what to study as there's so much BS fluffery out there, especially with all the new age materials on shelves and sites.
I also like the term demi-devil or demi-demon (or demi-fiend?) used for tian description of teiflings in a certain Pathfinder novel. Seems to fit much more nicely. All in all, nephilim has negative connotations with it because of the history if the term, particularly since they were descended from fallen angels or celestials (which devils essentially are), so it could still fit teifling after reconsideration, but maybe not so much aasimars.
Maybe in a 2.0 Remaster Rules there'll be more appropriate terms?
That said, does WotC have ownership to certain words?
Doesn't make sense if so, kind of how a certain Mexican food restaurant couldn't lay claim to the Taco Tuesday idea, so Taco Bell, as well as other restaurants, took them to court last year and won in pretty much every state. Look it up, it's interesting. In fact, I think the same thing happened to McDonald's over the term 'Big Mac'. Of course, I'm no lawyer so I don't know if it could apply in the case of WotC. Of course, Paizo probably doesn't have the backing to take them to court, even if so, it's probably not worth it financially as Wotc is much more loaded, perhaps someday in the future.

Anyways, sidetracked again, Apsu the dragon of goodness and order; Dahak the dragon of evil and destructive anarchy; just needs one more, or so it seems, in my opinion. Though if not, how could the lore be changed or reworked if so?

Maybe Paizo should hold a contest where people come up with new lore, for Golarion or otherwise? Heck, I have a character origin/backstory that could fit as Golarion's version of Beauty and the Beast, if anyone wants to read it? 😁


I'm on record as thinking that Paizo missed a golden opportunity to use Tyrant's Grasp as an excuse to retcon a bunch of stuff through Timey Wimey Stuff, and that they could have justified things like the disappearance or nonexistence of the Drow, the change in terms like Tiefling/Aasimar to Nephilim, renaming Sargava and the absence of slavery as a significant force in the Inner Sea, as Butterfly Effect consequences of the time travel like the redemption of Nocticula. But it's a bit late for that at this point.

I doubt Paizo are trying to copyright "Nephelim," and the reverse may be true - they are specifically using a term in the public domain because they're happy for people to use it. The whole point of the OGL/ORC business was the limiting of certain rulesets which would cut into people's ability to use setting-neutral stuff. Tiefling and Aasimar are, IIRC, still terms covered by the OGL but it's better safe than sorry, whereas the word Nephalim literally cannot by copyrighted because it's a real-life term.

I don't think Golarion needs a Tiamat-alike necessarily, but if I was was going to use something WotC hasn't copyrighted, again, I'd look at Echidna as a similar figure drawn from mythology who could be just as nasty an antagonistic force, and whose existence can be justified by the pre-established former existence of Typhon as a Prince of Hell. Perhaps the story where Ragathiel killed Typhon is apocryphal, or an exaggeration of his role helping Apsu destroy him, and Echidna tricked him into conceiving Dahak as her revenge on him? Paizo have been emphasising lately that many of the stories about the gods in-universe may not be literally true, and there is room for heterodox myths. And we've had confirmation lately that Eric Mona has been doing a deep dive recently for his personal notes on Casmaron, also involving Iblydos - I've long thought that if you're going to have a place equivalent to Classical Greece, then it would feel wrong without the Greek gods, or a pantheon similar to them, and tying Echidna's introduction into fleshing out Iblydos would be perfect in my book.


Casmeron? Interesting! I've long wondered when they were going to release more in depth lore on Kalesh and Vudra. I've wanted to run a campaign the goes through those areas but material is limited.

That said, I've thought of something a couple weeks ago for drow/dark elves that could add a spin to them. (So they don't have to be shelved) A significant group of dark elves, individual or whole houses, that fled or were outcast from general drow society, had come across a massive locked gateway into a Vault of Orv. They stayed there for many years trying to open it but were unable to, and slowly turning to their stereotypical drow ways. Until one day, a group of Vudran mystics comprised mostly of monks, clerics, and psychics, led by a vision, came across the large group of outcast drow, as they were deep beneath north-central Vudra. They taught them self-control, discipline, and even balance. Then, after a year or so, the dark elves, led by the Vudran mystics, channeled their new abilities and managed to open the Vault of Orv, inside finding a demi-plane thats is like a miniature version of Golarion with a tiny sun in the middle encased in nigh indestructible crysta(similar to the inner earth in the Godzilla Vs. kong movie). Feeling that they had reached a form of enlightenment, the Mystics renamed the dark elves, calling them Deep Elves (and/or a vudran word with a similar meaning) , for they had found a deeper meaning, a deeper purpose, and deep enlightenment. The Mystics left, with a number remaining with the Deep Elves to help keep them from straying (and maybe love was forming with some) as the Deep Elves moved in and settled throughout the Vault.

What do you think? Though they obviously already have plans for Casmeron, it would be cool if they added something like this.

Liberty's Edge

No more drows.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morhek wrote:

I'm on record as thinking that Paizo missed a golden opportunity to use Tyrant's Grasp as an excuse to retcon a bunch of stuff through Timey Wimey Stuff, and that they could have justified things like the disappearance or nonexistence of the Drow, the change in terms like Tiefling/Aasimar to Nephilim, renaming Sargava and the absence of slavery as a significant force in the Inner Sea, as Butterfly Effect consequences of the time travel like the redemption of Nocticula. But it's a bit late for that at this point.

I am extremely happy Paizo did not do a magical reset/retcon of the setting.

It always feel like a lazy cheating way out to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like any discussion of the drow (regardless whether we wish they could have remained in the setting or not) properly belongs in its own thread rather than the blog post for the Three Fears of Pharasma. Even if the retroactive non-existence of the drow weren't already confirmed a dozen times over, I'm reasonably confident that they do not qualify among Pharasma's enumerated anxieties.

Dark Archive

For me, I've personally never been interested in CE Tiamat as Dahak's mommy. I was always more interested in her Pathfinder equivalent being CN or such. You know someone terrifying, but not someone malevolent.

If Paizo later introduces another mythological or original character as Dahak's mother, I hope as well its not just alternate evil dragon but something that sticks different from both Apsu and Dahak.


Speaking on Pharasma, any idea on what her official stance on Dhampirs is? I understand her followers are officially split, some saying they're alive so leave them alone, others saying they're undead spawn so eliminate them. But I don't recall anything on Pharasma's view on it. Probably stays silent when asked, like she does on other topics, like what exactly happened to Aroden that he died.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dhamphirs aren't undead so pharasma wouldn't care and I haven't seen any lore text myself that would imply Pharasma or her church cares about them.

Thing about Pharasma is that she doesn't really care about how you live your life particularly(immortality is annoying, but basically fine because you are eventually going to die anyway. After all you can't escape Pharasma's judgement, reason why raise dead spells to delay your fate is allowed for same reason, your soul is still in its proper place in cycle of souls), its just undeath she cares about because that's when soul's place in cycle is corrupted. And dhamphirs aren't undead.

If Pharasmin cares about it, its their own thing and not supported by doctrine as far as I know

Shadow Lodge

The Raven Black wrote:
Morhek wrote:

I'm on record as thinking that Paizo missed a golden opportunity to use Tyrant's Grasp as an excuse to retcon a bunch of stuff through Timey Wimey Stuff, and that they could have justified things like the disappearance or nonexistence of the Drow, the change in terms like Tiefling/Aasimar to Nephilim, renaming Sargava and the absence of slavery as a significant force in the Inner Sea, as Butterfly Effect consequences of the time travel like the redemption of Nocticula. But it's a bit late for that at this point.

I am extremely happy Paizo did not do a magical reset/retcon of the setting.

It always feel like a lazy cheating way out to me.

Return of the Runelords was the opportunity for timey-wimey f+%@ery, anyway. And I agree that, with respect to slavery at least, making its eclipse a social revolution rather than a narrative retcon was the correct move -- if I am still miffed that it was relegated to the background, and largely made by elite reformers.


CorvusMask wrote:

Dhamphirs aren't undead so pharasma wouldn't care and I haven't seen any lore text myself that would imply Pharasma or her church cares about them.

Thing about Pharasma is that she doesn't really care about how you live your life particularly(immortality is annoying, but basically fine because you are eventually going to die anyway. After all you can't escape Pharasma's judgement, reason why raise dead spells to delay your fate is allowed for same reason, your soul is still in its proper place in cycle of souls), its just undeath she cares about because that's when soul's place in cycle is corrupted. And dhamphirs aren't undead.

If Pharasmin cares about it, its their own thing and not supported by doctrine as far as I know

Actually, it says in the Blood of the Night player companion that the faithful (or church) of Pharasma are split. Half say let dhampirs be, half say kill them. I was just wondering about the position of Pharasma herself. But, like you said, Pharasma doesn't really care about that, so she'd be neutral on Dhampirs,like pretty much everything else.

Dhampirs are my favorite race, or one of my top 3, so I was just wondering on further lore.
Also, anyone know who to contact about starfinder? Dhampirs are strangely absent in starfinder as a playable race/heritage, and there are vampires (albeit very rare) in the starfinder setting so it would make sense there are SOME Dhampirs at least. Perhaps a woman was on the plane of shadow or somewhere with undead and was bitten/ violated and out came a dhampir.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Dhampirs are not undead, and are living creatures, so Pharasma herself would regard them as such.

Liberty's Edge

LordZevvel wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Dhamphirs aren't undead so pharasma wouldn't care and I haven't seen any lore text myself that would imply Pharasma or her church cares about them.

Thing about Pharasma is that she doesn't really care about how you live your life particularly(immortality is annoying, but basically fine because you are eventually going to die anyway. After all you can't escape Pharasma's judgement, reason why raise dead spells to delay your fate is allowed for same reason, your soul is still in its proper place in cycle of souls), its just undeath she cares about because that's when soul's place in cycle is corrupted. And dhamphirs aren't undead.

If Pharasmin cares about it, its their own thing and not supported by doctrine as far as I know

Actually, it says in the Blood of the Night player companion that the faithful (or church) of Pharasma are split. Half say let dhampirs be, half say kill them. I was just wondering about the position of Pharasma herself. But, like you said, Pharasma doesn't really care about that, so she'd be neutral on Dhampirs,like pretty much everything else.

Dhampirs are my favorite race, or one of my top 3, so I was just wondering on further lore.
Also, anyone know who to contact about starfinder? Dhampirs are strangely absent in starfinder as a playable race/heritage, and there are vampires (albeit very rare) in the starfinder setting so it would make sense there are SOME Dhampirs at least. Perhaps a woman was on the plane of shadow or somewhere with undead and was bitten/ violated and out came a dhampir.

SF2 will use the same game engine as PF2. So once the SF2 rules are out, you should be able to port the PF2 Dhampir with zero change required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think that the reason Pharasmin priests may be split in the lore is that so many dhampir give into their nature and become full fledged vampires, so why not destoy them when they are arguably less powerful? And the other group would say 1) They're living beings with free will and that's a genocidal attitude to take, and 2) Some of the best and most effective hunter of the undead, not to mention the most devout Pharasmins, are dhampir themselves.

Also, dhampir in 2e are considered a versatile heritage. I'm a full throated advocate for removing the term "race" from games unless it is socially relevant. Paizo no longer uses it so I think it's important to leave in the past.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Morhek wrote:

I'm on record as thinking that Paizo missed a golden opportunity to use Tyrant's Grasp as an excuse to retcon a bunch of stuff through Timey Wimey Stuff, and that they could have justified things like the disappearance or nonexistence of the Drow, the change in terms like Tiefling/Aasimar to Nephilim, renaming Sargava and the absence of slavery as a significant force in the Inner Sea, as Butterfly Effect consequences of the time travel like the redemption of Nocticula. But it's a bit late for that at this point.

I am extremely happy Paizo did not do a magical reset/retcon of the setting.

It always feel like a lazy cheating way out to me.

Return of the Runelords was the opportunity for timey-wimey f#$@ery, anyway. And I agree that, with respect to slavery at least, making its eclipse a social revolution rather than a narrative retcon was the correct move -- if I am still miffed that it was relegated to the background, and largely made by elite reformers.

It wasn't the background though? It was very literally the first AP of second edition. That was your "fighting slavery in the inner sea, and leading by example to get it abolished everywhere" AP.

Liberty's Edge

Cori Marie wrote:
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Morhek wrote:

I'm on record as thinking that Paizo missed a golden opportunity to use Tyrant's Grasp as an excuse to retcon a bunch of stuff through Timey Wimey Stuff, and that they could have justified things like the disappearance or nonexistence of the Drow, the change in terms like Tiefling/Aasimar to Nephilim, renaming Sargava and the absence of slavery as a significant force in the Inner Sea, as Butterfly Effect consequences of the time travel like the redemption of Nocticula. But it's a bit late for that at this point.

I am extremely happy Paizo did not do a magical reset/retcon of the setting.

It always feel like a lazy cheating way out to me.

Return of the Runelords was the opportunity for timey-wimey f#$@ery, anyway. And I agree that, with respect to slavery at least, making its eclipse a social revolution rather than a narrative retcon was the correct move -- if I am still miffed that it was relegated to the background, and largely made by elite reformers.
It wasn't the background though? It was very literally the first AP of second edition. That was your "fighting slavery in the inner sea, and leading by example to get it abolished everywhere" AP.

I did not realize that was it. Excellent to know. I love APs where the PCs have a marked impact on the setting.

Thanks for the info.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, Age of Ashes book 5 is all about undercutting support for a major slaving group in Katapesh. LO: Firebrands then details the conflict that follows after the Pactmasters institute reforms.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I did not realize that was it. Excellent to know. I love APs where the PCs have a marked impact on the setting.

Thanks for the info.

It wasn't, that's a post hoc rationalization. And it's still the Pactmasters making the reforms, with radicals shaking power rather than the people taking power. There has not yet been an AP where the latter happens.

101 to 150 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: The Windsong Testaments: The Three Fears of Pharasma All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.