Adjoint's page

I wasn't asking about activating the rune.

Activating the rune is a one-action command activity, yes, but it doesn't coat the wepaon with poison right away. It only allows to coat it later (within 1 minute), and the coating takes "the same number of actions as normal", which is usually two.

And I'm asking about this second activity, the using of stored poison. The command to activate the rune is already in the past, the rune is active and I'm spending those two addictional actions to apply the poison. It's not an Interact activity, as you pointed out, so yeah, I don't see a reason to say that it would have manipulate trait. But I'm not convinced that it requires a second command (which woud give it auditory and concentrate traits).

Let's say we have a weapon with the Coating rune on it. The rules say that

Effect For 1 minute, you can apply stored oils and poisons to the weapon without needing any hands free. Applying them takes the same number of actions as normal. An oil or poison applied this way pours directly from the extradimensional space onto the weapon, and when it's fully applied, its empty vial is ejected.

Let's say I have a posion stored inside and I have already activated the rune. Applying the poison is normally a 2-action activity with the manipulation trait. It\s clear that it still is a 2-action activity, but does it still have manipulate trait, since now I can do it without using hands and it's just directly poured from an extradimensional space?

Sorry, I need to be more specific, because I wasn't thinking about the bloodbird's curse. I've been thinking of a curse with stages, like the mummy rot of the mummy guardian).

The curse trait says

A curse with stages follows the rules for afflictions.

Is such a curse removed when one makes a successful save while being on Stage 1? That's how afflictions work.

A question in the topic: can't one recover from curse naturally, by making saves? Doesn't making saves against the curse count as an effect that specifically targets curses?

It also implies that light from a magical light source also can't pass through the barrier at the edge. Note that this line makes no exceptions for magical light sources either.

Yes, but it only talks about seeing outside from the inside (or rather: not seeing it). Therefore it can be understood as talking only about the light trying to pass through the border from the outside.

If it were to be understood that the border doesn't let light pass both ways, it would create the situation I described in the previous post: the spell cast around a strong light source would be affecting the outside of its area more that the inside (it would prevent the illumination outside while not affecting how bright it is inside), which is counterintuitive and I don't think it should work like that.

Also once the light source enters the area of Darkness, then the light also doesn't leave the area. So the inside of the Darkness effect will be lit, but not the outside.

I wouldn't go that far. True, there is the sentence "From outside, it appears as a globe of pure darkness.", but I think it describes the appearance of the area of Darkness only when it's not illuminated inside by a strong light source. It would be very strange if the area affected by Darkness spell would be better lit by a given light source than the area not affected by the spell. If the light source is so strong that it is not suppressed by Darkness, it should also be able to shine through the border of the area, giving the illumination outside and revealing the illuminated part of the area that without it would be affected by Darkness.

We don't agree, Deriven, but I'm not going to discuss counteracting any longer, that wasn't my original problem anyway. I just wanted to check what people of the community think on how the area of Darkness is affected by an object affected by a strong Light cantrip. There's no counterspelling, no using one spell to counteract another, just two spells cast in a basic manner.

And my understanding is: not at all. Regardless of the strength of outside light sources, the area of Darkness remains dark. It can only be illuminated by a Light cantrip if the object affected by the cantrip is brought inside (and the Light is of high enough level).

By the way, from this understanding comes a surprising conclusion: if you're inside the area of Darkness, then no matter how strong the light sources are and where they are, you won't be able to see anything outside the area, as no light from the outside can get inside. You'd need other senses, like darkvision.

Just FYI, I want to point out I can't find a single light spell on AoN with a target line of "magical darkness" or the like.

True, but the light trait can be added to a spell with metamagic, for example with the Scintillating Spell. It would still need to be a spell that can affect other magical effects. Alternatively, it can be argued that if the spell with the light trait affects the same target or area as the spell with the darkness trait then one is targeted directly at another. I wouldn't say so about the Light cantrip (targeted at an object) and Darkness spell (targeted at an area) though.

Counterpoint: removing all of the precise senses of one side of a combat has a much more disruptive effect on the balance of an encounter than negating a slotted spell with a cantrip does.

You know, I think that changing the balance of the encounter by modifying the conditions on the battlefield is the intended purpose of all battlefield control spells. It's no bug, it's a feature.

As I understand it, counteracting targets differently than the normal targeting of a spell. If you use a counterspell effect, you target the spell regardless of what that spell can target.

I'm asking about the interaction of two effects, light and darkness, cast normally. Counterspell is a special reaction that requires a feat to use. If you Counterspell, you don't actually Cast A Spell, you just expend a spell slot, so it does in fact ignore many requirements present when you Cast A Spell. Whether spells with light trait can always be used to counterspell spells with darkness trait is another question.

If a light cantrip used to counteract darkness, you don't have to target the object as you could target the darkness effect. Nothing in counteracting indicates the target of a spell has anything to do with counteracting.

It is in the description of Light trait: "You must usually target darkness magic with your light magic directly to counteract the darkness, but some light spells automatically attempt to counteract darkness." The Light cantrip cannot be targeted directly at darkness, and it says nothing about doing it automatically, so it cannot be used to counteract darkness.

The Light trait says a light effect can counteract darkness regardless of what it targets.

That is just false. As I quoted above, the light trait explicitly says you usually must target darkness magic to counteract it.

Yes, a light cantrip can. Any spell with the Light trait can target a darkness effect regardless of what it comes from. The light trait is specific in what it does.

The light trait says no such thing. It doesn't allow the spells with this trait to target anything else than listed in the particular spell's description.

The four dark circles in the area A3 (Hazy Shrine), what are they supposed to be?

If your Light cantrip is stronger than the Darkness spell, then sure it wins. But on a tie or worse the Darkness wins. No counteract.

The only situation I'm hesitant is when a stronger Light shines from outside. Because if it's inside then it's clear that it won't be suppressed and it will illuminate the area inside. But if it's outside, then it seems to me that the Darkness spell will still stop the light from entering, without actually suppressing or counteracting the light source.

Adjoint wrote:

Light cantrip targets an object, not an area, and it does not say it can counteract magical darkness, so I don't think that rules allow for what you are suggesting.

Right. If the source of the Light spell is in the area of the Darkness spell, then Darkness has its own rules for which one wins.

But if the source of the Light spell is outside the area of the Darkness spell and all they have is an overlapping area, I would have the two effects run a counteract check - not to dispel the Light or Darkness spell entirely, just to decide which of the two effects actually happens in that shared area.

Yeah, it can be a fair home rule, but I don't think it is supported by rules as written.

Move the Light cantrip of equal spell level to the Darkness's spell level to the middle situation (is suppressed) and you're good. Darkness suppresses magical light of its (Darkness's) spell level or lower. The only situation the Light cantrip is not suppressed while in Darkness's area is if its spell level is higher than the Darkness's spell level

Right, if the levels are equal, the Darkness will still suppress Light. I've corrected the original post.

From a practical standpoint in order to get the game running in a way that seems fair - I would probably have the two effects run a Counteract check to see which effect takes priority over the shared area.

As I understand it, spells with Light trait can counteract spells with Darkness trait, but only if they target the darkness magic directly or say that they counteract magical darkness in their description.

Light cantrip targets an object, not an area, nor a spell effect, and it does not say it can counteract magical darkness. Besides, successful counteracting means ending the spell, not just suppressing it on some area. I don't think that rules allow for what you are suggesting, but it could be a fair home rule.

How does the Darkness spell interact with light coming from outside, if that light is created by a high-level spell?

Darkness spell says "Light does not enter the area" and by this point, it makes no distinction between magical and non-magical light. So as I see it, the light from outside does not enter the area of Darkness even if it is created by a higher level-spell.

It's true that in the following sentences the description of Darkness talks about suppressing non-magical light sources in its area, and it also says "This also suppresses magical light of your darkness spell's level or lower.", but I understand the latter as talking about suppressing low-level magical light effects in the area of Darkness. As I see it, it does not alter how the spell interacts with the light coming from outside.

To sum up, let's consider an object with a Light cantrip cast on it.
- If the object is outside the area of Darkness, then it glows as per description of the Light cantrip, but its light does not enter the area of Darkness, regardless of the level of the Light cantrip.
- If the object is inside the area of Darkness, but the Light cantrip is of lower or equal level than the level of Darkness, then the Light cantrip is suppressed.
- If the object is inside the area of Darkness, but the Light cantrip is of higher level than the level of Darkness, then the Light cantrip works normally, and it illuminates at least a portion of the area inside the Darkness, as per the description of Light cantrip.

Is this correct?

Another thing to realize is that most fantasy settings go with "There is about 5 000 years of written history human history" because they ape the real life history progression :p (forgotten realms and eberron both have first mention of human civilization about 5000 years before the current year) For comparison, modern humans have existed for about 200 000 years and oldest non recorded known civilization is about 6000 years old.

That isn't the case with Golarion. Besides the obvious 10 000 year ago earthfall happening thing we don't know exact time scale of Azlant, but they likely existed for multiple thousand years at least.

Even with such long past, the Earthfall did wipe out a lot, and there are few reliable sources on that past.

For comparison, Classical Greeks knew that there existed a civilization before them - the Mycenaeans - but they've knew little about it, and only the names of some places remained in epics like Illiad. They thought that the walls of Mycenae were built by cyclopses.

Golarion is in better situation, as they have at least one direct link with that age - Aroden. I imagine Aroden told many stories about Ancient Azlant (probably colorizing them to make himself look the best, but whatever), and those stories could spread as legends and tales among Taldan populace, inspiring literature, music, theatre, and visual art.

I would also raise Jaidi to be one of your primary gods - she got much of the Inner Sea back on its feet, and it's a shame that she's treated as "Erastil's forgotten wife" in modern Golarion. Desna, Gozreh, Nethys, Pharasma and Sarenrae are all as important as ever, and Aroden is relatively-recently ascended. You've also got a number of now-dead Demon Lords to play with.

Yes, I plan to elevate Jaidi and some other minor gods, partly to fulfill the roles that would be left empty without gods like Iomedae or Norgorber. I also think that religions would be more regional, for example while Nethys would be well known and widely worshipped in Garund, it wouldn't be so in Avistan, where the regional god of magic may be one of the Eldest, Asmodeus, Irez, or Aroden himself.

I'd push back on a lack of ancient ruins - Sekmin, Ghol-Gan, Azlanti, Jistkan, and Tekritanin sites are all already hundreds or thousands of years fallen here, which gives you plenty to dig around for.

True, they would be around in certain areas, I was too much thinking about the area around the starting point of the campaign around Taldor. In this area there could be some ancient Azlanti ruins, and there would be elven ruins in Kyonin. The dwarven empire of Tar-Taargadth is still strong, so I don't think there would e many abandoned dwarven ruins.

Osirion's not exactly past its prime, considering it isn't conquered for another 1500 years.

It's still alive, and it will be for some time, but at its peak of power it controlled all northern Garund. At the beginning of Age of Enthronement it controls only the area similar to modern Osirion.

- Increased prominence of Lamashtu, Erastil, and Gozreh- deities that lose relevance to people the more established and widespread cities are.

Yes, and with this line of thinking some deities that are considered minor in Age of Lost Omes could be major in the past. I'm thinking aboult elevating the prominence of Jaidi (wife or Erastil, goddess of sun and agriculture), the Eldest, and Apsu.

- I'd probably have thaumaturges making up a big part of Aroden's cult, using relics that have been blessed by him- a chalice implement is just any cup that he's drunk from, a bell implement any instrument he's heard, etc. I think that helps play up that this is genuinely a god living among mortals.

Nice idea, definitely there would be many "rellics" like that, some real, and some fake.

- One country beyond what you mentioned is probably known well outside it's borders. Nidal is the example of what a god's attention looks like, eternally locked in the Age of Darkness they bargained to survive. It's a thousand years older than any empire.

Wasn't Nidal isolationist through most of its history, as Zon-Kuthon doesn't like his people leave its borders?. But yeah, there may be legends about the Realm of Darkness far to the weest (fro Taldor perspective).

- I think you're wrong about nations without writing systems, though. Post-apocalyptic civilization has been going strong for 3,500 years. As much as I love me some bronze age fantasy, I think it'd be late Age of Anguish/early Age of Destiny for that. (Obviously, you can mess around with things how you like for your home game.)

I try to draw parallels to real history, and I think that Taldor at this point could be compared to Roman Republic or early Roman Empire, with general Porthomos (the leader of Great Army of Exploration) being compared to people like Scipio Africanus or Julius Caesar. As I understand real history, at that time many nations (especially in Europe) didn't have their own writing systems yet.

Not too sure when the specifics of the Starstone ascension for Iomedae, Cayden, and Norgorber happens but I've got me a feelin' that those 3 and their associates wasn't around back then. ;)

Of course. And I don't think that Irori is around as well, at least not in the Inner Sea Region.

I'm planning a campaign set in Golarion's past (early deays of the Age of Enthronement, circa 40 years after Aroden raised the Starstone and founded Absalom), and I'd like to make the world feel more like antiquity, in opposition to medieval-style fantasy most of Pathfinder seems to be designed for. Any ideas?

To highlight the most important features of that era, as given by the offical history of Golarion:
The elves have not yet returned from Sovyrian (though desert elvest, jungle elves and others exist) and the dwarven empire of Tar Taargadth is still powerful. Aroden is a living god and still personally present on Golarion, haven't moved to Axis yet. Taldor just started its expansion with its First Army of Exploration. Empire of Kelesh reached the border of Taldor just 80 years ago, and there were some wars between Qadira and Taldor, but no century-log conflict yet. Osirion is past its prime, and was unable to keep the control over the lands of (future) Thuvia and Rahadoum. Nex and Geb are both alive at that time and actively fighting each other.

My ideas so far:
Of course, I need to exclude all more modern items and classes (like gunslinger). Alchemy will be more like herbalism and witchraft than science (with the exception of Thuvia, who I imagine would have rather scientific approach to alchemy, even in that age). There would be fewer impresive ruins - pretty much only those truly ancient, from before Earthfall, but those would be better preserved and less explored. There would be no Common language, as there was no empire of Taldor yet. There would be few poeple travelling great distances, and the cultural exchange between regions would be limited. The knowledge of the world beside the borders of one's own country would be very limited. There would be many areas where humans are not the dominant species. There would be many nations (hhuman or non-human) that have no writing system. There would be no one pantheon worshipped all across the Avistan, but rather many different pantheons worshipped by different cultures; some deities, like Pharasma may be universally known, but even they may be called, imagined and worshipped in many ways.

I'm trying to desgn a game set at the beginning of the Age of Enthronement, soon after the Taldor's First Army of Exploration. I wonder, how to depict Taldor's expansion into new territories? I imagine it being some mix of Pax Romana and Manifest Destiny, but maybe you can add tell how do you imagine it and maybe give some references that could be an inspiration?

Was there a the patron deity of thieves before Norgorber?

If you could bring to Earth one character you created (or took part in their creation), with all their powers and personality, who would that be?

We know that Belcorra died in the lighthouse, and it looks like she bled out. What happened to her body afterwards? I cannot find any mentions about it other than it's not present where she died.

That's the way mythology works. Full of contradictions and mystery and impossibilities.

Is the published lore supposed to be the description of the setting or just the myths that the inhabitants of Golarion have about their world? If sometimes this, sometimes that, is there a way to tell when it's what?

There's nothing like that, at least nothing official. Singular words or phrases were at times given in some languages, and some languages were desrcibed as being derivative of another, both none of the languages are given a complete vocabulary or grammar.

Most of the official informationa bout languages you can find on the wiki, with the links to sourcebooks that may contain a bit more. But t's not much.

Creating a full language is a lot of work, and I'm glad that Paizo is using their energy for other things.

I believe that a significant part of this time is the travel via the River of Souls. It was never specified how long it takes. Though it was said that when Mahathallah hitched a ride on the River of Souls, she took a particularily winding route , and by the time she reached the end so much time has passed that ther shrines in the mortal realm turned to rubble.

On, the topic, since we know that Sorshen and Xandergul were ones of the original runelords established by Xin, was there a time when they were known as Runelord of Love and Runelord of Humility respectively, and properly represented these virtues?

Beside the wishcrafters, imentesh protean can use polymorph any object 1/day, but to call it with the standard planar binding, you need the Augment Calling (protean) feat, or another way to increase the HD limit of the planar binding.

An afflicted lycanthrope gets no ability to transform voluntarily or to control their actions while transformed in PF. There was a control lycanthropy skill in D&D but not in PF. The will save lets them remember their actions but nothing more.

So what is the meaning of this line:

An afflicted lycanthrope can assume animal or hybrid form as a full-round action by making a DC 15 Constitution check, or humanoid form as a full-round action by making a DC 20 Constitution check. On nights when the full moon is visible, an afflicted lycanthrope gains a +5 morale bonus to Constitution checks made to assume animal or hybrid form, but a –5 penalty to Constitution checks made to assume humanoid form.

a secondary natural attack has nothing to do with BAB, no realation, you can have secondary natural attacks at level 1 with 0 bab.

Yes, but tI'm not talking about -5 penalty for making additional attacks when having high BAB. I'm talking about the rule

Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls.

that is applied to the secondary attacks even if they are gained at 1st level with 0 BAB.

But never mind that, I think I've figured out the relation between Cleave and natural attacks: you cannot make Cleave with secondary attacks precisely because they don'ere a primary natural attack, it could be used to continue the cleave, but tail slap is secondary, so it cannot.

unless you have an ability that states otherwise once you gain the grappled condition you no longer threaten any creatures around you

Is that correct? I know you cannot make AoO when you have grappled condition, but I can't find a rule that you don't threaten their squares normally, for the purpose of making attacks during your turn or flanking. I know it has been discused in other topics, and I believe that interpretation that being able to make AoO is dependedt on threating, but not the other way around.

Additionally, cleave doesn't indicate that you must use the same weapon. So, if the creature has another attack available to it it could finish the cleave using that weapon, while keeping the 1st enemy grappled. If the creature only has one weapon/attack I don't see anyway for it to make the 2nd attack unless it either fails it's initial grapple check, immediately releases it's first target, or foregoes it's first free grapple all together.

That poses another question. What if the other weapon is a secondary natural attack. Take the werecrocodile (Bestiary 4) as an example. It has Cleave, bite with grab and tail slap attack. Cleave says that the second attack is made at full BAB. Can the second attack be made with the tail slap, even though it is a secondary natural weapon, and thus it usually takes -5 penalty to the attack roll?

I have a monster with the Cleave feat and grab ability. When it attempts to Cleave and hits an opponent, should it first make a grapple attempt, or continue with the cleave?

Cleave As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. (...)

Grab If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. (...)

Grab ability grants additional free action, andt it is used immediately after the attack. But the same can be said for Cleave, which grants and additional attack (not specifying what action it is), also to be performed immediately after the first one. So which should go first: Grab or Cleave?

If Grab goes first can the attacker continue the Cleave? If Cleave goes first, can the attacker still attempt to Grab the first opponent?

Inner Sea Inrigue gives some long-lasting rumors that are out there, though in the Lost Omes setting some of them may be outdated:

Cheliax’s Real Agenda: “People love to complain about Cheliax—once you bind a few devils, you’re an irredeemable monster forever, apparently. But Cheliax has to be aggressive. Queen Abrogail knows that a second Age of Darkness is coming, and if humanity doesn’t have a united, tightly controlled front, we won’t survive.”

Expanding Mana Wastes: “Imagine a world without magic. No clerics healing us, no wizards driving off dragons. Well, we might get a taste of it. You heard of the Mana Wastes, where magic doesn’t work or goes haywire? The borders move a mile outward each year, and you’ll never hear the authorities admit it, but no one knows how to stop it.”

Pathfinder Society’s True Origins: “Did you ever wonder why the Decemvirate in charge of the Pathfinder Society is so mysterious and secretive? It’s because at least one of them has been around from the beginning, and long before that—the Pathfinder Society was founded by one of Old-Mage Jatembe’s Ten Magic Warriors. Why else would there be ten members of the Decemvirate, why else would they wear masks, and why else would the Ten Warriors not have graves?”

The Prince Is Dead: “Grand Prince Stavian sure has his minions do a lot of work for him, huh? You know why that is? Turns out, the prince has actually been dead for a long time. His people can’t let that get out, though, because then his daughter would take the throne. And those Taldans can’t stand the thought of that.”

Secret Pirate Puppeteers: “Everyone talks about being a pirate like it’s this romantic life of freedom on the high seas. There’s way more to it than that. Pirates answer to the Free Captains of the Shackles, and the Free Captains answer to Sargava. It’s the Sargavans who control the pirates of the Inner Sea region.”

Terrible Creatures Underground: “Sure, elves are pretty and wise and benevolent and all that. But when they go bad, it’s like nothing you’ve ever seen in these parts. There are hordes of evil elf-things living underground, breeding with goblins and worshiping demon lords. Let’s hope they stay underground and far from us.”

He was invented by H.P Lovecraft, yes? Did he ever write how to pronounce it?

Probably with a third mouth.

I would pronuce it as BOCK(like dock)-ROOG, but English is not my first language, so I pronunce a lot of thins in a weird way.

What GM OfAnything said. Mortals can be resurrected only for as long as their soul waits for the judgement. Once a soul lands in Hell (because of Pharasma's judgement) or because the mortal was sacrificed in a special ritual it becomes a petitioner and can no longer be resurrected. There is another way to transform a petitioner back into a mortal (spell Judgement Undone) but if the soul has been processed and made a part of a devil, even this method is unavailable. At this point, possibly only an intervention of a deity can bring back the mortal, and seeing the deities can do that even if the soul of a mortal was destroyed (for example consumed by daemons), my suspicion is that this divine intervention just creates a soul identical to the original (so it wouldn't affect the devil).

I have the hero339's Thistletop map.

There is a picture of Aroden fighting Tar-Baphon in Mythic Realms, but it deosn't help, as it incorrectly depicts Tar-Baphon in his lich form.

The relevant pictures are in

Campaign Setting, p. 180
The Great Beyond, just inside the cover (before the pages get the numbers) - the same immage as in the Campaign Setting
Planar Adventures, p. 66

Additionaly, in The Great Beyond, on many maps of the individual planes you can see parts of the planes that border them. For example on the map of Axis you can see a part of the Pharasma's Spire, on the map of Maelstrom you can find an abyssal rift and a coast of Elysium, and on several maps you can see parts of Maelstrom.

Golarion also offers second chances. An adventurer who died and went to the afterlife of Erastil could decide Erastil's afterlife was too tame for him. Resurrrected by his friends, he could switch to a more adventurous god, such as Iomedae. I don't think either god would mind.

Actualy, all souls that are resurrected were never judged and have never seen any afterlife. Pharasma knows whether a soul has not yet fullfilled its destiny and whether it will be resurrected, and if so, she just postpones its judgement until later time. Once a soul was judged and sent to afterlife they are transformed into a petitioner and they cannot be brought back even by a True Resurrection. In such a case only the spell Judgement Undone can turn them back into mortals, but it's much more difficult to perform and usually brings forth the wrath of Pharasma on the caster. (source: Planar Adventures)

Thread necromancy!

In the NPC Guide I've found the story of Tpannon, who is actualy not one person but a long line of people using one identity in succession for 200 years, using a hat of disguise passed from one wearer to the next. Such feat would be impossible if the hat of disguise would require constant reusing.

Though most likely the creator of the story just didn't care about the limitatons of the rules.

Having an ego big enough to have its own gravity and bend the fabric of the astral plane seems like a prerequisite to become a divinity anyway.

I believe it happens very rarely and always in a unique fashion - there is no telling what will happen. Basically, as almost everything regarding gods in Pathfinder, what happens depends on what makes the best story.

Still, there are several cases that are worth mentioning.

Ihys. The first god that died. According to the Concordance of Rivals, the soul of Ihys was the first to be judged by Pharasma after she created the River of Souls. His further fate is unknown.

Curchanus. The first god killed by someone else than other god. He didn't survive losing the dominion over wild beasts, which was stolen by demon lord Lamashtu. Before death he transfered his remaining power to Desna. It is said that Lamashtu used his dead body to create nascent demon lord Daclau-Sar.

Acavna. Died trying to stop Earthfall. Her body plummeted on the Goalrion and penetrated deep into the planet crust. The Mordant Spire is said to form from her soul trying to reach the Boneyard.

Amaznen. Sacrificed himself during the Earthfall, absorbing the magic of alghollthus from the Starstone debris, stepping outside of the reality and vanishing from the existence.

There are also multiple demigods and lesser divinities that died one way or the other. For example, the dead bodies of demon lords killed by Nocticula transformed into her Midnight Isles. Meanwhile the souls of demon lords accumulate in the Rift of Repose.

There is also a creature in Bestiary 6 called a charnel god, which is formed when a shard of a dead deities's power infuse a statue of said deity. The creature;s description mentiones also the dead deity's power being scattered across planes and causing various magical phenomena.

To sum up, it seems that unlike most outsiders, gods have separate body and soul; and their divine power is something altogether different, not tied directly to either. The body remains where the deity has died; it can be manipulated and transformed into some other form. The soul, stripped f its body and power, is judged by Pharasma, though it is unknown where they go after being judged. The power, assuming it wasn't transfered before their death, will scatter around, creating phenomena all arcross the planes; supposedly those shards may in future trigger the ascension of new divinities.

I believe there's also the fact that if a deity has worshippers, they can put a claim on the souls of these worshippers. And since most of the deities reside on the Outer Planes, where everything is made of soul matter, having more souls means larger planar domains. If a deity doesn't have worshippers, their planar domain will eventually get eroded by the Maelstrom. It doesn't kill the deity, but it needs to find a new place to live.

"Empyreal" is basically just a synonym for "celestial"

This isn't exactly true. If you get to the etymology of the word, "empyreal" is an adjective made from the ancient Greek word "empyros", which means "on fire" and was used in ancient comologies to denote the highest heaven. Adjective "celestial" originates from the Latin word "caelum" which just means "heaven". So empyreal is the highest form of celestial.

I find it interesting that "empyreal" has no connection to "empire" which comes from the Latin word "imperium", denoting "the authority to command".

A lot of information about Empyreal Lords can be found in the Chronicle of the Righteous. It gives details on 35 various empyreal lords, though more likely exist.

I imagine they wanted a place that is more secure than some alien world. They were all paranoid and fearful that when they'll be deprieved of their minions and resourcers one of their enemies, which they all doubtlessly had many, would take this opportunity to take them down. So they've created places of their own making where they couldn't be reached, ordered their minions to rebuild their power ase while their away, and expected to return when it will be safe again. They just haven't expected the destruction of Thassilon to be so thorough.

Chelaxians think they are superior everyone, halflings are just one position on a long list. Even devils are seen as serving Cheliax, not the other way around. Give it few more decades, and they will even have Asmodeus portrayed as a Chelaxian.

All Mutagens are Polymorph effects.

I guess that's the point - what transmutaton effects you can use with mutagens.

Morph spells also may be affected:

Your morph effects might also end if you are polymorphed and the polymorph effect invalidates or overrides your morph effect. For instance, a morph that gave you wings would be dismissed if you polymorphed into a form that had wings of its own (though if your new form lacked wings, you’d keep the wings from your morph). The GM determines which morph effects can be used together and which can’t.

but Transmutation spells that have neither Polymorph nor Morph traits are unaffected. As I imagine, they give enhancements independent of form (like Ant Haul), or they really affect its surroundings of a creature (for example Fly spell affects the air around the creature), or so they don't end when the creature is polymorphed. And of course transmutation spells that manifestly affect the environment (like Entangle) are unaffected.