Scarablob's page

Organized Play Member. 20 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


I finally finished the mwangi expanse book, and amongst the plot threads I found most interesting was the hungry school (and to a lesser extend, the king of bitting ants, which may be tied to the school since they are both about ants and tied to the color red). But I can't seems to find any more info on the school, is there any other book (from either edition) that talk about it in more detail? Anything that confirm they are tied to each other?

I'm thinking of making an oracle tied to the school somehow, so I would like as much info as possible on these.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RiverMesa wrote:

So the location-based setting sourcebooks all have a tradition of introducing at least one new ancestry (azarketi in Absalom, and poppets in Grand Bazaar by technicality; anadi, grippli, gnolls, conrasus, shisks and golomas in Mwangi Expanse; who-knows-what in Impossible Lands), and I'd expect such a book to follow as well.

Now, there are two obvious candidates for inclusion here - the alien lashuntas that the crash-landed Divinity scooped up from Castrovel and brought along in cryo-sleep, and the more enigmatic but likely similarly transported kasathas, both elevated in popularity by way of Pathfinder's science-fantasy cousin game.

On top of these two, the river kingdoms would be the perfect place if they ever want to introduce boggard as playable ancestry, as they are very commonplace here. I want to hope for bog striders too, but them not being fully humanoid, as well as being very bound to a specific type of terrain make it very unlikely unfortunately.

Likewise, mendev/sarkoris/the remain of the worldwound could lead them to introduce mongrels as a flexible heritage, altho fleshwarp may already fit that slot.

Honestly tho, the thing I'm the most curious about for a broken land book is the river kingdom. I know that pretty much everyone that played the kingmaker created a very different kingdom, so they have to not elaborate on it much, but some part like pitax or the fae presence had too much importance to simply be glossed over, and I want to see what they decide to do with it. Also, I like swamp, and for me the river kingdoms are the perfect setting to adventure into.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Porridge wrote:
Though the first book of Serpent's Skull was really good - probably my favorite first book of any AP.

As far as I'm aware, it's pretty much the consensus for serpent's skull. The first book is absolutely amazing and maybe the best module/first part of an AP paizo ever produced, the rest is at best a hot mess that take a lot of rewritting to make fun.

One of the advice I see most often about SS is to only run that first module, and then connect it to the skull and shackle AP (who happen to be a well liked AP with a first module that is considered pretty weak).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know lost omen books are lore first and mechanic second, but the thing that hype me the most about a darkland book would be the return of the fungal pilgrim druid. Really, any shroom oriented druid archetype/order/build would be great (likewise for any other class, but druid take priority in my mind for that), it's just that the fungal pilgrim flavor just feel right, and isn't really there at all in PF2 yet (but then again, it came really late in the first edition life cycle). I would also have said a return of the vermin rider cavalier, but PF2 did away with cavalier as a class so it's not possible (but thanksfully, it also did away with treating invertebrate as lesser and needing to make archetype just to accomodate them, so not having bug focussed archetypes isn't really a problem anymore, we can ride giant bettles without them).

Lorewise however, I must say that none of what I saw in pathfinder 1e darkland really appealed to me. I never really liked the drow, altho I understand that they are very iconic to that region, and never cared much about any other darkland specific ancestries. But then again, I didn't really cared about the mwangi expanse before the lost omen book about it, So I know paizo could pull it offand make me interested in these people. It would be rather challenging and demand a lot of retcon tho I think, because it's pretty much the one place of the setting where human are the exception rather than the norm, and also because a lot of the darkland races can be summed up as "evil slaver folk that want to rise from the depth to conquer/enslave the surface but can't do it because the sun scare them".

Likewise, while I love the idea of an entire underground world, whith an entirely different kind of challenge and environment than what we see on the surface, I feel like most of what we saw here (and most of what we see of DnD darklands too) is focussed on gigantic open caverns, which function exactly like the surface would, the only difference being the absence of day/night cycle, and the fact that the sky is replaced by a ceiling. What interest me the most in these kind of setting would be the rather alien environment, more focussed on narrow, claustrophobic passageway, and on the climbing skill as the most usefull type of movement. I would like a darkland book to be less focussed on these "big cavern place", or at least that devellop more the network of tunel that constitute most of the darkland.

graystone wrote:
First, nothing is said about the need for anyone "innocent" and there is no mention on WHY they want immortality. Again, if there are sacrifices, they could be volunteers, condemned prisoners, ect.

I mean, to me at least, killing volunteer or people (rightfully) condemn to death isn't "incredibly evil" (which are the word used by the rule book itself). It's not as if the book only required the sacrifice of a living, conscious being, in which case you can always imagine a way to have such sacrifice without it being that evil, it doesn't require a particular act, it require evilness itself. Incredibly evil is something inarguably wrong and evil no matter how you slice it. From what I understand of the book at least, none of what you propose could be part of a lich ritual, because none of them are "incredibly evil".

And sure, if your DM agree, maybe in your game the ritual will slide you a bit toward evil without making you evil. Or you could even slightly change the requirement to have a ritual that isn't "incredibly evil", but rather "evil, but understandable" or even "merely morally grey". But my point is that, only following the rules as written, there is no way to me that a person willingly doing the ritual to become a lich can be anything other than evil.

For me, lich can't start being anything else than evil for two reason :

- The ritual is described as "incredibly evil". Not "arguably evil", it can't be "killing an already evil/dying/dangerous person for personal gain", it can't be "stealing some arguably unnecessary body part for unwilling people", it have to be an act so evil that it's evilness can't be argued.

- The sole benefit of lichdom is conditionnal immortality. You can't have a situation where you need the "power of lichdom" to save someone/something, because lichdom don't give you power, merelly resilience. Lich are incredibly powerfull not because they're lich, but because they have to already be incredibly powerfull to become a lich in the first place, and because being a lich give them all the time they need to further increase their abilities.

So because it require you to commit such incredible evil act, and because it's solely an egoistical pursuit, lichdom can't be good or even neutral. It's not an evil act that kinda slide you toward evil, but one that firmly plant you into an evil alignment, no matter where you were before. You may be redeemed, you may come to regret your actions and try to atone for what you've done, but when you become a lich, you can't be anything other than evil.

However, there is one exception. In the pathfinder lore, it is possible to reach lichdom against your will (it was after all the whole scenario of an adventure path), so I guess that if this happen to you, you might be a non evil lich from the begginning. Likewise, turning someone else into a lich could be some misguided attempt at protecting them, and thus I can also see in that way a very roundabout way to have someone do the lich ritual without being evil themselves (altho they certainly won't be good, I can see why some very desperate people can do that and stay neutral).

graystone wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The process of becoming a lich turns you evil.
Only for monster/NPC ones: the archetypes doesn't do that. You can make it that way in your game if you want though.

While the archetype don't explicitely say that being a lich make you evil, and it don't talk about the ritual in great detail, one of the few it give about it is that the ritual *have* to be "incredibly evil", which make it very difficult to imagine a lich that begin lichdom not being evil.

Sometime, doing incredibly evil stuff "for the greater good" may be argued as being morally grey, having to kill an innocent to save a city don't necessarly mean that you're evil. But doing "incredibly evil" stuff to gain immortality? Even for someone who did countless good deeds before, I don't think they can be anything else than evil.

Like, imagine, you know of a doctor who saved countless lives, never asked for payment from poor people, etc. Also, they had a weak heart and was in need of a transplant (not in any immediate threat of death, but they had to get a new heart sooner or latter if they wanted to live long), so they killed the first compatible donnor they met just to have it. How is that doctor anything but evil?

shroudb wrote:

You're doing it wrong.

You build the Ultimate Dungeon of Death indeed. And then you take the "insert name here" and go to the little village in the side and hide it in your unassuming cupboard right next to the sugar and salt.

Bonus points if you are also the shopkeeper that informs the adventurers about all the wondrous treasures to be found in the "creepy dungeon nearby".

Problem with this method is that the soul cage emit a big magical evil/necromantic aura, anyone that can see or sense magic in any way will feel that there's *something wrong* in the cupboard. And on top of that, people could simply use divination to detect where exactly it is. And finally, Even if you manage to hide the magical aura, and protect the cage from being detected by divination, the evil/necromantic magic it emit will slowly corrupt it's surrounding, indicating to people that there's something not right here.

Best solution to me is to stach it away in some demiplane of your creation, and make it so that people can't go into the it from other plane, you can leave it but not enter it. That way, whenever you die, you're recreated inside the plane and can leave as you want, but no one can enter. The only problem would be that even you can't enter the plane without being destroyed first, which mean that if by some b#!~%@@@ way people manage to access it, you won't be able to return to it to defend the cage (or just to grab it and run).

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

The more I think of it, the more I love the concept of the Soul Cage.

The Lich does heinous things just to become an undead and exist forever. And then they are shackled to an object that has the potential to ensure their final destruction.

I think that is enough to make the sanest person a raving paranoid. If they want to keep on surviving, which is the goal for which they gave everything, they have to expect the worst from anyone and anything.


When you think about it, it's not even really "an object that has the potential to ensure their final destruction", destroying the soulcage in itself don't really affect the lich, it just remove it's "always come back" power. The nuance may not seems really important, but when you look at it this way, a lich whose soul cage was destroyed is still immensely powerfull and immortal magician, the only difference is that now, it die if you kill it. It don't destroy them, it don't even remove half of the power they gained upon becoming a lich, it just make them less invincible, which is still enought for most lich to go completely paranoid at the thought of losing their soul cage.

I do think the sacrifice they have to make to become a lich is a big factor of why they obsess so much over protecting the soul cage, even if most lich aren't conscious of it. In a way, the soul cage is the embodiment of everything they sacrificed to come this far, so the thought that it may be "all for nothing" if the cage is destroyed might be a big drive to protect it so much. Kind of a sunk cost fallacy in a way "I already did so much to create it, why shouldn't I go even further to protect it?".

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Even better if the lich is only mildly evil. Keeping its phylactery protected is effectively a form of paying rent - making sure that it's always far enough down on the priority list of the "crusading goodguys" as a whole.

The turn to lichdom might even have been fueled (in part) by a desire to "continue the watch". If they're the last remainning member of their family, with no heir, they may have interiorised it as "well, I can't die and leave the McGuffin unchecked, if I become immortal, then I'll be able to protect it forever". Of course, there would still be some kind of arrogance tied to it, because even if they're the last of their family, they could just try to find someone willing to accept the charge, so it would be in part fueled by the idea that "only them are strong/righteous enought to keep it".

Actually, it may not just happen because their last of the line, but because they deem their successor (which would probably be their own child) unworthy of the task, and thus they simply "had" to become immortal. The lich ritual require the sacrifice of something of very great importance for the lich... The sacrifice of the chosen successor (once again, probably their own child) would fit the bill perfectly.

And once undead, it's pretty easy to imagine how the lich would start slipping further "just to protect the MacGuffin, honest". Drive the living away by any mean necessary because "they might want it", search and plunder for secret and powerfull magic "to protect it better"...

7 people marked this as a favorite.

An idea that would be fun for a lich would be a twist on that usual story :

"Many generations ago, a great evil was sealed, yet not completely defeated. If the MacGuffin that was used to put an end to it's reign of terror was to be destroy, it would rise to plague the world once again. To make sure this never happen, the MacGuffin was entrusted to a familly of guardian, that will protect and hide it, generations after generations."

The lich is the last member of that familly and decide to make the macguffin itself it's soul cage. That way, it's actually deeply tied to who the lich is, but it's also some kind of dead man switch : if the soul cage is destroyed, then an (apparently) bigger evil than the lich will return. It force the protagonist to be creative, or to face the consequences of their recklessness if they destroy the cage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have the concept of a paranoid lich whose phylactery is their own body, but for the moment, I was never able to use it in any of my adventures (as a villain, I'm DMing way more than I play).

The basic idea is that of a powerfull wizard wanting to achieve immortality, but due to unforceen problem during the ritual, his soul wasn't trapped within the book he wanted it to be, but inside of his own ossature. So of course, now he's paranoid, because he know that unlike the other lich, he don't get a second chance if he get destroyed. Ironically, when he was alive, he never really cared about being in danger, but becoming a lich really made him conscious of his own frailty (compared to other lich that is) and thus fearfull. Altho in my draft of the character, his first line of defense was trying to bluff by announcing to his foe that they can never hope to defeat him unless they first destroy his philactery, hoping that they'll search for it instead of facing him head-on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
If I were to see any antagonist in Rahadoum, my first vote would be the algollthus, but Achaekek is a comfortable runner-up.

If I'm remembering it correctly, Achaekek don't actually seems to mind about rahadoum (while on the other hand, the red mantises seems quite a bit miffed at being kicked out of their home country). So once again, it appear to be a bigger problem for the mortal follower of the god than it is for the god himself.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, the fact that it ban al gods don't mean that all gods are equaly against them, or against them at all. Evil gods are used to having their worship illegalised and their cult working in clandestinity, so it's not much different for them, and they never ally to take down the other countries that ban them (especially since some of them really can't stand each other, like lamashtu and asmodeus). Most good god want to help mortals, but allow them to self-determine, they mostly want to advise them and protect them from evil gods/outwordly presence, so once again, as long as something like a worldwound don't open in the middle of rahadoum, it'll be left alone. Neutral gods all have different views on their worship, some (like abadar) might be miffed to be banned, while other simply won't care.

So even if all the gods who do care about being banned wanted to form a cohalition to take down rahadoum, it will be a minority, the cohalition will instantly fall because they can't work with each other, and they would make the good gods form their own cohalition in defense of rahadoum (as they value mortal lives more than their worship).

In truth, rahadoum is a bigger problem for the gods followers than it is for the gods themselves. a cleric of sarenrae that live nearby may lament all the people of rahadoum the dawnflower could help but that are denied that help, but the goddess herself will see countless other mortal in far more dire situation, and who unlike the people of rahadoum, haven't deliberately chosen to shield themselves from her help. Unless the country or the laws of man start expanding greatly, what happen in rahadoum shoudln't really be that much of a concern for the gods.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know It's pretty unlikely to happen, but as far as "organisation book" go, I would like one on the bellflower network. It being very halfling and slavery focussed mean it have very little chance to be made, but the network was always one of the most interesting part of cheliax for me, and I usually find the basic "good guys society" too bland for my taste.

There was something about that network that I find really captivating tho, and I really want to see more of them.

I'm saving this for the day my group decide to switch over to 2e, they all seems very well made.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In addition to what the other said here, if we get a golden road book similar to the mwangi expanse one, I would like the new ancestries to be a bit more fleshed out fluff wise.

It was my biggest (or rather, my only) problem with the mwangi book, the chapter on anadi, conrasu and the like was almost solely about their mechanic, and we didn't have an in depth view of how their society work and where they are situated, like the various elves culture were for exemple.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Reminded that Golarion has a chaotic good deity of racial supremacy and traditionalism in that same sphere too.

Really feels like there was a huge disconnect somewhere in the process of creating that section of the world.

I mean, somehow Torag's "anathema: show mercy to the enemies of your people" survived into 2e, despite him being "Lawful Good." It's pretty deeply frustrating.

Especially given his place in the Godclaw, I don't see why he isn't LN.

I'm pretty sure that anathema is misinterpreted by most people. The way I see it, it's a more flexible version of the fairly common "show the villain no mercy" rule that being such as Ragathiel have.

Basically, to me at least, that anathema say "you can only spare villains if they don't threaten your peoples", which fit with Torag views on responsability and the like. You can show mercy to a personal nemesis or someone that threaten people you have no responsibility over, but if they threaten "your peoples", then it's your responsibility to put an end to their exaction for good. Torag is okay with you letting a villain get away if the one that may suffer from it is only you, or only peoples you have no responsibility to protect, but once it involve "your peoples", you shouldn't value that villain redemption over their lives, because in torag's eyes, your duty to protect them is more important than the life of whatever is threatenning them.

It seems that lot of people interpret the "ennemies of your people" as somehow encompassing whole races or nations (probably because for a long time and in lot of setting, dwarves had "racial hatred" toward goblin, orcs or other such races), and interpreted like that, it's indeed not good at all (basically being a call to genocide), but I see no indication that torag would indeed see things this way. That an hobgoblin soldier raiding your tow is an "ennemy of your people" is pretty obvious, but it doesn't mean that his son, or "random other hobgoblin of the region" also is. That an army of a neighboring nation attacking you is the "ennemy of your people" is clear, likewise for that nation government, but there is no indication that this apply for every citizen of it.

To me at least, that anathema basically say, "you can grant mercy to your foes at your discretion, exept when said foe threaten those you have a duty to protect, in which case you shall grant them none".

We can never have enought arthropods. Spiders, centipedes and crabs are probably the most obvious one that are missing, but I have to add giant mantis (especially because they are explicitely in lore used quite often as animal companion of red mantis assassins), squids and jellyfish for aquatic companion, as well as wasp (along with the rest of giant hymnopteres, like bees and ants).

Other than the "mundane" (altho giant) animal companion, it would be nice if we could have some ooze and swarm companions (that would probably be either rare or restricted to some class feat/path).

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I only have two main wishes, and they would be :

Lost Omen : The Golden Road

I like ancient egypt:
One of the only 2e book I have is the mwangi expanse, and I really like it, despite the fact that I wasn't really interested in the place before reading it (I only got it because it had stellar reviews and I wanted more fluff about the anadi and grandmother spider). The only criticism I would have against it is that there isn't enought of it, and that I would have liked the uncommon and rare ancestries to also have a 10 page lore summary each. So obviously, I now pretty much want one of these for every part of the setting, and the golden road is the one I want explored that way the most (narrowly beating the broken lands and impossible kingdoms). It's mostly because I want more lore on Rahadoum and (especially) Osirion, which I think is a bit too bland and could use a lore rework, but I'm pretty sure that if such a book was made, paizo would manage to make me interested in the other countries of the golden road.

Basically the mwangi expanse book, but set in another region of golarion. I want it for all the important regions at the end, but the golden road is the one I'm anticipating the most.

Fairy Tales and Fae Adventures

The first world is really neat:
The first world is one of the least explored part of the setting cosmology I feel like, along with the elemental planes (but to be fair, I don't really care about those). A book that introduce mechanic specifically for dealing with the first world, travelling throught it and how it's weird rules might change how the game is played within it would be really great. Furthermore, it could expand on the eldest and include their rules for 2e, add some first world specific archetype and ancestries... Basically a first world oriented "ultimate wilderness" for 2e would be great. Actually, an ultimate wilderness for 2e full stop would be great, especially now that primal magic is it's own thing. Altho it might be too soon in the edition to start introducing the "variant rules" that the ultimate books had.

I like the lore we already have about the first world, I like the fae and their alien morality, I just want more of them, and with maybe a number of fae and first world related archetype, ancestry and the like.