Tom Rex's page

Aaron Shanks wrote:

From the Department of Expectation Management (isn't that what James Jacobs always says?)...

Yup! Although it originated as one of Tom Rex's sole duties.

SHH! Trying to hibernate here! Sheesh.

I don't know what Tom Rex looks like, but I just read some of the blogs for them and now I have the image of a T-Rex wielding a greatsword or greataxe with its teeny weeny arms in my head.

This pleases me greatly.

zzzzzzzzzzzzSNORT What? Oh... must have been a dream...grrrrrrzzzzzzzzz

AND: From the office of managing expectations!

Keep in mind that there's a LOT more ideas folks are suggesting here then we'll likely EVER get to explore in the Modules line, or the AP line for that matter. And the ones that get the most "votes" aren't likely to be the ones we pick up!

This is mostly just an information gathering stage for me to find out if there's a part of the world that I didn't know folks are starved for information about PLUS me wondering if there are areas I hadn't considered.

And by I... I mean the other T-Rex.

THAT'S THE SCOOP!

Tom Rex wrote:

Major_Blackhart wrote:

Rune giant! I am officially pumped for this AP. Now, the big question is how many rune giants will be involved overall. A handful, a small family, a clan? Will these be the grand overlords or ate they themselves serving a higher power?

From the DoEM (Department of Expectation Management)...

I'm pretty sure there are no rune giants in this AP. They're pretty deeply tied into Varisia and Thassilon, and Giantslayer is not set in Varisia and doesn't really have any Thassilon ties whatsoever. We WILL be illustrating at least one rune giant in the AP (as evidenced) but not as an illustration for one of the adventures.

Giantslayer is about something else other than rune giants and Thassilon, and that's on purpose, because we want to tell a different story than what we told in "Rise of the Runelords."

So what's the scoop on Giantslayer, then?

The scoop is YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE IT!!!

Buy five copies!

Rune giant! I am officially pumped for this AP. Now, the big question is how many rune giants will be involved overall. A handful, a small family, a clan? Will these be the grand overlords or ate they themselves serving a higher power?

From the DoEM (Department of Expectation Management)...

I'm pretty sure there are no rune giants in this AP. They're pretty deeply tied into Varisia and Thassilon, and Giantslayer is not set in Varisia and doesn't really have any Thassilon ties whatsoever. We WILL be illustrating at least one rune giant in the AP (as evidenced) but not as an illustration for one of the adventures.

Giantslayer is about something else other than rune giants and Thassilon, and that's on purpose, because we want to tell a different story than what we told in "Rise of the Runelords."

From the department of expectation management: This book is going to focus HEAVILY on the core races, and not so much on the other races. Just as Inner Sea Gods compiled and expanded upon the deity articles we published in Pathfinder, so will Races of the Inenr Sea compile and expand upon the earlier race books we published in the Player Companion line; things like Elves of Golarion and Dwarves of Golarion, which are close to or are now out of print and/or have some early material from 3.5 or early Golarion that wasn't quite on model with where we are right now in Golarion.

There WILL be plenty of new stuff in the book though—never fear there—but the book's purpose is not to provide hundreds of pages of content on obscure races like lashunta, catfolk, triaxians, monkey goblans, ghorans, androids, etc.. Some of those will have some info in the book, some won't... but the bulk of it will be focused on humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, half-elves, half-orcs, and gnomes.

Creatures with racial hit dice, such as dark folk, aren't appropriate player choices and won't be represented in this book at all, really.

From the Department of Expectation Management

While volume #100 will indeed be special and memorable with something extra going on...

...it's only the 17th Adventure Path.

Maybe when we hit AP #20 we'll do something outlandish for the whole AP, but for now... we're not going to do something over the top like a Test of the Starstone AP or something like that.

It'll be pretty cool, and it absolutely will involve elements of things that have been oft-requested here... perhaps not in EXACTLY the way they've been requested, but I think folks will dig it.

And that's the scoop on that!

The real question is: when do we get a "Lords of Madness" book in this style? This books sounds awesome and all, but I want more info for Aboleths and other awesome aberrations!

From the Department of Expectation Management:

This book is not going to be a "Lords of Madness" style book in the first place. It's going to be a lot closer to NPC Codex. It's not going to have a lot of in-depth world content; it's a world-neutal book that focuses pretty heavilly on stat blocks and rules, not so much on ecologies and the like... there'll be some elements of that in here, but if you're looking for that kind of info, we've already published books for these monsters in the various Revisited books.

Correct. Direct from me, the Director of Expectation Management, that stuff wasn't for an unannounced upcoming Arcadia project.

From the Department of Expectation Management...

...chances of ANY of these new iconics being of any other race than one of the core 7 races (dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-elf, half-orc, or human) is pretty much zero.

And that's the scoop on that.

How could anyone forget me? That's FREE BONUS POINTS basically!

From the office of Expectation Management:

Note: when the boss-man says "a LOT of androids" he means a "Certain Amount." Those adventures are being written right now, but how many androids end up in there remains to be seen.

Could be a lot. Could be an amount less than what you might say is a lot. It's gonna be more than one though, that's for sure.

And thats the scoop on that.

RARRRGHHHH!!!

(stomps all over everything!)

From the Department of Expectation Management:

We've already gone on record saying there won't be giant robot vs. kaiju fights in Iron Gods. As cool as that is... it (and a lot of other sci-fi) tropes are not part of the plot we have in the works for this Adventure Path.

Some say he's been busy punching Jaegers in the nads.

Others say he's been going door to door, teaching the under-privileged about the Oxford Comma.

Others still that he's the sole reason the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots didn't spread to Seattle.

All we know for certain is that he's Tom Rex.

Yup.

Who is this Office of Expectation Management, and how do we stop them from ruining our rampant speculation? ;)

It's Me!

You can't stop me!

And that's the scoop!

Jason Bulmahn: Scotch is like Pokemon!

Go Wessie!

I hope Tom Rex isn't upset that he was passed over for the post.

Here's the scoop on that!

Tom Rex isn't big on the "Indoor Jobs." The "Indoor Jobs" tend to make it tough for Tom to grab a meal on the go. Eating employees is frowned upon, Tom Rex has learned. And since Tom's at the top of the food chain as it stands, any sort of promotion at this point would involve a desk and a roof.

Tom's got no interest in that. Tom would rather be out in the field (or forest, to be honest) getting the latest scoop and maybe munching on a herd of cattle. Ones whose horns have been removed, preferably. Horns hurt.

Where has Tom Rex (Ace Reporter) gone?!?!

Here's the scoop! I've been up to two things of late, and one of them was hibernating. You see... not all of us have the boss's outstanding metabolism, and we need to periodically retreat into our dens to get some much-needed recharge time. And then, back to back with my hibernation time, I got sent out on a job in the field. It was a cow field. They were delicious. But now I feel a food coma coming on......zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh?

Then I would like to see Dinosaurs of Golarion. With a special focus on how all classes (not just druids and rangers) can utilize these scions of awesome. Or even better... HOW TO PLAY A DINOSAUR PC! And that's the scoop on that.

It's so hard to choose. They all taste so delicious!

Slumbers back into cave to hibernate some more...

Oh I know I was just having fun messing with you since I know you can't say anything. ;)

RARRRHGH!!! TIME FOR JUSTIN-BURGERS!!!!

Dear Tom Rex,

What forms of bribery and/or sacrifice are most enticing to the Creative Director of Paizo? Is there a chart, forms, or manual somewhere to clarify these things... too much or too little of a bribe is often considered an insult.

Also, is it possible to have a puffin/penguin/tengu NPC of some import in the upcoming Carrion Crown or Jade Regent APs? I'm certain it would lead to even greater sales!

This message brought to you by the People's Front for Tengus.

Tom is still researching this complex and important subject, but here's a short list of things that Tom has found are particularly effective at bribing and/or enticing the boss:

1) Pictures of Merisiel.
2) Anything HP Lovecraft related.
3) Kind words about stuff he wrote.
4) Cute lizard pictures.
5) Dinosaurs, particularly bits of breaking news he might not have noticed (this is not as easy as it sounds, though, because he has a pretty reliable network of informants in this area).

As for Carrion Crown... there'll be tengu NPCs. Not necessarily in load-bearing roles, but they'll be represented, particularly toward the last half of the AP.

Have you ever looked at a really large group of people and asked yourself which among them would be tastiest to a T-Rex?

They're all delicious in their own unique way.

James Jacobs: a great creative director, or THE greatest creative director, ever??

Tom Rex thinks so.

So what's your opinion on this? Does Tom Rex have an opinion?

<.< >.> Science!

Meat is meat. (shrug)

Tom's still using the good old fiendish T-Rex. Tom understands the value of tradition.

Studpuffin wrote:

The most terrible creature alive: A T-Rex wielding a shark.

With those puny forelimbs, it can't even roll dice. Now it could wield the shark with it's mouth, but that would be both redundant and silly.

EATEN!

Tom KNOWS that this thread isn't plotting Tom's downfall. That would be foolish of delicious bite-sized mammals to speak of in an area where Tom's already quite keen senses are turned upon.

Tom's ESL must be kicking in. Tom must be misunderstanding words. Right?

RIGHT?

How does Tom type with those tiny forearms. I mean his head would be over the computer screen....... o never mind I'll just get eaten again if I continue this train of thought :P

How does Jeremy Mcgillan type from inside Tom's stomach? Does he have some sort of wireless connection? Tom feels a bit bubbly in the belly. Maybe he does. Maybe Tom should go swallow whole some angry sharks or something to give Jeremy company in there?

Dear James Why is the T-rexs skin red. From a biological standpoint it is very expensive to produce such skin pigmentation, not too mention most reptiles (other than a chameleon and snakes) have very earth tone pigmentations. And snakes who use the expensively produced pigments for mating display A T-rex would have no use of such a display mainly because of it's physical build, a female T-Rex would be much more impressed by it's body build than a display. I find it highly doubtful and historically inaccurate that your T-Rex image is therefore red. Thank you for your time.

NOM.

Now that that's out of the way, Tom would like to point out two things:

1) That dinosaur is a FIENDISH dinosaur. And red is the color of fiendish.

2) You were delicious. Tom thanks you for being so tasty.

Just to warn you, Tom: EVERYTHING that bites me dies!!

What about stepping on you? Tom has big feet and there are claws on them. OH! OH OH! What about slamming you with a tree? Tom can pick one up with his big mouth and hit you with it! OH! What about standing next to you and then when the meteors come Tom dodges to the side at the last minute?

Tom's just saying that Tom is quite creative in methods of mayhem.

I ate Tom's arms for dinner.

Tom thinks that with a fertile imagination like that, you should talk to Boss Sutter about getting in on our new fiction line. Tell him "Tom Rex sent you."

Tom knows you didn't just make fun of Tom's arms. Because you haven't been stepped on and/or eaten by Tom's foot and/or mouth.

Don't let it happen again, because next time Tom's feet and mouth won't be so slow to make up for it.

Also, here's the scoop: Tyrannosaurus rex arms are very small relative to overall body size, measuring only 1 meter (3.3 ft) long. However, they are not vestigial but instead show large areas for muscle attachment, indicating considerable strength. This was recognized as early as 1906 by Osborn, who speculated that the forelimbs may have been used to grasp a mate during copulation. It has also been suggested that the forelimbs were used to assist the animal in rising from a prone position. Another possibility is that the forelimbs held struggling prey while it was dispatched by the tyrannosaur's enormous jaws. This hypothesis may be supported by biomechanical analysis. Tyrannosaurus rex forelimb bones exhibit extremely thick cortical bone, indicating that they were developed to withstand heavy loads. The biceps brachii muscle of a full-grown Tyrannosaurus rex was capable of lifting 199 kilograms (439 lb) by itself; this number would only increase with other muscles (like the brachialis) acting in concert with the biceps. A Tyrannosaurus rex forearm also had a reduced range of motion, with the shoulder and elbow joints allowing only 40 and 45 degrees of motion, respectively. In contrast, the same two joints in Deinonychus allow up to 88 and 130 degrees of motion, respectively, while a human arm can rotate 360 degrees at the shoulder and move through 165 degrees at the elbow. The heavy build of the arm bones, extreme strength of the muscles, and limited range of motion may indicate a system designed to hold fast despite the stresses of a struggling prey animal (like baron arem heshvaun).

Okay, so we've all had our good laugh together. Now, where's the map?

Here's the scoop, chief: It'll be up on the blog on Monday.

I’ll look at it from a developer’s perspective.

Whenever someone says there are issues with the wizard from a development standpoint, it usually comes down to two things:

The wizard’s flexibility consumes a huge amount of the power budget because developers cannot predict what players will choose.

The wizard lacks a clear identity, so developers do not know what to design for.

In my opinion, the school system was an attempt to solve this problem by making part of the wizard’s spells and chassis more predictable.

However, I also think it failed. If its purpose was to make the wizard less flexible and therefore allow it to have more specialized mechanics, it should have gone further, perhaps even incorporating the Arcane Thesis into the school system.

In my eyes, the wizard’s identity is divided into two parts.

The wizard gains power through study, not through luck, gods, spirits, or demons, but through their own efforts. This is why we do not simply play a sorcerer: the fantasy of being born with power is different from the fantasy of earning it. This is not me dissing anyone, it is simply a fact that the wizard’s fantasy is that of an independent, self-made caster who does not need no god.

The second part of the wizard’s identity is their school. If I ask you what a pyromancer’s fantasy is, we all know the answer: calling down fire meteors. If I ask what an illusionist’s fantasy is, we all know it is being Aizen. If I ask what a polymorpher’s fantasy is, we all know it involves turning into a variety of monsters, Son Wukong-style, and wrecking your enemies.

Therefore, the logical approach would be to make the school the wizard’s entire chassis and then give each school dedicated feat chains, just as the druid has feat chains that lead to powerful abilities, such as polymorphing without a time limit or transforming into a kaiju.

This way, if someone has one of those feats, you know that they have chosen the corresponding school and followed its feat chain. That would make both the flexibility and blandness problems much smaller.

Also, say whatever you want, but the wizard is f$*$ing unwieldy. Instead of creating friction with the class by forcing ten-minute rests, you could give it an ability that works instantly but can be used only three times per day, with the number of uses increasing as the wizard levels up. Alternatively, the ability could work only with spells two levels lower, as Paizo has done with other features.

The wizard should get a third focus spell that it can cast reliably in combat. It should also gain powers that scale with its level, like those of other classes, instead of having abilities that are somewhat good at early levels but become trash later on.

I was wondering whether I should answer to this but I decided that yes it's better to address this.

Yes, there are other classes that can use the divine spells list and there are other classes with similar mechanics like medicine. At no point did I ever claim the cleric was the only healer or the only one with access to the divine spell list. I'm not sure where people got that from.

If any of you want to discuss whether occult or primal casters are as good at healing or whether other classes can be as good as a dedicated cleric with a healing font, we can make a thread about that.

However, what I'm talking about is how restrictions and mandatory behavior may affect players who may, for one reason or another, feel uncomfortable about it.

It's a matter of inclusivity and accessibility. Just as people should not be forced to engage with 18+ themes or other themes that require a trigger warning, people should equally not be forced to interact with the worship of fictional deities, especially in a world where people will sometimes beat and murder each other for worshiping in the wrong way.

Yes, I'm sure there are some atheists who don't mind and some religious people who have no issue with just playing another class. I never said every single atheist and theist had a problem with it.

I also never said clerics, deities, or anathemas should be erased, I only said people who may have a serious issue with religious themes should have an option to have similar mechanics.

I never said PF2 was an MMO or that it should be an MMO, it was just one example of how people from other games may feel like they want to play that specific character and I'm not sure why people are so hung up on that.

I never said healers are being forced to pick a cleric. I'm just questioning the claim that because they picked a cleric they did so because they wanted to have or liked the restrictions. I'm merely pointing out that saying they consented to it so they can't complain is dishonest.

I feel like what I said is at best being seriously misinterpreted and at worst being deliberately distorted.

Agree. All the anathema are opt in, and they are almost universally things a character choosing the associated option would naturally be inclined to do.

If you want a character to have an option but not it's associated anathema, you should think why a character would be drawn to that option and what beliefs they have. What would make them want that option but not it's anathema.
If the answer pans out to be because your making something silly or contrarian, then you should recognise that such things don't generally fit into Golarian, and you should talk with your GM about it.

I don't think that is fair, people didn’t opt to worship a deity or be bound by their rules; they chose to play a class with healer mechanics and then had the deity and anathema forced on them. Their only option was to either accept those two or not play the class.

Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating. Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic). Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here. I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat, and I don’t see the point of forcing someone who doesn’t want to worship gods into pledging divine servitude to a fictional character.

it used to mean a master of LIFE and death in earlier games so:

Harm, Heal, Breath of Life, Raise Dead, Regenerate, Revival,

still think that a necromancer that can't keep people from dying is a joke, if killing people made you a master of death every swordsman would be one.

i give 1 vote for gain the temporary points on sustain.

I'd say the simple explanation for why the scenario you're concocting makes no sense is because it's a straw man you've made up on the spot. Nothing you've just said has any bearing on what I've claimed: you act like I limit my players only to what the rules say, when this is in no way stated or even implied, and cite nonexistent fallacies (what is an "attempt at a reductio", exactly?) to deflect from the simple fact that you are citing the use of "roleplay" as this magical cure-all that can substitute for any and all rules.

On my side, all I did was point out that...

I assume they meant 'Reductio ad absurdum.' They probably shortened the whole phrase to 'reductio,' which is why it came out like that. So presumably, it would be 'attempt at a reductio ad absurdum' By the way, I’m not defending them, just trying to figure out what they meant.

From experience, whenever people use words like "fine," "balanced," or "ok" to defend a nerf, it's usually because the class is so weak that even its defenders can't bring themselves to say it’s powerful or good.

We all know the issue, the wizard's features are simply lacking, and they were nerfed further in the Resmaster update when the class was already bland and underperforming to begin with.

The original nerfs might seem reasonable or minor when examined individually or from a theoretical, white-room perspective. However, in practice, both the intended nerfs and small factors like table variance combine into one massive overnerf that pushes the class into the bottom tier.

This is a design failure. But none of that matters because the developers have said they are fine with it, and the fanbase is deeply resentful of the wizard for being so strong in previous editions, any attempt to adjust it is seen as trying to turn it into a super overpowered "God Wizard 2" or something similar.

In short, there’s nothing we can do from our side.

This might sound harsh, but I think you're adhering too much to the rules and not living in the fiction you created if you throw a fireball in a library will-nilly just because the text doesn't say it catches things on fire. Your actions have consequences, even if they aren't directly spelled out. Indeed, the game becomes shallow if you can use incredibly destructive spells without any consequence, but the rules shouldn't need to spell that out, only give a guideline how much destruction each spell rank is capable of. A rank 1 Breathe Fire might be able to light a torch, while a rank 3 Fireball burns it to a crisp.

If you want it to matter more mechanically, make the setting reflect that. Spell it out as such, make it a stealth mission or where you have to keep damages to a minimum.

PF1 had the infamous damage table, where if you rolled a nat 1 on a Reflex save versus damage, you'd damage a piece of equipment. You'd have to consult the table to see what would get damaged, like a magical hat to your shoes. Most likely it'd be your armour, and then you'd have to...

But then you encounter an issue of table variance: the fireball may or may not set the library on fire. To the GM, that’s fine. But as a player, if you try to use the fireball to burn the books so a villain can’t read them, the GM might rule that you can’t. At that point, you can’t rely on the rules to back you up anymore.

Also, the phrase "grind to a halt" feels so weird. Isn’t this a turn-based strategy game—the type that’s meant to be slow and deliberate? Aren’t critical successes and failures supposed to be the climactic moments where you slow down and focus?

Are turn-based games supposed to be fast and furious, like one of those timed chess matches where you get only 10 seconds to think? I just feel so disconnected and lost—I can’t understand the vision or direction of the game anymore.

Also players tend to get upset when the enemy mage melts all their cool magic items.

I understand it I really do. As a game completionist, nobody hates losing rare drops more than me. But again, I have to disagree because the risk of burning down the library or destroying items is precisely what causes players to start considering less destructive spells, such as those that attack the mind, or to use indirect methods like stealth. They begin employing strategy, and that is exactly what you want. That is what creates a world that feels real.

Suddenly, it’s not just about getting healed. If you mindlessly take damage, your gear breaks. The party then has a very good reason to scout ahead with familiars or rogue-like classes and to use strategy instead of brute forcing their way through. With each of these "annoying" mechanics that is lost, the game becomes more cartoonish and more shallow.

It's frequently a carryover from D&D, which has a long history of conflict between description and mechanics, eventually made explicit in 4E. This was a huge problem at tables where spellcaster players would break the game based on extrapolation. For example, Fireball being able to melt soft metals would turn into arguments that if it did so it must have reached a certain temperature which must accomplish a bunch of other things like damaging armor, scorching lungs, etc.

I feel like everyone will disagree with me, but I don’t see the issue here. Why shouldn’t a level 20 wizard’s fireball melt someone along with their armor and weapons? I find it so bizarre when fireballs can be used in forests, cities, or tents and damage nothing. It’s so weird. Sure, it’s convenient because it doesn’t burn the loot or key items, but goddammit, it’s strange. We have durability in items for a reason.

Have any new feats been added for these schools? Right now, the schools feel more like limits than real improvements. It’s a bit frustrating when it seems like something was taken away and only partly given back, making it feel like a half-fix trying to get back to square zero rather than a real upgrade. The focus spells don’t feel very exciting compared to those of classes like the druid, bard, or witch. Wizards get only two focus spells, and unlike the druid’s, these aren’t improved by feats. There also don’t seem to be any major or capstone feats connected to these schools. Overall, the class feels basic and not very interesting. It would be good to see more work done in these areas to make the schools feel more useful and rewarding.

I will applaud how bold the design team was to not make the typical green elf that we have been seeing lately, at least you didn't do that one boring trope of making the character into she hulk with pointy ears or a green elf with abs.

That said I'm not sure how popular it will be humans can be quite judgmental when it comes to appearance,

Agonarchy wrote:

Dragons are a reference to Greek serpents, and then the word and concept evolved and got leggier and wingier, possibly partly due to fossil finds etc. The "Asian dragons" aka the loong likely have a similar origin but developed separately, so are only dragons by convergent cultural evolution.

Oh boy :p

- Dragon -> 4 limbs, 2 wings

- Wyvern -> 2 hind limbs, 2 wings, 1 stinger

- Drake -> 4 limbs, no wing

- Lung -> 4 limbs, no wing, can fly

- Wyrm / Serpent -> no limb, no wing

- Amphithere -> no limb, 2 wings

- Linnorm -> 2 fore limbs, 2 wings

No matter what they tell you, remember: YOU ARE RIGHT! Fantasy definitions must be defended; otherwise, we end up with vampires that glitter in the sun and goblins that look like green elves. If you choose to die on this hill, I will die at your side.

Benjamin Tait wrote:

I recall mention of a Rune Dragon in one of the new Pactbinder, sounds like a potential new Dragon

Oh yeah, they're some kind of academic dragon. If only my supervisor was a dragon...

Learning magic from a dragon sounds like a great backstory but also a great witch subclass.

Dragons are a staple of fantasy and rpgs can we get more of them?

We should start a pool.

Money goes to a charity to aid in childrens literacy.

I'll pledge 250USD that we get to 12 books, both Rules & Lost Omens, after Player Core 1, before Wizards get another new class feat printed.

Come on Paizo! Take my money, prove me wrong!

I wonder if we could do something like a kickstarter where if enough people pledge paizo will make the wizard class unchained.

The words versatile and flexible are starting to become trigger words for me, every time i hear versatile, flexible, viable, ok etc... in a class discussion I 'm starting to assume its horrible.

Apparently in the new book rival academies there are no wizard feats, just a lot of spells and schools

Really? that is disappointing.

On top of that, the Graveyard of Souls isn't the only option for athiest souls. Some train under Phlegyas and become psychopomps themselves, some find peace, some still go to an outer plane as a petitioner and some get reincarnated.

I always thought this, along with the book where an atheist begs Pharasma for help, was particularly insulting. It's almost as if it's saying that atheists can't hold to their ideals and end up bowing to the gods. If you become a psychopomp or beg a god for help, then you were never an atheist to begin with.

And even if it was the only option for athiests, the Graveyard of Souls is still an afterlife and the Boneyards is still part of the Outer Planes and the Cycle of Souls - the existance of which isn't a bad thing, anymore than Heaven and Hell existing is bad for the universe.

Yes, it is bad if you are a real atheist because the gods supposedly created your kind when the previous world clearly had immediate reincarnation for dubious purposes. They deliberately cursed your kind with aging and did everything to prevent you from escaping this curse. When you died, they trapped your souls in a graveyard. If you are a true atheist, you would be furious at the gods, especially that goddess.

On Earth, atheism most often means lack of a belief in gods (w/ a small portion believing in a lack of gods). On Golarion I think one would add the misotheists like Rahadoun/Ezren as well as those with a lack of worship of any god (since it's rarer there to lack a belief).

In all it's a much bigger umbrellas than those categories. On Facebook I wrote a post called "50 Shades of Atheism" making a list I thought I would have to pad to fulfill, but I'd had to trim. Among the missing here are the most common "I did research gods, and meh." That meh could represent a lack of evidence, a lack of a good fit w/ the gods they know exist (on Golarion), or a greater appeal elsewhere (perhaps via philosophy or simply thinking divine questions are overrated/irrelevant). So not the hate of the misotheist, implied lack of religious knowledge of the irreligious, and without falling into nihilism (which is more a pitfall for those whose religion failed them than for atheists themselves).

I wonder if there are more existentialists than those in Rahadoun. Hmm.
Maybe some cultivators in Tian?

misotheism is hatred of gods.

Not worshiping = hatred?

The Raven Black wrote:

IIRC I read somewhere that the Groetus thing was only for unfaithful atheists, just like unfaithful believers had their own dooms. Whereas faithful atheists were allowed to rest peacefully or roam creation as they wished, just like faithful believers had their own rewards.

Like from Pharasma's perspective there are probably multiple kinds of Atheists, who can be handled differently.

- Metaphysical Nihilists, i.e. "life is meaningless, the Gods are meaningless, the afterlife is meaningless."
- Misotheists, i.e. "the Gods do not deserve my respect."
- Irreligious, i.e. "I just never give the Gods a thought."
etc.

The irreligious can just be treated like everybody else, they can't stop God from telling them "you have to go over there now" any more than they could stop a King from doing the same thing.

The Misotheists and Nihilists might instead prefer oblivion or quietude.

That sounds like what church propaganda says about atheists. No, we are not nihilistic; we don't hate God(well not all of them), nor are we thoughtless. We are just independent-minded people who don't want arbitrary hierarchy imposed upon us.

I feel the existence of Phlegyas, someone who Pharasma personally elevated to the rank of Usher, who also is tasked with handling the souls of Atheists, does imply that Pharasma doesn't feed Atheists to Groetus.

Friendly reminder that Pharasma is NOT the sole judge of all souls, most are getting judged by Yamaraj and Ushers, it's a whole ass legal system, and Pharasma leaves much of it's running to the discretion of those beneath her.

Also, iirc, there was an incident when Axis demanded Pharasma strip all Psychopomps of personality and free will and just make them drones, but she obviously refused; hardly the actions of a Tyrant.

And briefly on the memory thing, that's definitely not something Pharasma does that's not part of the normal process of Judgement; otherwise, I doubt one of the most powerful goddesses would be stumped by a Demigods sabotage (Soul Anchor)

I'm here now, gonna defend the Lady of the Graves.

I feel like they have retconnedwhite-whashed or rather memory-holed most of the things she did wrong. However, because those things were part of her character, it doesn't work. It's like if they erased everything that Asmodeus did, would you suddenly trust him?

I have a dog in my house. When he was a pup, we put a piece of wood to stop him from entering the house when no one was around to watch him. Now that he’s older, he could easily knock the piece of wood down, but instead, he just stands there, looking at it with those puppy eyes. This is called learned helplessness. It’s similar to Stockholm Syndrome—a survival mechanism that stops you from picking fights you’re unlikely to win, even if it’s not rational or moral.

When people face overwhelming enemies or problems like slavery, tyranny, dictatorship, oligarchies, aging, or death, they often choose acceptance—or rather submission—because it’s easier to see the issue as something natural than to spend your whole life fighting a problem that feels larger than life. The worst part is that once you accept a problem, you lose the chance to work toward improving your situation.

That makes sense, I will refrain then.

I grew up in a household with a lot of older relatives, and unfortunately, four of them have passed away. My younger brother and a childhood friend also died—one from a disease and the other from brain cancer. I hate death, I'm working to become a medic so I can fight it, death sucks.

Counter point:

In PF2, if a GM wants to play this way, they can have players use rituals to do things like possess a king, or they can even just have a kingdom where the king is 8 levels lower than the PCs and then the players can probably dominate/impersonate/imprison/etc. the local leader and accomplish pretty much the same thing narratively. What won't happen in PF2 is a Wizard player essentially dominating a higher level or on level King essentially forever, because of one low save roll.

As a player of a wizard that possessed way more powerful creatures than I regularly in PF1, I recognize that that trivialized encounters way too often to be fun for everyone at the table to be a regular, 3-4 times a day tactic that I could use and very few enemies had a chance to save against because my DCs were absurd.

I think the decision to get away from that style of casting was very intentional and not something that a lot of players want to see come back/be a part of the narrative of "wizard." That is why I think fighter is a bad example to look at for what the wizard could be, and why I would strongly advocate against adding elements to it that bring those kind of options back.

EDIT: Specificially, I mean that "possess a king and take over their kingdom" is an NPC or solo player game. Not a party working together thing, especially not to be something that happens with daily rechargeable resources.

I don’t see your point here. Saying that a wizard casting magic jar isn’t team play is like saying a rogue using stealth, deception, or performance isn’t team play. Each class has its strengths, and they aren’t required to be constantly working together. For example, a fighter could easily intimidate someone trying to interrogate the king, while a rogue could use deception to explain away any oddities. I just don’t see the validity of this argument.

Regarding the use of dominate or similar spells, yes, with sufficient resources and time, you can achieve the same result, but I never claimed otherwise. It seems like you're struggling to grasp my point: it’s not about power or results; it’s about whether it can fulfill a fantasy. Pathfinder 1st Edition, with its numerous classes, archetypes, feats, and spells, can fulfill many fantasies. It’s not about the power of these fantasies or their outcomes; it’s about the fantasy itself.

Sure, you can hire someone to perform a ritual, but that doesn’t relate to your experience as a wizard. Yes, you can have the GM re-flavor or homebrew content, but at that point, the rules lose their significance. The thrill of carefully searching among countless options to devise and execute a plan—like in heist movies—disappears. You’re no longer achieving results because of your system mastery or cleverness; you’re simply getting by because the GM was in a good mood and said, 'OK.'

And why are you bringing up high-level creatures? I already told you I don’t mind if I have to be level 20 to possess a level 10 king. It’s not about trying to trivialize encounters or outshine party members. I feel like you’re missing the point.

Now that the wizard is nowhere near as powerful as he used to be, designers have to replace this lack of power with flavor. Take the remastered witch, for instance. Except for resentment (and even so), it's still pretty weak - but it oozes flavor, and has very unique mechanisms that make it attractive. In the opposite direction, we have the oracle, who got hugely buffed (apart from Battle - press F to pay respect - and life/ancestors), but lost a lot of its flavor.

I have to slightly disagree because people tend to frame me as a power gamer who wants the wizard to be overpowered, but that simply isn't true. My problem lies in what the wizard can do, regardless of their relative power level compared to on-level monsters and other players. By that, I mean the following: a Pathfinder 1e (PF1) wizard could use magic jar to possess a king and impersonate him. A Pathfinder 2e (PF2) wizard cannot do this because not only has the spell been removed, but even the duration of possession effects has been severely reduced.

To those who think I want the wizard to be more powerful, that's not the point. The wizard can't do it on the level they used to, and they can't do it even at level 20. It's not a matter of being ahead of the curve compared to other classes or on-level monsters; it's a matter of being able to fulfill the character fantasy AT ALL. People love to complain about spells failing or missing, focus spells, and the number of spells available, but my issue is that the wizard can no longer fulfill certain fantasies, period, regardless of their level.

Yes, the power ceiling was lowered, but it feels like the system as a whole went from high-magic to mid-magic. Balance is important, but I feel depth and complexity were sacrificed without anything to replace them, and that is my issue. If it weren't for so many different nerfs, it wouldn't be as bad. It's the gutting of the class by a thousand cuts that is incredibly irritating.

Alzheimer's and Dementia.

That is a disease, and as someone whose parents suffered from it to the point of forgetting who I was, please don't lump it in with old age. While senescence is also a disease, even if most people think otherwise, these two conditions are far worse and certainly not a natural part of life.

I'm mainly here to point out what of the several lore errors being used as examples I can confirm, whether its fey not having souls or the idea that Pharasma cursed the gnomes with mortality, or even that atheists are forced to stay in the Boneyard against their will. That you turn these misunderstandings and objections into further evidence of your own arguments calls to question where exactly the goalposts went and how much you understand the examples you are using to prove your point, but other people can make those arguments. I only have time to read and respond to so many assertions and I have no desire to convince you out of a position you've deeply convinced yourself into. I'd merely like to make sure the facts the argument has been based on are presented accurately as possible so that readers can come to their own conclusions based on the actual evidence and not what was taken out of context, misunderstood, or brought in from a lore error 15 years ago when the writing of the lore was less closely managed and writers might introduce concepts that don't fit the Age of Lost Omens or its characters.

Lore error is a weird term to use here, lore retconned because it was unpopular would be a better word specially since gnomes having souls or not or whether the whole race was affected or not is irrelevant for the argument being presented here,

or even that atheists are forced to stay in the Boneyard against their will.

I would like to see your source for that because the wiki clearly contradicts that Graveyard of Souls

(Those souls that still have the will to rouse themselves here are usually either those that have recently arrived or those consumed by emotion over their fate; some wander emotionlessly and in a haze, while others might beg visitors for aid or simply lash out at them in their rage. The rare souls that do find peace with their ultimate fate instead serve the graveyard as its custodians or guardians.1)

But I will admit the Lady of the North Star but surprized me.

Anubis' scales are the empty tool most known for fair an unbiased measurement. He takes the ~heart and weights it against a feather of truth; even if he has personal beef with a mortal for committing his anathema, that does not change how the scales fall.

If you ask me, the best way to write about afterlife judgment in tabletop role-playing games is through karma. If your actions are bad, you go to a bad world, like a law of physics. The best way to handle gods is to have them be more like forces of nature, such as Gaia or Alaya from Fate Grand Order—something that is less of a person and more of a sentient force. But then again, that universe is a hell of its own with the timeline pruning and the whole system of the planets, so I wouldn't advocate for the story itself.

Edit Note: I just noticed that Fate also has this issue with anti-immortality. I wonder how common this is in fiction writing.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

I neglected the detail that in both versions, the gnomes seem to have little blame, and it was their non-gnome ruler Eldest that angered Pharasma. Regardless of how many individual gnomes were invovled, collective punishment for the whole species is rather "yikes."

I mean, it's only punishment from a certain perspective. Yes, gnomes can die now, but they also have souls when they didn't before.

I would like to reiterate that fey already have souls. By some accounts all living creatures in the cosmos have or are souls, but treat this as a fairly broad blanket statement that may be contradicted by specific lore.

Incidentally, regardless whether one believes mortality was a punishment or gift to the gnomes who received it, it's worth noting that it was not inflicted/given to the entire species...

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Gnome#Migration wrote:

During the Age of Anguish (beginning in -4202 AR),910 many gnomes left the First World and migrated to Golarion, although some gnomes remained behind and continue to live an immortal existence there to this day.

You can go to the First World today and find gnomes who were not involved and remain functionally immortal. Then again, this comes from the same overwritten lore source that fostered the idea that fey have no souls, so regard it, as well as the notion that fey, gnomish or otherwise, are immortal (rather than just functionally so as long as they stay in their lane) as potentially dubious.

Meanwhile, while it wouldn't surprise me if the Kingmaker CRPG (where Jubilost Narthropple comes from) cooked up a bit of haphazard lore for gnomes, it appears that the story given by the avatar of Shyka appears in the Companion Guide for Kingmaker 2e, lending much greater credibility to the claim. Even so, Shyka there regards the gift of mortality (given by their Eldest) to those gnomes who received it as freedom from the First World and her siblings' predilections....

If you constantly have to rewrite a character's lore to erase sins, like feeding atheist souls to Groetus, then that character is likely evil.

Ah, now I think I'm understanding where the hate is coming from. "All earth religions claim there is only one/two/etc. destinations for souls"? Should we start with one of the real world religions from which much fantasy has been inspired? The Greeks said that the underworld consisted of Tartarus, Asphodel Meadows, and Elysium. More than the one or two you seem to think is the norm. Many animist religions believe that the spirits of the deceased stay and continue to influence the world of the living. I could go on and on about the diversity of religions and their beliefs, including how the gods manipulate mortals or mortals' agency is tied into where they end up in the afterlife. However, we're talking about a game that also draws on the diversity of humanity as we know it.

I'm wondering where you are getting the idea of soul oblivion. Merging with other souls to create a stabile realm of like-minded souls seems to sound pretty peaceful to me, especially once you're beyond the pain and suffering of the Universe.

If I'm correct, the idea is that the majority of shades/petitioners become part of the plane, as does any outsider that dies there. The plane is then corroded by the Maelstrom. Therefore, if stopping the souls means the corrosion worsens, the logical conclusion is that the souls which make up the plane are also being corroded, since the potentiality goes to the forge of creation to make new souls. Too many people are used to the idea of souls being eternal (myself included), so the concept of souls being turned back into quintessence is jarring.

(Upon any outsider's destruction, its aligned quintessence—along with its compiled knowledge and beliefs—is absorbed into its home plane, or often into other planes if destroyed away from its home plane. Quintessence is perpetually disintegrated from the planes by the Maelstrom to become unaligned potentiality, at which point it is funneled to the Antipode and redirected to the Inner Planes. In Creation's Forge, it becomes part of the source matter of new souls.) from the wiki page on potentiality

The issue is that the majority of shades will likely fade eventually, and with the constant war, most outsiders will also die. Therefore, the only beings in this world who are not doomed to have their souls consumed by the plane and converted into quintessence/potentiality are the gods. This is why people consider this a very convenient (and selfish) mindset for the gods to have. Since gods existed before mortals and the universe did not end, it’s not entirely unreasonable to believe they created mortals to be consumed by the antipode so they don't have to die.

Instead, petitioners are claimed as chattel by Pharasma, and then she hands each soul to a god / plane of her choosing. This...

Imagine if it turns out she is secretly the final boss of pathfinder (if there is such thing as a final boss in a ttrpg) i doubt it would be the case but it a cool scenario to consider.

This is how mortals in Golarion's cosmos can accidentally end up existing for the sake being harvested/assimilated/consumed by the gods without their consent.

Such a accurate description of the issue I have with the setting , I just wish the atheists would put a little bit more of a fight than dying and accepting your fate.

moosher12 wrote:

Treerazor also respawns even if he's killed. And has yet to truly die. Says so in his own entry.

He's likely to die next month, for keeps.

But there are two basic problems with this approach:
- Literal gods do not have stats specifically so that they cannot be killed by anything except the story.
- While this is a game with a lot of combat rules, reaching for violence is not the best answer for everything.

Like if a dragon decides to talk to you instead of just smashing something and eating your livestock, that's a more powerful thing showing you respect, and the best response might *not* be "violence."

You are comparing souls with eggs and livestock? as if having your souls turned into planar mortar is some small favor?

The interesting thing about Rahadoum is that it is a mix of that kind of atheist, and the misotheistic kind. People in Rahadoum disagree with each other about a great number of things, so why not this? Some Rahadoumi folks will believe that celebrating the Gods because they are powerful is ridiculous, but they would also believe that objecting to Pharasma's judgement is ridiculous because she is very powerful. You just treat the experience like "the dragon has asked you to relocate your chickens, because the coop you have built is an annoyance to the dragon" you understand that this is something you should just go along with, since you have a good idea what the alternative is like and it's worse.

if the dragon was threatening the farmer adventurers would think of it as a monster and slay it, and some of these gods have stats: Conqueror Worm, Green Man, Avatar of the Lantern King, Manifestation Of Dahak, Treerazer, if they can bleed...

The Laws of Mortality differ from Earth's atheism anyway, and are closer to misotheism (belief in and hatred of deities). Ezren, for example, is listed as an atheist, yet believes creatures called gods exist and do divine deeds. And he dislikes how worship of them & the contention from that has lead to personal woe. So he might better be called anti-theist (against theism/worship of gods; though often in our world read as anti-religion or gnostic atheism).

As for Golarion atheists who disbelieve in gods, thinking it's all a scam with gods being fictional, they'd become enlightened after death and have some pondering to do. And atheists who against our definition do believe in gods, but that they aren't godly enough so want nothing to do with them, they'd adapt to whatever data they learn. Much like for Earth's atheists, of which I'm one, there'd be a diverse array of answers/philosophies/personalities with most simply accepting what is and moving on with their lives. Think of how many patients with a fatal diagnosis become exemplars of calmness and inner peace, handling their finite future better than most everyone around them. And I know many who dread the thought of an infinite lifespan so not only accept death, but embrace that they will die (just for most not yet!). Sure, there'll often be phases as one adjusts, much like with grief, but ultimately most kinda have to acknowledge that what is is, and it'd be the same in Golarion.

Or maybe this will spark a GM's adventure idea for some grand mortal revolt against the cosmos, extrapolating from what NPCs have tried already. Though we as objective viewers know that that too will ultimately prove fruitless, and any Golarion immortals will cease to be, both in their world and in ours once heat death arrives.

Cheers. :-)

Asmodeus, Cthulhu, the Conqueror Worm, the Rough Beast, Dahak, and the Lantern King—all of them are gods or god-adjacent entities. However, that doesn't mean one should worship them or allow them to have their way. I don't understand why some people find it so difficult to extend the same logic to other deities. In Pathfinder, a god represents a level of power; it is not akin to the Christian God, who is described as an infallible, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being.

So here's the thing: Pathfinder, and by extension Golarion, is a made-up world where the gods are real, and magic is a fundamental part of existence. That sort of thing changes how religion and faith works on a deep, fundamental level, and it gets worse if you approach it from an omniscient perspective as a writer of a fantasy world or a reader of a fantasy world.

Keep in mind that no one who lives in Golarion exists in a reality where they can pick up the books we create about Golarion. They don't have those resources, and it's not really appropriate to assume everyone who lives on Golarion has read every book about Golarion that has been published.

As for Pharasma... the key there is to remember she's not human, nor does she have a human mind. She is, as are many deities, unknowable by human minds, including those that invent her. That's part of the mystery and terror and beauty and problem with matters of belief and mythology when they're presented as fantasies by a content creator, and not presented as guesswork from an in-world author.

My own personal take about the OP's question (and this, I MUST STRESS, is my take alone and IS NOT MEANT to be "canon" for Golarion in any way):

** spoiler omitted **

Have you considered creating a faction to represent these people? Because, if you ask me, the problem isn't so much Pharasma herself, but the fact that every alternative to her is evil—like the asura, the undead, or the sahkil. Maybe if there were a neutral or chaotic neutral faction to represent people who feel this way, others would side with them and champion their cause, much like how some people play the Bellflower Network.

And?

In general she doesn't.

To me this is akin to being upset that the...

It's more like the president has the codes to turn off your pacemaker, and you happen to be a member of the opposition party—she hates necromancy, remember? So, the fear that your clone may be shut down because "it's your time" has some legitimacy if you are, in fact, a necromancer.

It really sounds like people just want to become Asuras and rage against the gods and support in the utter corruption and destruction of all the creations of the gods.

Also if they hate the gods so much, I presume that you are making a special rahadoumi calander that doesn't use the same months? after all the months are named after gods.

I disagree that the Asura have a tendency to blame the victims, namely the mortals, for the sins of their creators. I would simply sit there and tell them the truth about what their gods have done and be there when their gods inevitably screw them over. Eventually, they would see the light and choose to walk my path of misotheism and mortal liberation of their own free will.

But the people in the thread railing against Pharasma feel like they're railing against the fact that death exist, including death of the soul, and the cycle of souls in general.

It's almost as if you are railing against the mere idea that death might not be inevitable in a game. Why do we need to go out of our way to bring fatalism into a fictional world? Why add things like 'clone' and 'raise dead' just to have a deity shut it down?

Vasyazx wrote:

Well house always win so even if you reject the game your essence still be used to futher one of gods agenda in these case you become building material for top god personal plane that doesn't sound as satisfying end for follower of laws of mortality

This feels like having strong feelings about which tree grows on your burial site. At some point you have to learn not to care about things you have no input on. I imagine a good part of "onboarding the recently deceased" is getting them to come to terms with this fact.

In real life, we fought against the monarchy, and now we are fighting against the oligarchy. It’s human nature to hate tyranny, so why fight against the gods as well? If people were to adopt a nihilistic view of life, then nobody would go to war, since what happens after they are dead would be considered irrelevant.

R3st8 wrote:

The issue is that, unlike other gods, you will always meet Pharasma at the end of your life, and the fact that Rahadoum is aware of their bleak prospects in the afterlife highlights my point. How can one say she is hands-off when she is the one who decides the fate of your soul? You can run from a tyrant king and avoid Asmodeus like the plague by never getting close to a contract, but you cannot avoid Pharasma.

Yeah, but that's death and what happens after. "You can't avoid death" is a pretty big running theme in a good chunk of human literature and mythology for as long as those have been things. In Greek mythology, getting on Hades' good or bad side (or a god influential enough to call in favors with him) determined how your soul spent the afterlife. Egyptian mythology had the heart weighed against a feather. China had a celestial bureaucracy determining what happened to you after death.

"What happens after death?" "It depends on what you did on life." "Who decides that?" "The god whose job it is to do that." Definitely not culturally universal, but it's also not uncommon.

It’s also a significant theme to explore the opposite, such as the peaches of immortality, ambrosia, the fountain of youth, the golden apples, the herb of Gilgamesh, the philosopher's stone, and the Holy Grail. My question is: why does that specific element have to be realistic? The entire game contains absurdities, so why not make death absurd as well? The choice to base the world on death and a cycle of souls was a design decision that I honestly don’t appreciate. It feels akin to creating a universe that operates on the cries of infant orphans, surely there were better options.

R3st8 wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

From a worldbuilding stance, you generally do want reasons why there aren't a bunch of immortals running everything with millennia of entrenched power

What do you think gods are?

Mostly hands off. Like if you go in the town square and start loudly proclaiming how much Abadar sucks, he's not going to smite you or send an underling to smite you by proxy. If you go in the town square and start loudly proclaiming how much the local authorities suck, you're likely to get arrested. In terms of the actual stories we tell when we play these games, literal intervention by an actual god should be exceptionally rare, but Terrestrial authorities will tell the PCs to do (or not do) things all the time. You can burn down the entire art museum and Shelyn is not going to show up (but the cops most likely will.)

What QuidEst is saying gets to how a fantasy world should be as recognizable as possible to the people who play the game. It would be hard to have anything resembling a normal social order if all of the leaders in government and industry are thousand-year-old vampires who are opposed to change. Blood Lords really tries to dig down on how ossified Geb society is since many of the various civil powers are deeply entrenched by virtue of "not aging, because undead." This should be a flavor available to players and GMs who want to play around in that sandbox, but generally "change" should be an option available in other places.

The issue is that, unlike other gods, you will always meet Pharasma at the end of your life, and the fact that Rahadoum is aware of their bleak prospects in the afterlife highlights my point. How can one say she is hands-off when she is the one who decides the fate of your soul? You can run from a tyrant king and avoid Asmodeus like the plague by never getting close to a contract, but you cannot avoid Pharasma.

But to address your point about the world being ruled by immortals, I think we might be getting closer to that world than you realize. That said, I would absolutely love to play in a world full of undead; I have even been thinking of writing one myself. It's sad how this theme is so underexplored.

From a worldbuilding stance, you generally do want reasons why there aren't a bunch of immortals running everything with millennia of entrenched power

What do you think gods are?

Pharasma was not "Good" and alignments no longer exist in the game, so there is no hard determination that Pharasma's established structure is good and just. She is comparable to Marvel's Galactus, with a role to play in whatever's going on but quite capable if being the villain in the story, even if they're generally doing what they think has to be done.

The universe Galorian exists in is not inherently just or good, and gods are not immune from making bad choices. Pharasma may be trying to do her best with a bad situation, but she's not Good, so her interests don't need to extend beyond keeping things working well enough to fulfil what she feels is her role.

I will praise that choice, alignment was always a bad system and the game will be better without it, no system will ever be able to fit all of the complexities of morality into 9 squares.

reading to this it feels like Trip has taken personal offense to Pharasma existing

while the old lady is just sitting there, doing her job, basically not bothering anyone

The issue isn't just Pharasma herself, but what she represents. She's essentially the Pathfinder equivalent of D&D's Wall of the Faithless, a feature so blatantly biased that it was thankfully removed in later editions. Just as the Wall was a thinly veiled attempt to punish atheist players (reflecting its origins in a more Christian-dominated era), Pharasma and the surrounding lore are clearly intended to shut down any discussion about the moral complexities of necromancy. She's a divine "I win" button designed to silence any necromancer who dares to suggest that raising the dead isn't automatically an act of evil. For players who enjoyed the morally gray necromancy of earlier editions, Pharasma is a slap in the face.

There's no sense in which the universe only exists because Pharasma manages it. It's just that she was there first, and set up the system to head off the catastrophe that undid the last universe she came from. It's because of this that every other God views her as a trustworthy neutral arbiter.

If she shuffled off this immortal coil, the system would still run pretty well, it's just that you'd get other Gods trying to bully her successor in ways that nobody bothers to try on Pharasma. Like if Asmodeus and Abadar disagree on the destination of a soul, they will defer to Pharasma's judgement and the dispute will end peacefully, a thing that wouldn't necessarily happen with a less tenured judge renowned for her impartiality.

I'm not arguing about this from a lore perspective, but from a design perspective. Creating gods or outsiders like Pharasma, the Mantis God, and axiomites to control player behavior is a design decision that I oppose. These characters were clearly created to enforce the will of the writer: 'I don't like undead? Here's Pharasma.' 'I don't like players seeking godhood? Here's the Mantis.' And so on—'I don't like [something else]? Here are the inevitables.

From a design perspective, I dislike how these characters force players to behave in certain ways by serving as counter-characters designed to punish them. This is why, in every game I GM, one of my first actions is to have all these characters mysteriously disappear because I'm opposed to this design choice.

The dissolution of all reality I think. Eventually anyways. The planes are made of soul stuff and without order to them, they'll fall to the maelstrom.

I'm really not a fan of making an entire cosmology spin around a single character. This tends to happen with Mary Sues or writer's pet characters, and especially in an RPG, there should be no deity above all others.

Huh? "Brought back to life by Pharasma" is so top-of-the-list of things Rahadoum isn't on board with that it has two books about it.

There is no need to bring back anything just leave the dead spirits in Rahadoum after all they did not consent to have their souls taken.

Pharasma respects atheists. Per the PF1 Planar Adventures book, she will allow anybody who rejects the legitimacy of her judgement the opportunity to just wait out eternity in a quiet spot in the boneyard.

You could also just choose to be judged and become part of the foundation of some plane or another. She will respect your choice either way.

That is a strange definition of respect. If she genuinely respects these souls, then she should allow them to return home.

I will never understand why there are always people so incredibly committed to arguing that the wizard is fine. I can understand why others want the class to be improved because they feel it is weak, but I can't grasp the mindset of those who vehemently defend the class as it is. Are they afraid that the wizard will revert to its state in Pathfinder 1? That seems very unlikely, considering the effort its taking to even get the developers to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with the class. There is no way they will make it broken again, so you people can relax.

Like does anyone really honestly think there is any real chance that if they buff the wizard they would go that far?