Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 5 (OGL)

You can make one with existing rules, but it would be a lot better to have a new monster. A Piasa could just be a half dragon Peryton, but that doesn't stop me from wanting a real one.

I would like to see "Orks" as in the pig headed evil fey version of orcs.

Also a evil fey version of goblins could call them a "goblyn"

A more powerful type of ogre with shapeshifting powers to turn into animals.

Myth Lord wrote:

If you have a little bit of imagination, you can do all kind of wonders with Jack-in-Irons.

You sure can! Bump up the ogre a size category or two and give it a feat or two to allow it to use its chains effectively. Or maybe use the hill giant as the base creature.

Better yet, tinker with modifying a regular kyton using templates and the advancement rules, and you have a pretty nifty Jack-in-Irons.

I'm not saying that a new monster isn't warranted, but with a bit of imagination and a bit of tinkering, you can create it using existing rules. :)

Yes and miss the perfect artwork for this creature and loose it too things like Salt Drakes and Winterlandscape Giants?

Never.

If things like that need templates, then all those drakes and were-animals could be templates even better.

At least Jack comes from myth, where it isn't described as just another Ogre variant.

Jack-in-Irons was included in the tome of Horrors as a giant with unique abilities.

I know, but I didn't like it.

It was too high in CR, it was a unique creature (I want it to be multiple monsters) and its special abilities weren't anything special or anything I liked, some chain, torture and haunting based special abilities would be fun.

Iron Jack could be about Kytons or an undead giant, maybe even a spirit giant, so many things can be done with it, but i'm not for Templates.

At least Jack comes from myth, where it isn't described as just another Ogre variant.

That's not the same as saying that it isn't, in game terms. Mythmongers, after all, didn't have the luxury of roleplaying game systems and monster stat blocks. :)

In any event, I'm not saying it shouldn't be a new monster. In fact, I don't see why not.

Your "little bit of inspiration" comment merely warranted a mention of existing tools being an equally fitting alternative. :)

Folklore can be really useful for building up a creature from a concept. It can also make some pretty terrifying monsters. Take the dullahan, a fey creature from Irish folklore that was basically the headless horseman, only WAY worse. If one notices you looking at them while they are out dragging souls of their screaming into the next world, you get a basin of blood thrown at you. That means you are next on their list of people they are going to kill. That or they lash your eyes out with their whips. If one is after you... Word to the wise. Get a solid gold weapon or charm made if you are going to face them.

If not, your a dead man walking. Don't even bother locking or barricading the door to try and stop it.There is no way to bar the road against a dullahan—all locks and gates open to them when they approach. Oh and if they ever say your name, you die. In game, you might get a save but basically this is a thing that you should make every attempt not to offend. And it also uses a human corpses spine as a whip. And sometimes they even drive a wagon with thigh bone spokes and covered in human skin. So yeah... A headless horseman is bad, but a real dullahan can and will mess up your night.

By the way, has a dullahan ever been in a bestiary? I think it might have though I'm not sure.

By the way, has a dullahan ever been in a bestiary? I think it might have though I'm not sure.

Yep, bestiary 2.

Folklore can be really useful for building up a creature from a concept. It can also make some pretty terrifying monsters. Take the dullahan, a fey creature from Irish folklore that was basically the headless horseman, only WAY worse. If one notices you looking at them while they are out dragging souls of their screaming into the next world, you get a basin of blood thrown at you. That means you are next on their list of people they are going to kill. That or they lash your eyes out with their whips. If one is after you... Word to the wise. Get a solid gold weapon or charm made if you are going to face them.

If not, your a dead man walking. Don't even bother locking or barricading the door to try and stop it.There is no way to bar the road against a dullahan—all locks and gates open to them when they approach. Oh and if they ever say your name, you die. In game, you might get a save but basically this is a thing that you should make every attempt not to offend. And it also uses a human corpses spine as a whip. And sometimes they even drive a wagon with thigh bone spokes and covered in human skin. So yeah... A headless horseman is bad, but a real dullahan can and will mess up your night.

By the way, has a dullahan ever been in a bestiary? I think it might have though I'm not sure.

Thank you.

That story made my like Dullahan even more, and it has always (since 1995 when it appeared with a wrong name in my classic game Lufia: Rise of the Sinistrals) been one of my favorite myths.

Its in bestiary 2, and i'm happy that it isn't an obscure creature anymore, it appears less than Medusa and Dragons, but just at the right amount that it doesn't start to be overused and boring, especially castlevania and card-games about myths use Dullahan a lot, but of course, sleepy hollow and lufia had their part in their fame.

My only problem in Pathfinder with them is that they are only CR 7, while they should have been above 10.

Milo v3 wrote:

ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:

By the way, has a dullahan ever been in a bestiary? I think it might have though I'm not sure.

Yep, bestiary 2.

I checked. Paizo needs to do some more research into the true dullahan, because that is more like a headless horseman than a dullahan. Granted some of the abilities like deaths calling, it speaking sylvan(language of the fey) and generally being a terrifying thing that no one wants to encounter is very close to a dullahan. And then I must note a dullahan is a fey, NOT undead, as their version is, their version uses a keen long sword+1 rather than the actual dullahan's signature spine formed whip, and their version only has blindsight 60 ft. A true dullahan actually carries around its own head under one arm.

"The head's eyes are small, black, and constantly dart about like flies, while the mouth is constantly in a hideous grin that touches both sides of the head."

And that head can see. Probably only dark vision 80ft but still.

And you can freaking lock the door on the pathfinder dullahan, and it can do nothing except shake his undead fist at you. An actual dullahan from the folktales would look at the locked door, take one step forward... And the door would get out of the dullahan's way so it could continue after its marked quarry. I know pathfinder does give some much needed representation to creatures and beings of folklore and myth often forgotten and even creates its own mythology, but I genuinely believe that if you put more love and time into making a creature that represents the myths and folktales of that creature with accuracy, then more people can enjoy it. CR 7... Really?

I agree with you on cases like Leshy (while I still like the cute leshies, but a leshy king would be fun as the real myth leshy still) and Dullahan being taken 100% like the myth.

Some cases from mythology really need improvement in Pathfinder, creatures like Asag, Hala and Kludde for example I would change from the real myth too.

But I agree on the Dullahan, while I still like it in pathfinder, it could be somewhat more powerful.

I checked. Paizo needs to do some more research into the true dullahan, because that is more like a headless horseman than a dullahan.

Paizo have mentioned before that sometimes a direct translation from myth to game doesn't quite work for them for various reasons. That occassionally a monster is taken from mythology and given a Pathfinder RPG spin.

So it is entirely possible that they did indeed do all the research they possibly could and still decided to not adhere 100% to the myths surrounding the creature in question but rather take inspiration from the myth to create a dullahan that works for them, nichewise/powerwise.

Also, supernatural power doesn't necessarily mean a double-digit CR. A creature with a Challenge Rating of 7 is quite the terror for 99.99% of any population, including our own world, in which these myths take place.

The dullahan might not be much of a challenge as soon as characters reach their 7th level, but by then those characters are effectively super humans.

Also, much of what you can describe doesn't have to be represented by a monster's stat block.

I could easily see myself describing how a dullahan approaches a door, only for the door to be ripped off its hinges by some unseen force. It's not featured in the creature's stat block, but it makes for awesome imagery, while the creature's actual stat block can into play during combat.

In addition, I highly recommend checking out Pathfinder Adventure Path #63: The Asylum Stone. The villain of that module might be a little closer to what you're talking about; he's certainly armed for the role.

In addition, I highly recommend checking out Pathfinder Adventure Path #63: The Asylum Stone. The villain of that module might be a little closer to what you're talking about; he's certainly armed for the role.

Indeed. Another example is the mythic dullahan featured in Legendary Games' Mythic Monsters: Undead.

Monsters are tools for us GMs to tinker with. It's absolutely okay to use a vanilla version of, say, a dullahan in a game, but one of Pathfinder RPG's strengths is customizability. The monster as presented is a framework, and GMs can tweak and warp that creature using custom abilities, templates, and the advancement rules.

I would like to see a living creature with a detachable head, maybe some kind of fey. It would be immune to vorpal attacks and maybe few other immunities related such an ability. It's head could fly as well. Maybe you have to destroy both it's head and body to destroy the creature.

Pretty close.

good one, but knowing Dragon78, he probably also wants a creature with a detachable head made from crystals, fire, sand, ectoplasm and from desert, volcanic and cold environments.

:-p Just kiddn, just kiddn.

I said living creature, I know we have undead with detachable or missing heads.

The dullahan of Irish folktales is fey, but it falls under the category of unseelie, which is a variation of fey that tend to be more dangerous, violent, and aggressive. Other colourful characters in this grouping include kelpie, nucklave, bogies, boggarts, bogles, Abbey lubbers, and buttery spirits. The unseelie are also called dark fairies(for good reason, since their name also translates into unholy, misfortune, and unhappy). Heck, they even have vampiric fairies with cloven hoves called the leanan sidhe.

In a game where it is possible to fight and kill creatures of great power that even gods have difficulty with them, the fay will always return after their destruction after a time. But I also said before that a dullahan is most vulnerable to gold, I mean they are afraid of it, to the point in myth where a single gold pin can hold them at bay. Now granted this does not mean the party is going to be able to drive away a dullahan by throwing gold coins at it, but a golden weapon(which is actually a thing) or pinning a golden charm onto the creatures clothes might just cancel out its fast healing or some of its abilities, making it vulnerable to attack. Destroying the head might just destroy the dullahan as well. Which could give use to that ornimental golden sword you looted from a fairy barrow.

Well, yeah, cool, but this is a tactical wargame, not a fairytale simulator :)

What kind of new Monster rules are we getting? It would be nice to have some minor ideas as to what we might end up facing when we eventually get our hands on the book. So maybe 1-2...please.

I don't think we are getting any new rules but I am sure they will have mythic and psychic related creatures.

It is quite likely that the new universal monster rules from the Occult Bestiary will be the bulk of new universal monster rules in this.

I dunno, I have some reservations with that new psychic casting rule. I kinda hope most monsters just have psychic spells as SLAs...

I Hope in the future we get at least 1 undead playable race(0hd)that is not overpowered next to the normal races while still being unique in its own ways. We now have a ghorans to fill something of a playable plant race role, and I think deep one hybrids might be filling an aberrant niche, so why not some player race undead.

Unless i have got the complete wrong end of the stick when it comes to how they build their playable races, to which i apologize in advance for my thinking such. It would just be nice to play a Stitched-together Undead Adventurer, that occasionally might need to find her severed limbs and reattach them after a particularly hairy fight.

Undead in Pathfinder are almost universally evil-aligned, so an undead player race is already at a disadvantage in most parties. The closest thing to that kind of flavor is dhampir.

I Hope in the future we get at least 1 undead playable race(0hd)that is not overpowered next to the normal races while still being unique in its own ways. We now have a ghorans to fill something of a playable plant race role, and I think deep one hybrids might be filling an aberrant niche, so why not some player race undead.

Unless i have got the complete wrong end of the stick when it comes to how they build their playable races, to which i apologize in advance for my thinking such. It would just be nice to play a Stitched-together Undead Adventurer, that occasionally might need to find her severed limbs and reattach them after a particularly hairy fight.

I highly recommend Kobold Press's Advanced Races: Darakhul. Basically playable ghouls.

Undead in Pathfinder are almost universally evil-aligned, so an undead player race is already at a disadvantage in most parties. The closest thing to that kind of flavor is dhampir.

Which is Half undead, based around a vampire(which is in itself is an entirely different strain of undeath), and if we go by complete semantics, plants are ALSO almost universally evil Allinged, or possessing of no alignment AT ALL, and so are Aberrants.

If all undead fall into the same alignment bag, what really is the point of even having NPC Undead that have alignments outside of straight up evil? Broad brushing types actually creates problems, like a party that kills any and all members of a race that is evil in the book because "the book says it is evil, therefore its automatically evil."

And furthermore, why then would paizo even make the undead race type available in the race builder section of the advanced race guide?

And to put the nail in the coffin, The rule about any sentient thing is there are almost always going to be a few exceptions to the rule. You don't neccesarily have to make the race good or neutral to have it be an option for people to play. LOOK AT TIEFLINGS FOR GOODNESS SAKE. Racially neutral evil, and you can still play them as good or neutral alligned heroes.

ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:

I Hope in the future we get at least 1 undead playable race(0hd)that is not overpowered next to the normal races while still being unique in its own ways. We now have a ghorans to fill something of a playable plant race role, and I think deep one hybrids might be filling an aberrant niche, so why not some player race undead.

Unless i have got the complete wrong end of the stick when it comes to how they build their playable races, to which i apologize in advance for my thinking such. It would just be nice to play a Stitched-together Undead Adventurer, that occasionally might need to find her severed limbs and reattach them after a particularly hairy fight.

I highly recommend Kobold Press's Advanced Races: Darakhul. Basically playable ghouls.

I'll Check it out if i can. Thanks for the heads up.

I wouldn't mind getting aswangs (mentioned in'Classic Horrors Revisited' - unless the manananggal and penanggalan will stay the stand-ins for this kind of creature?) and a reprint of the vrykolakas.

Vrykolakas were the more bestial type of vampires right? Yeah I would like to see them get a reprint as well.

I'd like to see the vrykolakas return myself. Enough of the sophisticated and classy vampires, give us some feral and monstrous bloodsuckers.

The lack of a constitution score is also mechanically challenging for playable undead, and getting charisma to HP (I believe they're just immune to things that require fortitude saves unless those things work on objects, in which case they use charisma for that too?)

Balancing the power of an undead race is normally done with an affliction or deep rooted flaw. Looking at the Darakul(thank you heine stick), they get a penalty where they must consume a small meal raw flesh on a daily basis or suffer the effects of starvation, taking lethal damage and suffering fatigue(even though they are undead and immune to normal fatigue).

Now that is one way to handle the undead power level, and there are other ways. Plus being undead has some big problems due to the whole positive energy damages, negative energy heals thing. And that is also not counting some Pharasmian clerics devotion to the 'undead are an abomination, and must die'.

Generally the social stigmata of being undead is going to be a problem, as I can imagine realitively peaceful groups of undead being forced into fringe communities in ghettos or to the outskirts of most cities where they won't bother the locals much. The few exceptions are probably in ustalav, where monsters and undead are in the majority of the population(also place is generally neutral evil because it's run by Vampires and other really evil monsters).

If this sounds familiar, it's basically the Jewish situation in eastern Europe and during world war 2, though with less of the targeted extermination efforts, and possibly more Russian pogroms(targeted violence against a minority).

I'd like to see the vrykolakas return myself. Enough of the sophisticated and classy vampires, give us some feral and monstrous bloodsuckers.

And vrykolakas are also afflicted with a similar strain to lycanthrope. So they are basically a cross breed hybrid strain of vampirism and lycanthrope. They have the strength and bloodlust of a vampire, and the ferocity and shape changing of a werewolf. If you encounter a noble and sophisticated one of these, you best keep your guard up, because once he starts attacking you, you might have very little time to react before he tears out your throat to drink your blood.

Awesome and terrifying at the same time.

Undead in Pathfinder are almost universally evil-aligned, so an undead player race is already at a disadvantage in most parties. The closest thing to that kind of flavor is dhampir.

Having a race usually being evil and still being a PC race isn't exactly new for Pathfinder... No offense but that seems like an easy way out for an answer.

Pathfinder has rules for having PC races be differing types but they seem a bit underutilized

That's a fair criticism of my statement.

We also provide rules for people to make their own undead player race in the Advanced Race Guide. That we haven't provided an undead playable race in print on our own speaks to the fact that such a thing isn't an angle we're interested in presenting in regards to the creative direction and design considerations for our campaign setting. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean that we want to.

That we haven't provided an undead playable race in print on our own speaks to the fact that such a thing isn't an angle we're interested in presenting in regards to the creative direction and design considerations for our campaign setting.

Would such non-campaign-setting-friendly rules concepts perhaps be more suitable to the non-campaign-setting-specific rules books (like the Bestiaries or Advanced Race Guide), and not the campaign-setting books (like Inner Sea Bestiary or Inner Sea Races)?

Or would it perhaps just be too confusing to include rules for creatures or classes or themes that don't fit into Golarion in the setting-free rules books? (Like the 'cleric of philosophy' thing in the Core rulebook, which is not an option in the setting.)

IMO, that was perhaps a downside to both the Realms and Eberron, was an attempt to include *everything* somewhere in those respective settings, instead of picking some elements and saying, 'Yeah, we don't have a nation full of X here or guns or whatever. If you want to use them, add them yourself.'

A strength was when they took that in the other direction and said stuff like 'Core monks and paladins can't multiclass, but monks and paladins in the Realms *can* do the following multiclass options, and Paladins of CG Sune are an option!' or 'core Adepts in Eberron gain access to one Domain.' *adding* to the core assumptions.

I never understood the logic that they can't put something in a setting neutral book because for some reason they would have to put it in the setting.

Adam Daigle wrote:

That we haven't provided an undead playable race in print on our own speaks to the fact that such a thing isn't an angle we're interested in presenting in regards to the creative direction and design considerations for our campaign setting.

Would such non-campaign-setting-friendly rules concepts perhaps be more suitable to the non-campaign-setting-specific rules books (like the Bestiaries or Advanced Race Guide), and not the campaign-setting books (like Inner Sea Bestiary or Inner Sea Races)?

Or would it perhaps just be too confusing to include rules for creatures or classes or themes that don't fit into Golarion in the setting-free rules books? (Like the 'cleric of philosophy' thing in the Core rulebook, which is not an option in the setting.)

IMO, that was perhaps a downside to both the Realms and Eberron, was an attempt to include *everything* somewhere in those respective settings, instead of picking some elements and saying, 'Yeah, we don't have a nation full of X here or guns or whatever. If you want to use them, add them yourself.'

A strength was when they took that in the other direction and said stuff like 'Core monks and paladins can't multiclass, but monks and paladins in the Realms *can* do the following multiclass options, and Paladins of CG Sune are an option!' or 'core Adepts in Eberron gain access to one Domain.' *adding* to the core assumptions.

To be fair, the 'rule' for Eberron wasn't that everything in D&D has to be in Eberron, but rather that everything has a place where it could be in Eberron. There was a blog post by Keith Baker where he expounded on the distinction after being asked where something he though shouldn't be in his setting would fit in. I can't find it now though.

Adam Daigle wrote:

That we haven't provided an undead playable race in print on our own speaks to the fact that such a thing isn't an angle we're interested in presenting in regards to the creative direction and design considerations for our campaign setting.

Would such non-campaign-setting-friendly rules concepts perhaps be more suitable to the non-campaign-setting-specific rules books (like the Bestiaries or Advanced Race Guide), and not the campaign-setting books (like Inner Sea Bestiary or Inner Sea Races)?

Or would it perhaps just be too confusing to include rules for creatures or classes or themes that don't fit into Golarion in the setting-free rules books? (Like the 'cleric of philosophy' thing in the Core rulebook, which is not an option in the setting.)

IMO, that was perhaps a downside to both the Realms and Eberron, was an attempt to include *everything* somewhere in those respective settings, instead of picking some elements and saying, 'Yeah, we don't have a nation full of X here or guns or whatever. If you want to use them, add them yourself.'

A strength was when they took that in the other direction and said stuff like 'Core monks and paladins can't multiclass, but monks and paladins in the Realms *can* do the following multiclass options, and Paladins of CG Sune are an option!' or 'core Adepts in Eberron gain access to one Domain.' *adding* to the core assumptions.

To be fair, the 'rule' for Eberron wasn't that everything in D&D has to be in Eberron, but rather that everything has a place where it could be in Eberron. There was a blog post by Keith Baker where he expounded on the distinction after being asked where something he though shouldn't be in his setting would fit in. I can't find it now though.

I never understood the logic that they can't put something in a setting neutral book because for some reason they would have to put it in the setting.

It took awhile, but eventually I stopped taking Paizo's claims of 'setting neutrality' seriously. It almost seems like they go out of their way to make their 'setting neutral' content as difficult as possible to use in worlds other than Golarion, and think that if they just cross off the name then somehow that makes it setting neutral.

The bestiaries largely exist to provide stats for monsters in APs and modules, at least as far as Paizo is concerned. It doesn't really make sense to heavily input a ton of monsters into a bestiary that they can't reference, and requires greater editorial insight to ensure those things don't get referenced in campaign setting material. So I get where they are coming from.

Paizo's really stopped trying to even conceal the fact the "setting-neutral" campaign line is just Golarion with Occult Adventures spending eight pages on golarion fluff.

To be fair, the 'rule' for Eberron wasn't that everything in D&D has to be in Eberron, but rather that everything has a place where it could be in Eberron. There was a blog post by Keith Baker where he expounded on the distinction after being asked where something he though shouldn't be in his setting would fit in. I can't find it now though.
But yea, they did try pretty hard to fit everything in, even when the author didn't want them to.

Well something to point out is that Eberron was the product of a contest, and one of the contest rules was that everything from the srd had to be able to fit into the setting. Hence why there are areas that pretty much just say "all the extra magical beasts and monstrous humanoids go here" or "and all other aberrations are just in some part of Xoriat".

Paizo's really stopped trying to even conceal the fact the "setting-neutral" campaign line is just Golarion with Occult Adventures spending eight pages on golarion fluff.

So you expect them to print information in any of their product lines that isn't setting-applicable? If they're going to talk about the Negative Energy Plane, why shouldn't they talk about it in Golarion terms? What's the purpose in creating a second, campaign setting book that boils down to, "Everything we said in Occult Adventures doesn't apply to Golarion; here's how the plane REALLY works in our setting." That's poor business taste, and frankly its an insult to the people who play in Golarion.

You're not the only person who plays Pathfinder and while the people who play in Golarion aren't the only people playing Pathfinder either, it makes more sense to keep their eggs in a row for people who play in Golarion so there's no confusion. Golarion's as much a Paizo product as Occult Adventures is, and to be frank there's no way that Paizo could ever print enough information to satisfy every possible homebrew GM's world. If you want a planar creation kit, you can find that in the GameMastery Guide. (Literally; its filled with planar traits and stuff. Check it out.)

Ultimately, if you are so thoroughly bothered by the fact that eight pages in Occult Adventures are more applicable to Golarion then your campaign setting as compared to the 248 pages that are setting neutral (even more so considering the Medium is no longer harrow-based), I suggest you step away from the forums for a bit and meditate on all of the things in life that are more rage-worthy than the Esoteric Planes section of Occult Adventures. If you're American, there's a lot of bigger stuff going on in the news right now where your displeasure could be better spent.

The OA planes stuff isn't even Golarion-specific; it's an occult take on the multiverse, and it actually conflicts with the arcane/divine take on transmigration in Golarion (see the River of Souls article in the back of Mummy's Mask, which is also a really great article). The intention was that it's not the truth on the planes, but it is a truth, and it's the one that some occult scholars believe to be a hidden underlying truth (that's why there's an awesome art of Enora and Rivani in a nerdrage argument about the way the planes work, which I really enjoyed). Giving the opportunity for multiple interpretations of the multiverse and underlying mysterious truths to reveal is part of the theme of OA, so that's what the book did. It also made the Boneyard available for naming, which before it had to be called Purgatory (as I know from writing a 3pp book that referenced it), which is pretty cool!

SNIP

I think you may have misunderstood. I am not angry or raging about what I said at all. It is simply a fact that the "setting-neutral" RPG-Line isn't really setting neutral, with it being most obvious with occult adventures talking about stuff like pharasma and the boneyard. Other examples of the RPG-line not actually being setting-neutral are specific entities like the Demon Lords and Empyreal Lords in the bestiaries, or the traits that have worshipping different golarion gods are prerequisites.

It's not even necessarily a bad thing, though personally I prefer the RPG line to be setting-neutral, the fluff in the nine pages I mentioned are appreciated, help set the mood of occult adventures, and give ideas on plot-hooks.

The RPG-Line isn't setting neutral. It's setting-Lite.

The intention was that it's not the truth on the planes, but it is a truth,

Sivanah "And the secret that will really bake your noodle? It's *all* true."

Razmir "Even the lies?"

Sivanah "*Especially* the lies."

What page was the Sivanah/Razmir argument on?

The OA planes stuff isn't even Golarion-specific; it's an occult take on the multiverse, and it actually conflicts with the arcane/divine take on transmigration in Golarion (see the River of Souls article in the back of Mummy's Mask, which is also a really great article). The intention was that it's not the truth on the planes, but it is a truth, and it's the one that some occult scholars believe to be a hidden underlying truth (that's why there's an awesome art of Enora and Rivani in a nerdrage argument about the way the planes work, which I really enjoyed). Giving the opportunity for multiple interpretations of the multiverse and underlying mysterious truths to reveal is part of the theme of OA, so that's what the book did. It also made the Boneyard available for naming, which before it had to be called Purgatory (as I know from writing a 3pp book that referenced it), which is pretty cool!

I really loved that part of OA. Among other things, it presented a worldview which offers a real alternative to the "but you have to worship a god because of the afterlife" arguments that have been around for a very long time. I've been toying with the idea of an Esoteric Magus who has chosen to follow the paths of the manasaputras. I think it would be interesting to have a character that views the gods merely as powerful allies or enemies rather than as beings which should be worshiped. I would expect there to many interesting roleplaying opportunities beyond just "nerdrage" arguments. (And I hadn't noticed the topic of conversation in that picture. That is hilarious.)