Pathfinder Book of the Dead

...

And... and... Oh my! The PREDATORY RABBIT!!!

Run away! Run away!

Patrickthekid wrote:

What deities of undeath that are mentioned in the book?

Urgathoa, Charon, Kabriri, Orcus, Zura, and Set. Only Urgathoa gets a page to herself, the others are more around one paragraph with some additional lore in the bestiary.

So this is where the Lord of the Red Land comes in. I was wondering.

I love how the perspective on undead in this book is skewed explicitly toward Geb’s perspective. That makes me think we could very easily have another undead themed book in the future. For example Whispers of the Dead could be an undead themed book skewed towards the Whispering Tyrant’s perspective.

I was a little surprised to see there wasn’t much on ectoplasm in this book. However, looking at The Whispering Way and some of its lore, especially concerning the Whispering Way’s Ectoplasm Masters, we could potentially see more in a Whispering Tyrant themed undead book. Or more information could show up in an occult themed book.

I was wondering if the Barnacle Ghoul and the Lacedon were the same. looks like.. nope.

Excerpt from Pathfinder Book of the Dead.

Ezekieru wrote:

Dan Thompson from Danger Club Podcast tweeted a thread about getting a copy of BotD from Paizo, and tweeted out some new spoilers. Thread starts from HERE.

Love the two new pieces of art in these tweets, especially the ghost wiener dog~

♥ GHOST PUPPY FAMILIARS!!! ♥

Wait. If undead are automatically evil in Pathfinder, then my ghost pet familiar would be evil, right? And would bringing them back as a ghost also be an evil act?

Gisher wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Dan Thompson from Danger Club Podcast tweeted a thread about getting a copy of BotD from Paizo, and tweeted out some new spoilers. Thread starts from HERE.

Love the two new pieces of art in these tweets, especially the ghost wiener dog~

♥ GHOST PUPPY FAMILIARS!!! ♥

Wait. If undead are automatically evil in Pathfinder, then my ghost pet familiar would be evil, right? And would bringing them back as a ghost also be an evil act?

They

Gisher wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Dan Thompson from Danger Club Podcast tweeted a thread about getting a copy of BotD from Paizo, and tweeted out some new spoilers. Thread starts from HERE.

Love the two new pieces of art in these tweets, especially the ghost wiener dog~

♥ GHOST PUPPY FAMILIARS!!! ♥

Wait. If undead are automatically evil in Pathfinder, then my ghost pet familiar would be evil, right? And would bringing them back as a ghost also be an evil act?

Nowhere does this book say undead are automatically Evil. There are non-Evil undead in this book, in prior 2e books, and in 1e. Their being animated by Negative Energy often pulls undead toward Evil, but it's not guaranteed.

Gisher wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Dan Thompson from Danger Club Podcast tweeted a thread about getting a copy of BotD from Paizo, and tweeted out some new spoilers. Thread starts from HERE.

Love the two new pieces of art in these tweets, especially the ghost wiener dog~

♥ GHOST PUPPY FAMILIARS!!! ♥

Wait. If undead are automatically evil in Pathfinder, then my ghost pet familiar would be evil, right? And would bringing them back as a ghost also be an evil act?

Nowhere does this book say undead are automatically Evil. There are non-Evil undead in this book, in prior 2e books, and in 1e. Their being animated by Negative Energy often pulls undead toward Evil, but it's not guaranteed.

I could have sworn that Paizo had the positions that "undead are evil" and "creating undead is evil," but I'm glad to hear that they don't.

Bringing your puppy back as a ghost might be evil owing to the implied suffering caused by tainting a soul with negative energy, but the puppy itself is free to experience the full range of alignments, even if the majority of undead are said to stray evil thanks again to the effects of negative energy.

Ghosts in particular have the highest propensity for retaining their living alignment due to a variety of factors largely based in the fact that a lot of good ghost story plots work better if the ghosts unfinished business can be resolved peacefully which usually means a nonevil alignment to maintain sympathy for the poor soul.

There is definitely a strong association between undead and evil, but as with everything, there is enough wiggle room to tell an interesting story about an exception to the rule... Except I guess that willingly creating undead is still evil. I don't know any exceptions to that baseline (yet) and in general statements have been pretty clear on intent, though undead do have a remarkable habit of raising themselves as the plot demands, without a necromancer's help.

On the other hand, phantoms are pre-undead spirits which have thus far avoided the pull of the void...

Obviously he is such a good boy, not even undeath could corrupt him.

There are notes about the Old Friend alignment in the book:

An old friend is less likely to be evil than other undead familiars, as is its master

Patrickthekid wrote:

What deities of undeath that are mentioned in the book?

Urgathoa, Charon, Kabriri, Orcus, Zura, and Set. Only Urgathoa gets a page to herself, the others are more around one paragraph with some additional lore in the bestiary.

Ahem, the Grim Harvestman sees that the writers have purposefully left him out of this print, and denied him his place among the Deities of the lost and forlorn souls who stalk the world of the living in undeath.

And they will rue this slight! Rue it!

Thank you for the information.

Xethik wrote:

Patrickthekid wrote:

What deities of undeath that are mentioned in the book?

Urgathoa, Charon, Kabriri, Orcus, Zura, and Set. Only Urgathoa gets a page to herself, the others are more around one paragraph with some additional lore in the bestiary.

Ahem, the Grim Harvestman sees that the writers have purposefully left him out of this print, and denied him his place among the Deities of the lost and forlorn souls who stalk the world of the living in undeath.

And they will rue this slight! Rue it!

Thank you for the information.

And Fumeiyoshi... though I suppose he'd also fit in a Tian book.

keftiu wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Dan Thompson from Danger Club Podcast tweeted a thread about getting a copy of BotD from Paizo, and tweeted out some new spoilers. Thread starts from HERE.

Love the two new pieces of art in these tweets, especially the ghost wiener dog~

♥ GHOST PUPPY FAMILIARS!!! ♥

Wait. If undead are automatically evil in Pathfinder, then my ghost pet familiar would be evil, right? And would bringing them back as a ghost also be an evil act?

Nowhere does this book say undead are automatically Evil. There are non-Evil undead in this book, in prior 2e books, and in 1e. Their being animated by Negative Energy often pulls undead toward Evil, but it's not guaranteed.

I could have sworn that Paizo had the positions that "undead are evil" and "creating undead is evil," but I'm glad to hear that they don't.

Now in general if you try really hard to fight the corrupting influence of the negative energy you're animated with, you can be Neutral. Some other examples of Neutral Undead are Iroran Mummies, Pale Strangers, Pale Sovereigns.

There have been many examples of non-evil undead in Paizo's publishing history. Ghosts in both Wrath of the Righteous and Mummy's Mask for example.

I could have sworn that Paizo had the positions that "undead are evil" and "creating undead is evil," but I'm glad to hear that they don't.

Undead can be non-evil. Creating undead is evil — the spells and rituals have the "evil" descriptor in both editions of Pathfinder.

Exact with a small nuance : creating permanent undead is Evil. Creating temporary undead is not.

Exact with a small nuance : creating permanent undead is Evil. Creating temporary undead is not.

I don't know if abusing and stealing corpses temporarily vs permanently is really less evil... especially since with temporary undead... it is usually done in higher numbers.

Now... if there is consent... maybe?

The Raven Black wrote:

Exact with a small nuance : creating permanent undead is Evil. Creating temporary undead is not.

I don't know if abusing and stealing corpses temporarily vs permanently is really less evil... especially since with temporary undead... it is usually done in higher numbers.

Now... if there is consent... maybe?

Temporary undead are usually created from nothing, like in PF2's Animate Dead. These spells are very much like summons.

Cthulhusquatch wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Exact with a small nuance : creating permanent undead is Evil. Creating temporary undead is not.

I don't know if abusing and stealing corpses temporarily vs permanently is really less evil... especially since with temporary undead... it is usually done in higher numbers.

Now... if there is consent... maybe?

Temporary undead are usually created from nothing, like in PF2's Animate Dead. These spells are very much like summons.

That's how it works when it comes to mechanics. But...the description points to you are dredging up a corpse/skeleton and forcing it to do your bidding. That implies it is an existing corpse that you then animate.

Even if you are summoning a dead body from elsewhere... rather than just dredging it up.. you are then reanimating it and forcing it to do your bidding. That could be arguably worse... because rather than a body from a nearby battlefield... it could be that granny that used to make apple pies in Absalom.

BTW... I am a supporter of non-evil undead... and even non-evil uses of evil spells. Just pointing out that being temporary doesn't mean less evil. ;)

The morality of necromancy on Golarion isn't about forcing others to do your bidding. If it was, every enchantment spell would have the evil tag. It's about disrupting the cycle of souls and damaging the fabric of reality (according to Phrasma at least.)

Summoning spells don't do that.

Mechanically it's a summoning spell. The description is not of a summoning spell. So you are actually creating undead. You are dredging it up from nearby. So you are still stealing or abusing a corpse.. which I'd argue is evil... even mechanically it is not.

Anyway... I don't want to derail the thread.

Mechanically it's a summoning spell. The description is not of a summoning spell. So you are actually creating undead.

This logic does not follow.

Cthulhusquatch wrote:

Mechanically it's a summoning spell. The description is not of a summoning spell. So you are actually creating undead.

This logic does not follow.

Out of curiosity... how does it not?

The description is about dredging up bodies... which isn't summoning them.

It is just represented mechanically as a summoning spell.

To be an actual summoning spell, it would be summoned from elsewhere.. not just animating nearby bodies... that is actual undead creation.

Even Archives of Nethys refers to the spell as animating an undead... not summoning... or conjuring.

As I said though... I don't want to derail the thread.. so this is the last I'm saying on the topic. So no need to answer my curiosity. If people disagree and view it as just summoning existing undead... cool.

The description not matching does not change the mechanics of the spell.

If the spell did not summon a body from elsewhere, it would fail if no body was within range.

Mechanically, it is a summon spell. It doesn't animate a corpse. It summons one.

As a note: the Negative Energy Plane is littered with Undead. Could be argued that they are summoned from there. And the Plane itself isn't inherently evil. It is actually Neutral. It's the process of creating life through its use that results in corruption. So, if there isn't a soul or life to corrupt, is it then evil?

I always considered that creating permanent undead was Evil because those undead are always Evil, and once they escape your control (say, if you die), they will go do Evil to innocents. Hence the Evil tag.

I support the idea that most Undead are Evil because the energy of destruction being used to create usually twists the fragments of souls that animate the creation to Evil.

But Evil undead can become Good and ghosts, though undead, have always been described as potentially having any alignment.

And, yes, this is all for the purpose of telling stories.

Note : Animate Undead in PF2 works just like a Summon spell, including providing the dead that is animated if there are none around. But it is still Necromancy and creating an undead and not Conjuration. As such, it would be anathema to a Cleric of Pharasma, even if the spell is not Evil.

Sidenote : I always found it ironic that the most simple non-Evil use of Final Sacrifice is to create undead first.

Sidenote : I always found it ironic that the most simple non-Evil use of Final Sacrifice is to create undead first.

Myself, I think using an Unseen Servant is simple enough, and non-evil too as the servant is mindless (and bonus invisibility!)

CorvusMask wrote:

list of all undead in bestiary would be nice to see if interesting monsters are returning :D

Name - optional rarity - level - page:

** spoiler omitted **...

Wow, quite a list, and happy to see more than a few familiar names! :D

CorvusMask wrote:

list of all undead in bestiary would be nice to see if interesting monsters are returning :D

Name - optional rarity - level - page:

** spoiler omitted **...

Well, summoning Bone croupier is no more;

Huh, I feel like I saw somewhere the notion that Animate Dead actually manifested a skeleton out of negative energy and raw soulstuff. It's necromancy rather than conjuration purely because the 'summon' is being created with negative energy and not other conjured forces.

I don't remember where I got that impression but I thought it was quasi-official (or at least not just a headcanon). Anyway, since there's nothing I know of actually written down about it (yet), it seems like a good place to fill in your own headcanons.

CorvusMask wrote:

list of all undead in bestiary would be nice to see if interesting monsters are returning :D

Name - optional rarity - level - page:

** spoiler omitted **...

Are there any monsters with the unique rarity?

The Raven Black wrote:

Sidenote : I always found it ironic that the most simple non-Evil use of Final Sacrifice is to create undead first.

Myself, I think using an Unseen Servant is simple enough, and non-evil too as the servant is mindless (and bonus invisibility!)

Flat check to target though. After all it is invisible to you too ;-)

Has anyone else not gotten their PDF for this yet? I have Paizo Advantage and it says that it's been shipped.

Has anyone else not gotten their PDF for this yet? I have Paizo Advantage and it says that it's been shipped.

I got mine as soon as the book shipped. Maybe it's a problem with the special edition subscriptions?

Seems so - I've got the special edition subscription and it's also missing for me. I did get the Punks in a Powderkeg that was also part of said order, so it's not the entire order falling over.

I've dropped customer service an E-mail.

LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS!

I'll probably email them too. I could have been reading it a week ago. It's the only reason I have subscriptions and we had to wait through the delay too.

I'll probably email them too. I could have been reading it a week ago. It's the only reason I have subscriptions and we had to wait through the delay too.

I've just had it added to my account after dropping a mail to customerservice, so likely the smart thing to do!

So, unless I'm missing something, reading the rules as written, a character with the Ghoul Archetype can catch, and die of, Ghoul Fever. They can also technically catch any disease from a corpse they eat. And a Skeleton can be poisoned.

I get that the decision was made for balance sake, but I just cannot get on board with the decision that Undead characters don't get poison and disease immunity. Its immersion breaking to me, honestly.

I like the monster archetypes concept, and think they'll work great on many other monsters, but I don't think it really works with undead if this was the balance trade off.

I get that the decision was made for balance sake, but I just cannot get on board with the decision that Undead characters don't get poison and disease immunity. Its immersion breaking to me, honestly.

I like the monster archetypes concept, and think they'll work great on many other monsters, but I don't think it really works with undead if this was the balance trade off.

There is an optional variant that gives immunity instead of the +1 bonuses but that is GM opt in.

Considering how powerful straight up immunity would be on an archetype I can understand why they wouldn't let that be the default for players to just pick and show up to a table with.

There is an optional variant that gives immunity instead of the +1 bonuses but that is GM opt in.

I missed that, where was it?

And I agree that its powerful, but I thought all the content in that section was considered 'Rare', thus required GM permission inherently.

That said, as written, they should probably consider adding in some language to the monster dedications that give them immunity to specific conditions that would make no sense for them to be subject to, like stating Ghouls are immune to Ghoul Fever.

Maybe they figured it was obvious that you cannot be further affected by a disease you already died from?

Rarity does not denote power level. I determines availability.

LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS!

** spoiler omitted **

Luis said on Know Direction that it was him.

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS!

** spoiler omitted **

Luis said on Know Direction that it was him.

hooray. I was sad that she had not been in any of the 3 2e Bestiaries.

I missed that, where was it?

And I agree that its powerful, but I thought all the content in that section was considered 'Rare', thus required GM permission inherently.

Its in the section titled "Running a Game with Undead PCs" under "Unleashing Undead".

The paragraph describes rules for handing out stronger benefits (like immunities) and rules for destroying undead PCs at 0hp. Both of which are under GM fiat and make certain encounter trivial or extremely deadly.

any idea when will get the Sanctioning Document?

PFS blogs are usually on Thursdays.