Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
So I've received my copy of the Trial of the Beast and read it over, and while it mostly looks like a pretty good adventure, I have my concerns. I don't think its going to be a good adventure for all groups (by this I mean reasonable party builds), and I'm pretty worried it wont be a good fit for my group.
Plot Issues
Obviously the module is quite a bit rail-roady, but the track is a bit bumpier then most and offers very little room for deviation from the set course.
Obviously the Adventure resolves around the trial of a sentient flesh golem. Well right there is your first problem. Not all characters are going to be particularly interested in defending a flesh golem, no matter how innocent he may appear. For example my party contains a priest of Pharasma who is likely to view the exist of the creature as a tragic abomination that needs to be put down. Being as it basically a conglomeration of corpses given life, even if not technically undead, the desecration of corpses it represents is a violation of some Pharasma's basic principles. A wizard or other knowledgeable person might also point out that flesh golem stand a chance of going berserk if provoked, not helping the situation. A good case can be made that the creature should be put down in the name of public safety. At best my group is going to be unenthusiastic about defending this thing, and I doubt we are alone in that.
Of course if the group doesn't choose to defend the beast the adventure really can't even get off the ground. But actually they can't really kill it either as the beast is generally far to tough for players to kill unless it decides to die willingly. This is really my biggest concern, the adventure is quite likely to be a non-starter for my group.
I like the idea of the Trial, though I think the adventure misses out on a great opportunity to have one of the PCs actually play the part of the defense attorney, rather then just have them be witnesses.
This adventure (like to a degree the first one) is pretty skill heavy as well. Which isn't a problem, per say, but I think its something the players guide could have pointed out more. Our group didn't realize going into these adventures that investigation would play such a large part, and so have suffered for our lack.
I have no problems with the investigative encounters, though the trail to lead the players to the true villains seems a bit tenuous. It relies on the players either chasing down an absurdly long trail of clues. Wait, so I check the symbol on some medical tools, find their maker, find the auction house he sold it to, find the shop the auction house he sold it to, the shop the auction house sold it to, and then the guy? You've got to be kidding me. Otherwise they have to chase down a name on some random paper/tube in a burned down house (likely only the tube because I doubt most parties can reliably make a DC20 linguistics checks, I know mine cannot).
The Chymeric works is a fine dungeon, but as I said getting the players here is a bit of a challenge. Its also somewhat ironic that in an adventure that resolves around a trial, the adventure seems to assume that the players will have no problems breaking and entering into this location to get the evidence they need. I love the section on Pharasma, but maybe a section on the Law in this area might make for a better side bar?
I love the encounter with the mob. Great fun. It might be fun chance to show in person to the players just what an fearsome combatant the beast might be. The mob of course poses literally no threat to him.
Its kind of sad that the outcome of the trial (what the whole adventure revolves around) is more or less irrelevant to the rest of the adventure. And the thread that is suppose to lead the players to the final dungeon is a bit tenuous. I mean if they support the beast innocence, and he's found guilty, why don't the just leave well enough alone? Or if they support his guilt (a likely conclusion for Lawful characters) and he escapes, they might chase him for justice, or they might realize that their chase is rather futile, as they certainly don't poses the means to bring him in. The idea of the mob as a time limit is a joke, as they certainly can't harm the beast.
After the players arrive at the final dungeon, the adventure again seems to assume the players are going to just start looting all the possessions in this guys house. I'm pretty sure there is some sort of law against that. The encounter difficulty is certainly kicked up a notch as well (not necessarily a bad thing, but see other notes).
I have mixed feelings about the final encounter. The idea of controlling a powerful monster to defeat another one is pretty cool, but I also want the adventure to be about my character, not a NPC. It might be better suited for something other then the adventures ultimate encounter. And unfortunately, the final golem is so tough its unlikely the PC can defeat it any other way. It's also quite possible that the PCs might wash their hands of it. The final golem is most probably to tough for them to defeat (hell with its grapple powers, quickness, and webs in the room, they will be doing VERY well to just retreat). They might just leave the top level unchecked, and so have no idea that the crazy machine even exists.
Of course even if they get to the machine, activating it can possibly prove impossible. It's a DC25 Use Magic Device, to activate it blindly (well actually two DC25 checks, but the DC20 Know. Arcana check is probably a bit easier to past for the first one). Which verges on impossible for parties which may be entirely lacking the skill (not uncommon in my experience). I guess you can get a lousy +2 bonus from deciphering some earlier scripts, but no, that's all but impossible. I mean come on, DC 25 and 30 linguistics checks? You've got to be kidding me. Oh, and you need to do both of them to get the bonus.
So they need to make this DC25 UMD check, while on a roof, dodging freaking lightning bolts the whole time. Oh and yeah, if you fail that check by more then 10, you take damage as well. I'm having a hard time seeing a party hang around for this (which is kind of a shame because the whole Frankenstein feel is cool).
Mechanical Issues
I've already covered a lot of the absurd skill checks required for parts of this adventure. The last encounter being particularly bad. There are a few other that are troublesome, but I give them a pass because they skills they call for (Perception, Diplomacy) should be present in the party anyways.
First off I love that there is more monster spread in this adventure. The last one was undead, undead, and more undead. However, this adventures has another problem to me, an abundance of Golems. Now undead may be boring, but they are rarely a problem for an adventuring party to face. Golems OTOH tend to represent a real challenge for adventurers. They are immune to magic and mostly immune to swords. Now fight a Golem every once in a while is fun change, just like other tough/unconventional monsters like Oozes, Shadows, and Rust Monsters can be fun from time to time. However their nature makes them frustrating monsters for players, and so a little bit of them goes a long way. This adventure threatens on going over that limit I think. Recall that a relatively large amount of characters types are basically useless against Golems, such as offensive casters, archers, and TWF.
The adventures gives the players very little in the way to combat the golems either. A single adamantine blanch is it. And while I haven't run the numbers, the adventure feels behind in loot. PCs should acquire like 17k in wealth during this adventure, and I just don't see it happening. Their is like only one magic weapon given out in the whole book, most of the rest is potions and other consumables and a few wands. No armor that I saw. Certianly if the players don't loot the Nobels house they will be behind.
All in all I can't say I can give this adventure a very favorable review. But if you got this far, thanks for reading my thoughts!
Max Mahem wrote:
Not all characters are going to be particularly interested in defending a flesh golem, no matter how innocent he may appear. For example my party contains a priest of Pharasma who is likely to view the exist of the creature as a tragic abomination that needs to be put down. Being as it basically a conglomeration of corpses given life, even if not technically undead, the desecration of corpses it represents is a violation of some Pharasma's basic principles. A wizard or other knowledgeable person might also point out that flesh golem stand a chance of going berserk if provoked, not helping the situation. A good case can be made that the creature should be put down in the name of public safety.
These are all fair points. That said, you should be able to get your players to the point where there's a consensus in favor of helping the Beast.
For starters, the wise and upright judge suspects that something's not right. Then the judge is willing to pay money; that right there should snag a PC or two.
But the big hook is to *make the Beast sympathetic*. Play up the archetype, the whole Frankenstein thing: the body of a monster, hideous and misshapen, but the soul of an innocent child.
Make the Beast an obviously confused and helpless innocent who sincerely doesn't understand what's happening. Have it speak in a childlike manner: are you here to hurt me? I am very sad. I didn't do it. Have I been bad? I don't understand.
Now add in some lip-smacking cruelty on the part of the townspeople -- "I can't wait to see it BURN! They say they'll keep the fire low so it lasts LONGER! This is going to be SO GREAT!". Hey, and make it clear that the Beast is terrified of fire. I'd have two guards, one senior and one junior accompany the PCs to the Beast's cell. The junior one grabs a torch and waves it as the Beast cringes away, frightened. The older one stops him: cut it out, Murphy.
Show the Beast being kind to some small creature -- a caterpillar, a mouse, whatever. He picks it up, feeds it, recites a little poem, sets it free. "He is my friend."
If your PCs still want to kill the Beast after this, then just have them ambushed by a bunch of vampires on the way out of town, and turned into spawn. BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO SOULS ANYWAY.
Doug M.
I actually agree with your other criticisms.
-- Yes, the adventure is somewhat "broken-backed", with the trial and the dungeon largely separate. Nothing you do in the first half really affects the second; if you fail the Beast, he breaks free anyhow. That said, the whole "investigate the innocence of a monster" thing is novel and could be a lot of fun, so it's probably worth doing in its own right.
-- Yes, there are some high skill checks at crucial bottlenecks. If I were running this, I'd just shrug and adjust them, or allow multiple checks with some annoying but nonlethal penalties for failure.
-- Yes, there are a lot of golems, and this could be a problem. I'd consider swapping some of them out for other monsters, or customizing them. (But note that the Beast doesn't really count, since you're not supposed to fight him.)
-- Yeah, looting the guy's house for treasure is pretty dubious. But let's face it -- most PCs are going to. "I search the room" is pretty much spinal reflex for most players.
-- Having the monster beaten by another monster is the sort of thing that can work just fine if you do it *once*. It may help to play up the other golem's unbeatability -- have a smashed corpse or two by the entrance, emphasize its unnatural strength and speed, what have you. The guy in the sarcophagus should be bait enough to pull the PCs in, especially if they figure out that it's the owner of the house.
Overall I agree with your assessment -- this module could have been great, but as it is, it has some middlin' flaws and needs a little work on the part of the DM. But it doesn't seem horribly broken, and I think most groups could have a lot of fun with it.
Doug M.
My players would probably prefer to handle the boss golem directly. While I do see the point of using the framed golem it reminds me of one of those situations where the DMPC saves the day.
PS:I may be misremembering the affect of the "good" golem on the fight. I will look at it again though. If I think he might to do much I might allow him in as an NPC that is less powerful.
I would assume that the boss fight would involve summoning the Beast AND the PCs piling on to help. I don't think most parties are going to summon the Beast and then sit back, crack out some smokes, and watch.
Doug M.
As there is an in-game spell to detect evil, how can there even be a trial, when every magician can soundly verify that it is not evil?
Einmaliger wrote: As there is an in-game spell to detect evil, how can there even be a trial, when every magician can soundly verify that it is not evil? A rabid dog wouldn't register as "evil", and neither would an out-of-control piece of machinery. But both would be dangerous, and would have to be destroyed.
Doug M.
From reading the summary of this mod (I've yet to receive any of the mods themselves) I thought the adventure would go along something like this:
There's some gruesome murders happening in town and everyone is blaming the Monster of Lepidstadt (i.e. the Flesh Golem). But no-one knows where he's hiding. The players are recruited to hunt down the Monster of Lepidstadt and bring him in for the trial. They track him down to a travelling circus where they discover he's been hiding (where better to hide but amongst a travelling band of freaks). They alert the authorities and he's taken into custody. Afterwards one of the circus performers steps forward and tells the PCs the monster couldn't possibly be guilty, because he's got an alibi.
The PCs now need to track down the REAL murderer which eventually leads them to the Chymeric Works.
--------
That's just how I thought it would go down. I'm not 100% sure why I thought it would go that way. That just seemed to be the logical conclusion to me. If the first half of the mod is truly that rail-roady and contrived, I'm inclined to go with my version of events.
Einmaliger wrote: As there is an in-game spell to detect evil, how can there even be a trial, when every magician can soundly verify that it is not evil? Because non-evil people do terrible stuff all the time. Murder != murder. Also this beast is so obviously evil, why bother even casting the spell? This is a kangaroo court to hang the Beast of Lepidstadt (until the PCs get involved).
I think Alot of people forget the RP in RPG aspect of the game. This particular chapter in CC gives groups a chance at investigation and later defending the beast in court as opposed to normal hacking and slashing. It has the drama aspect of Sixfold from CoT combined with CSI flavored investigating and action rolled into a tidy package.
Again there's an emphasis on lesser used aspects of the game like diplomacy and gathering information.
Is it for all groups? Probably not. I think it's pretty damn awesome. YMMV.
I think groups with characters designed around the RP aspect will get more out of this. This adventure exceeds Sixfold from CoT because it stills offers a few traveling jaunts with a good spread of combat. Sixfold while good is probably too much RP as 75% of it is the murderplay and dinner feast hobnobbing. Again ymmv.
I don't know about "awesome", but it's definitely a fun high concept adventure. Players will probably either like it very much, or not at all.
The core of this adventure is the Beast, and the Beast is a role-playing challenge for you the GM.
Doug M.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A lot of my players would probably be against looting the home of a person who technically hasn't done anything bad to them. As such, I am too a bit apprehensive about an AP which puts too much valuable loot in the posession of someone who could be well in his rights to point out that they are legally commiting a crime by robbing him.
I love this adventure. Don't forget that the PCs likely don't need all the clues to prove the Beast's innocence- just enough to sway the judges. The variety of skills used I imagine is there to make sure that the PCs have a chance to find enough to make their case.
I think if your PCs are not going to be sympathetic to the Beast, they may not understand the point of this AP. Hitting on the classic horror tropes- be it the haunted prison, the ancient cult that secretly runs a town or the innocent monster (seriously, look at Frankenstein's "monster")- is what this AP is all about. Not beating up every undead or creepy-crawly in alphabetical order.
I really like the idea of actually having a trial in game, especially an unorthodox one that the PCs may be reluctant to get involved in. I think the trial will play out great for a lot of groups. But I liked the Six-Fold Trials too, so what do I know.
magnuskn wrote: A lot of my players would probably be against looting the home of a person who technically hasn't done anything bad to them. As such, I am too a bit apprehensive about an AP which puts too much valuable loot in the posession of someone who could be well in his rights to point out that they are legally commiting a crime by robbing him. Yea, I feel this as well. Especially since he's the ex-lord of the county, and a man of respect and power (in his own weird way). Compound this with "he's the guy that tells you were the Whispering Way went" and it seems that PCs might be quite reluctant to steal from him.
On the other hand, as a rich feudal lord, he could simply gift a ton of money / treasure to the PCs for rescuing him.
(And I'm also concerned about the loot in the module as a whole: I just see a ton of disposible items, but nothing solid.)
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thanks for the replies, some additional thoughts.
Obviously the monster is designed to be somewhat sympathetic, but frankly this isn't enough. No matter how sympathetic you might play him up to be, some characters are simply going to bawk at the thought of defending a Flesh Golem. The adventure I think should have taken this rather obvious objection some characters might have into consideration. It doesn't really.
----
I was a big fan of the Six Fold Trials as well (well I like the play part at least, the adventure does have some other problems, but thats a topic for another day), and I think that is an opportunity this adventure misses. I mean this adventure is really about the players being detectives and uncovering the evidence needed to exonerate the beast. The players are only called upon to act as witnesses, for a rather inarticulate defense attorney. The players mainly play the part of detectives following up leads, which can be fun as well, but the adventure really doesn't set them up for roleplaying in the classic hard boiled detective story style I think.
Instead (or in addition), having the players play the part of his defense attorney could be so much more fun! I would love to be playing a part in a Trial and get the chance to shout "OBJECTION!" and cross examine and all that. Anyways the trial is still a great chance for roleplaying, but could have done so much more.
---
On further consideration by the book it may be outright impossible for some parties to complete this adventure. The Bondslave machine requires a UMD check, a skill that cannot be used untrained. So if the party lacks a member with ranks in this skill (about half the parties I've ever seen do) by the book the machine simply can't be activated.
You can take a 20 on the linguistics checks, but they also cannot be untrained. Ranks in linguistics is very uncommon in my experience, and even then its likely only a few ranks, its very possible that even if a character does have ranks in the skill they can't make the DC30 linguistics check (need a +10 bonus).
---
The loot is way behind as well. As I said before the players should pick up about 17k in treasure (68k total for a party of 4) in this adventure to be on track for WBL, here is my breakdown of what they can get. Still running the numbers on it, but there is no way it hits the mark.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
I actually agree with your other criticisms.
-- Yes, the adventure is somewhat "broken-backed", with the trial and the dungeon largely separate. Nothing you do in the first half really affects the second; if you fail the Beast, he breaks free anyhow. That said, the whole "investigate the innocence of a monster" thing is novel and could be a lot of fun, so it's probably worth doing in its own right.
-- Yes, there are some high skill checks at crucial bottlenecks. If I were running this, I'd just shrug and adjust them, or allow multiple checks with some annoying but nonlethal penalties for failure.
-- Yes, there are a lot of golems, and this could be a problem. I'd consider swapping some of them out for other monsters, or customizing them. (But note that the Beast doesn't really count, since you're not supposed to fight him.)
-- Yeah, looting the guy's house for treasure is pretty dubious. But let's face it -- most PCs are going to. "I search the room" is pretty much spinal reflex for most players.
-- Having the monster beaten by another monster is the sort of thing that can work just fine if you do it *once*. It may help to play up the other golem's unbeatability -- have a smashed corpse or two by the entrance, emphasize its unnatural strength and speed, what have you. The guy in the sarcophagus should be bait enough to pull the PCs in, especially if they figure out that it's the owner of the house.
Overall I agree with your assessment -- this module could have been great, but as it is, it has some middlin' flaws and needs a little work on the part of the DM. But it doesn't seem horribly broken, and I think most groups could have a lot of fun with it.
Doug M.
Agree with your assessment 100%. I'm not sure there is a GM out there that won't have to change some of the skill checks, as well as shorten the byzantine trail to discover the chymic works. As for the treasure which it is assumed the party will steal from Schloss Caromac, I think redistributing some to the Chymic Works and having the rest part of a reward the Count gives them for freeing him would work far better for good aligned groups. I do like the concept of this module, but I will be making a lot more changes than I made in Harrowstone, which was a nearly perfected haunted house adventure, to which I really only added side plots to fill time between AP's and make it feel a bit more sandbox.
Max Mahem wrote:
On further consideration by the book it may be outright impossible for some parties to complete this adventure. The Bondslave machine requires a UMD check, a skill that cannot be used untrained. So if the party lacks a member with ranks in this skill (about half the parties I've ever seen do) by the book the machine simply can't be activated.
You can take a 20 on the linguistics checks, but they also cannot be untrained. Ranks in linguistics is very uncommon in my experience, and even then its likely only a few ranks, its very possible that even if a character does have ranks in the skill they can't make the DC30...
I for one am completely redesigning the bondslave machine. Making the monster more sympathetic is easily enough done on the fly, but treasure has to be totally redone as well, especially since I'm fairly certain my pc's would not loot the Count's house. Also the skill checks need to be tailored to what the pc's are capable of as well.
Umm..... Why not just throw out the UMD check needed to activate the item?
Modules are always written for a balanced mix of PCs, most groups will have a UMD capable character. If I had a group without it, I'd toss the rule in this particular instance. It's not a game breaker or poor design (which is how some posts here sound to me).
As for the loot, I like a low loot/magic game (ymmv). I always thought of the wealth by level as a guideline only for creating characters/creatures at a specific level. Not necessarily law.
Finally, theres always rule 0. DM's job to tailor things to his groups taste etc. :)
Sunderstone wrote: Umm..... Why not just throw out the UMD check needed to activate the item?
Modules are always written for a balanced mix of PCs, most groups will have a UMD capable character. If I had a group without it, I'd toss the rule in this particular instance. It's not a game breaker or poor design (which is how some posts here sound to me).
As for the loot, I like a low loot/magic game (ymmv). I always thought of the wealth by level as a guideline only for creating characters/creatures at a specific level. Not necessarily law.
Finally, theres always rule 0. DM's job to tailor things to his groups taste etc. :)
Speaking for myself, I never insinuated it was poor design only that this AP requires more customization then the last. The rogue in my group has UMD but I doubt seriously he will be able to make the check by this level so I'm going to change it to Arcana and Spellcraft checks.
I always customize loot anyway, as it is my preference for the pc's to obtain 1-2 useful items somewhat tailored to their character then a hoard of stuff most of which would be vendored.
I also plan to "cut to the chase" a bit on clues leading the pc's to the Chmyic Works, as the suggested trail, aside from the number and difficulty of checks, is long to the point of being tiresome. I'll probably combine or cut at least a loop or two in that chain.
I'll also most likely box out the rails a bit with a few side plots and adjust time constraints accordingly.
Yeah I agree with the hook of defending the Golem is major problem for good characters and an absolute no go for any follower of Pharasma. Even if you go with the idea that you are granting the creature to continue for a final soul cleansing action, that will only get the PC to find him innocent of crimes, but still need to be put down like the abomination dog with rabies he is. I guess my main problem with this campaign is that it is one giant rail road that can only be fixed by changing the final monster so the PC can defeat it without the monsters aid.
IF the Beast is portrayed as intended, I doubt most Pharasman devotees would view it as "must exterminate" in my opinion. A typical mindless flesh golem, sure. Not one with free will that has been condemned to its wretched existence. This is one of those creatures that the "book standard" alignment and behavior should get tossed out the window. How do the player characters shape the very young mind of the Beast, for example ...
From recent movies, Van Helsing's Frankenstein Monster was the only sympathetic character of the movie (as I recall). I fully intend - if necessary, directly playing specific clips - to base heavily on that portrayal.
I think the OP has some valid points.
I think Vorkstag and Grine pose some difficulty in the adventure. The chain of evidence leading to them is tenuous, and I can well imagine a GM having to throw more clues at the PCs to get them there. Once there, it seems the base assumption is they treat the chymic works like a dungeon, which I'm not sure is a given. I think more background on Vorkstag and Grine would be helpful for GMs who wind up having to roleplay those NPCs should the PCs decide to expose them and have them arrested or something.
I also agree that some of the skill checks, particularly the UMD as has been brought up, may be out of reach for some parties. If I were running the adventure and was not certain the PCs could operate the device as written, I would probably drop completed notes from the Whispering Way on the first level of the tower with instructions on how to use it, so a skill check would be unnecessary. The final encounter does have a certain deus ex machina feel to it with the Beast being needed to save the day, but I think the party would still be involved enough that it wouldn't feel like the players are sitting back and watching a show.
The loot is also odd. We probably all know (or have at least heard about) parties that loot everything that isn't bolted to the floor, but most groups I've played with would not loot somebody's house for no good reason. This could be rectified by boosting the treasure elsewhere.
And I agree that some sort of sidebar about how to handle PC's designed with strenuous moral objections to flesh golems would be helpful. A GM might have to be a little creative if that comes up. (Edit: I agree with the previous poster that emphasizing the self-awareness of the golem should help here. The golem can't help what it is. That may be enough to overcome those objections.)
That said, I don't think this adventure qualifies as "railroady," as the OP puts it. The adventure provides a number of objectives and settings, and leaves things rather open as to how players go about it.
The outcome of the trial may ultimately be irrelevant at the end of the adventure, but the PC's don't know that - they only know one result. I know that way of thinking bothers some people, but the knowledge that things work out the same way regardless of the verdict is purely metagame. In character, no one knows what the other outcome would have been. I don't have a problem with it.
In short, I do think there are some issues with running the adventure exactly as written, depending on the party. But I think it is filled with enough fascinating themes, places, and characters, to make it worth playing. With some flexibility on the part of the GM, it could run really well.
Carey Stanley wrote: Yeah I agree with the hook of defending the Golem is major problem for good characters and an absolute no go for any follower of Pharasma. Even if you go with the idea that you are granting the creature to continue for a final soul cleansing action, that will only get the PC to find him innocent of crimes, but still need to be put down like the abomination dog with rabies he is. I guess my main problem with this campaign is that it is one giant rail road that can only be fixed by changing the final monster so the PC can defeat it without the monsters aid. The followers of Pharasma I will give a little on, but I am not sure why good characters would be a major problem. I would even go as far as to say a Paladin (as good as a good character can get) is obligated to find and then help the Beast. For starters the justice of the land must be upheld. Then once it is clear the Beast is innocent, the innocent must be protected. Good characters help those who truly need it.
I have not read this chapter yet, so I am only speculating, and I will admit that I am not entirely certain of how Pharasma works completely, but I think there are some shades of gray here. From what I know Pharasma hates undead, which this creature is not. Would there be as much hatred towards a Stone Golem? She views undead as abominations because they do not heed her call after death, and break the life cycle. This is not the case with the Golem though, since it seems like they are an entirely knew life form all together and not associated with its parts. The fact that it is made of corpses might cause an issue though, someone more familiar with the gods would have to step in and work that one out for me. There does seem to be a little wiggle room for the followers to grow as characters though through the coarse of the adventure.
Timothy Hanson wrote:
The followers of Pharasma I will give a little on, but I am not sure why good characters would be a major problem. I would even go as far as to say a Paladin (as good as a good character can get) is obligated to find and then help the Beast. For starters the justice of the land must be upheld. Then once it is clear the Beast is innocent, the innocent must be protected. Good characters help those who truly need it.
I have not read this chapter yet, so I am only speculating, and I will admit that I am not entirely certain of how Pharasma works completely, but I think there are some shades of gray here. From what I know Pharasma hates undead, which this creature is not. Would there be as much hatred towards a Stone Golem? She views undead as abominations because they do not heed her call after death, and break the life cycle. This is not the case with the Golem though, since it seems like they are an entirely knew life form all together and not associated with its parts. The fact that it is made of corpses might cause an issue though, someone more familiar with the gods would have to step in and work that one out for me. There does seem to be a little wiggle room for the followers to grow as characters though through the coarse of the adventure.
Yeah it is the later that I think is the problem that as a true neutral god Pharasma has little care if it is good or not but it is made of desecrated dead which is also listed in the not liked list. I agree their is wiggle room like that they allow ghost to persist to do a final act or an evil follower might allow haunts to exist or control undead. It is my reading of it that they would probably help clear its name but still try and convince the golem and the people that he still needs to be put down on his nature and his berserk chances.
Now I agree lawful good could have some wiggle room depending on the god in particular. I guess my problem lies that I have always disagreed with flesh golem's alignment in general. I think they should either count as undead for the trait penalties or count as evil because of their chance to go berserk. If I put those a side I can see a number of good gods that would allow it but some that would still not.
Recent threads in Carrion Crown
|
Contributor
