Why do so many people accept the usage of golems?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really confused by this. Even good and chaos-aligned individuals seem to have no problem making/using golems of various types despite them being utter abominations requiring the long-term enslavement of a sapient being (an elemental). To make it worse, I remember seeing a bestiary entry about what happens when a golem is destroyed: that most of the elemental spirits are killed as well, while a small number are maimed. If anyone could point out where this is it'd be appreciated; I haven't found it again yet.

Given what I know, I'd rate the creation and usage of golems as far worse than the creation and usage of mindless undead from non-sapient creatures. A skeletal goat is a lot easier to stomach fighting beside than a golem.


So the fluff of golems certainly includes:

Golem wrote:
They stand apart from other constructs in the nature of their animating force—golems are granted their magical life via an elemental spirit, typically that of an earth elemental. The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator.

But like none of the rules or other fluff includes that in any way. Most of the golems require Geas/Quest... except for the ones that don't. Some golems have a chance for the spirit to go berzerk... but not most of them. I think literally none require Planar Binding in any way. And even if a real Elemental were being used, depending on the Elemental's size, some are little better than puppies (Small and Medium are Int 4).

Now, that all being said, Dominate Person is not evil. Geas/Quest is not evil. So enslaving someone to serve you is apparently not evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
So the fluff of golems certainly includes:
Golem wrote:
They stand apart from other constructs in the nature of their animating force—golems are granted their magical life via an elemental spirit, typically that of an earth elemental. The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator.

But like none of the rules or other fluff includes that in any way. Most of the golems require Geas/Quest... except for the ones that don't. Some golems have a chance for the spirit to go berzerk... but not most of them. I think literally none require Planar Binding in any way. And even if a real Elemental were being used, depending on the Elemental's size, some are little better than puppies (Small and Medium are Int 4).

Now, that all being said, Dominate Person is not evil. Geas/Quest is not evil. So enslaving someone to serve you is apparently not evil.

A lot of people would disagree.

While it is true that those spells do not possess the [Evil] descriptor, and as such aren't objectively evil, I'm certain if you cast Fireball on an orphanage of children, that you would most definitely be committing an evil act; perhaps gravely evil, depending on the motives for doing so (i.e. "It sounded like a fun thing to do").

If a spell doesn't have descriptors, it is just as evil as the methods the spell is being employed for. Again, see the above example.

In a lot of cases involving golems, perhaps the Elemental is persuaded to serve the creator due to some sort of bargain that is made. Heck, a lot of golems may not even contain the souls of Elementals.

That would have to be the case, because according to James Jacobs' design specifications of Golarion and the holdover of 3.X text for creating golems, the crafting of golems would be an objectively evil act (i.e. it'd be like a spell with the [Evil] descriptor).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:


{. . .} And even if a real Elemental were being used, depending on the Elemental's size, some are little better than puppies (Small and Medium are Int 4).
{. . .}

Wait . . . just how is it supposed to be okay to use puppies to make Golems?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We do not know if the elementals used in the creation of golems are sapient. We do not know if the spirit is sentient in its normal form. the spirit could be as smart as an animal and we enslave (domesticate) animals now. A lot of this stuff depends on how you look at it. Yes the elementals could be sentient and as smart or smarter then humans but with out more info we don't know that as of yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:


{. . .} And even if a real Elemental were being used, depending on the Elemental's size, some are little better than puppies (Small and Medium are Int 4).
{. . .}

Wait . . . just how is it supposed to be okay to use puppies to make Golems?

Because they're being used as pilots, not part of the golem. And they look adorable with tiny aviator's caps.

Dominate Person has literally one thing it does. Controls a person and makes them do what you want. If that were Evil, it'd be [Evil]. It's not. Ditto Geas/Quest. "Do what I say!" is apparently not always Evil (or Lawful). I agree it can be used for Evil, but it is not inherently Evil. So therefore we can't assume that making a golem by enslaving an Elemental to obey you is inherently Evil (or Lawful). Flesh Golem even includes a lovely note that completely misses the point.

Flesh Golem Construction wrote:
The pieces of a flesh golem must come from normal humanoid corpses that have not decayed significantly. Assembly requires a minimum of six different bodies—one for each limb, the torso (including head), and the brain. In some cases, more bodies may be necessary. Special unguents and bindings worth 500 gp are also required. Note that creating a flesh golem requires casting a spell with the evil descriptor.

"You're going to need several fresh corpses. Maybe a few extras, just in case. You're going to stitch and glue them together into a horrific creature made of corpses. Then you grab an Elemental and shove it in there, forcing it to be your slave. Now, one of the spells is Evil, so it will ding your alignment just a tiny bit. ARISE MY NIGHTMARE CREATION OF FLESH!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can see non-evil uses for even non-consensual compulsions. For example, against somebody who's actively hostile, forcing them to go home or something else to end a fight with relatively little harm. At least arguably less force than beating them unconscious with nonlethal damage.

Using them for your own advancement is probably sketchy at best, though, especially things like forcing them to kill their friends/family/allies/etc.

Dominate spells are kind of overkill for basically every non-horrible use I can think of, though, so it's a pretty sketchy spell to learn/prepare for anything other than countermeasures or consensual usage.

Non-consensual charms are... far worse, I think, and it'd need a REALLY convincing argument.

Anyway, "the youngest elementals are barely sapient" doesn't make it less horrible in my book. Much like deliberately using babies to fuel your magics is at least arguably worse than using adults to do it.

Anyway, the "they might be elementals that have not been statted out before (or possibly mentioned at all)" is certainly a viable possibility... but I think it's unlikely. Especially since there are fiend-infused golems which are explicitly full demons, devils, divs, etc. Plus, the "elemental that survived the golem they were bound to being destroyed) write-up that I partially remember is not mindless or of 1-2 intelligence, if I recall correctly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Wait . . . just how is it supposed to be okay to use puppies to make Golems?

Because they're being used as pilots, not part of the golem. And they look adorable with tiny aviator's caps.

Besides, we make coats with puppies, why not golems?

An elemental spirit isn't necessarily a sentient creature, and if it is, it isn't necessarily in torment being bound to an elemental. FWIW, elementals don't have souls, their bodies and spirits are one.

Edit: That's *smallest* elementals, not youngest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Wait . . . just how is it supposed to be okay to use puppies to make Golems?

Because they're being used as pilots, not part of the golem. And they look adorable with tiny aviator's caps.

Besides, we make coats with puppies, why not golems?

An elemental spirit isn't necessarily a sentient creature, and if it is, it isn't necessarily in torment being bound to an elemental. FWIW, elementals don't have souls, their bodies and spirits are one.

Edit: That's *smallest* elementals, not youngest.

The main elemental lines, and which I'm fairly sure are all that were out when golems received that write-up, grow in size and intellect over time.

Confirmed: The four main elemental lines and the golem writeup are in the first Bestiary book.

I'm not aware of any canon evidence for non-sapient (much less non-sentient) elementals, either, though it's entirely possible that I've just missed them or forgotten about them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Linea Lirondottir wrote:
Anyway, "the youngest elementals are barely sapient" doesn't make it less horrible in my book. Much like deliberately using babies to fuel your magics is at least arguably worse than using adults to do it.

What if it's not the whole baby?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Linea Lirondottir wrote:
Anyway, "the youngest elementals are barely sapient" doesn't make it less horrible in my book. Much like deliberately using babies to fuel your magics is at least arguably worse than using adults to do it.
What if it's not the whole baby?

Not using the entirety of the baby at least arguably makes it even worse. :P

Sovereign Court

You are also forgetting the simple possibility that the elemental (for those golems where an elemental is required) ... are simply paid for the job. Just like when you pay for services from casting a calling spell.


The King In Yellow wrote:
You are also forgetting the simple possibility that the elemental (for those golems where an elemental is required) ... are simply paid for the job. Just like when you pay for services from casting a calling spell.

I believe that's explicitly what's generally done in Eberron... but I don't think it is what happens on Golarion, at least in general.

Even if my memory is incorrect and an elemental that was powering a golem doesn't end up dead or horribly warped by the destruction of said golem, I don't think most magical societies show the respect for life to actually make a fair bargain rather than use force to make them comply.

I'd like to be wrong, though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Elemental" has two different meanings.

The first is what everyone assumes is means when they say elemental. The classic 4: fire elemental, earth elemental, air elemental, water elemental. The creature elemental. However, elemental is also a subtype. All elementals (the creature) are elementals (the subtype), but not all elementals (the subtype) are elementals (the creature). Thoqqua, for example, are elementals. They have the elemental subtype. And also the fire subtype. So technically, they are fire elementals. There are non-elemental elementals.

Since we do know creatures native to the material plane have versions native to the outer planes (Fiendish and Celestial creatures), it stands to reason there can be version on the elemental planes.

So when you bind an elemental spirit to a golem, you aren't necessarily binding an actual earth elemental (the creature). You could be binding a creature with the [earth] and [elemental] subtypes, like an metal sheep (with steel wool, naturally) native to the elemental plane of earth.

Probably not what they had in mind when they wrote that section, but it does fit. Just because there aren't official stats for something does not mean those creatures do not exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How often are golems used? Is this setting specific? I've rarely seen them used other than BBEG servants/minions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
How often are golems used? Is this setting specific? I've rarely seen them used other than BBEG servants/minions.

I haven't done an exhaustive study or anything, but I think they average more than once per adventure path.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:
We do not know if the elementals used in the creation of golems are sapient. We do not know if the spirit is sentient in its normal form. the spirit could be as smart as an animal and we enslave (domesticate) animals now. A lot of this stuff depends on how you look at it. Yes the elementals could be sentient and as smart or smarter then humans but with out more info we don't know that as of yet.

Actually, given how notoriously stupid and mindless golems are, I doubt that a sapient spirit is used at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
We do not know if the elementals used in the creation of golems are sapient. We do not know if the spirit is sentient in its normal form. the spirit could be as smart as an animal and we enslave (domesticate) animals now. A lot of this stuff depends on how you look at it. Yes the elementals could be sentient and as smart or smarter then humans but with out more info we don't know that as of yet.
Actually, given how notoriously stupid and mindless golems are, I doubt that a sapient spirit is used at all.

As I understand it the elemental provides the power to move the golem around; when it comes to personality and intellect it's uninvolved. Kind of like the fiend-enginers or whatever-they're-called that are used in Cheliax.

Part of the evidence is the fiend-infused golem. Despite having what is generally a superhuman intellect fueling it, the resulting golem's intelligence score is a measly 4. And the fluff about them.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/fiend-infused-g olem-cr-2 <If you're interested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Linea Lirondottir wrote:

long-term enslavement of a sapient being (an elemental)

...
what happens when a golem is destroyed: that most of the elemental spirits are killed as well, while a small number are maimed.

Where does it say "enslave"? They're probably voluntary or don't mind at all. And remember that elementals aren't like humans. I recall someone saying that an earth elemental would be happy with its' existence as long as it gets to roll around or just sit still. - Sitting in a golem is probably nothing too bad either.

Also, what happens when a golem is destroyed is a tragedy. Just like when anyone else dies.


I asked the same question but with elementals as opposed to people

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tpgd?Would-an-elemental-view-a-construct-the-s ame#1


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again, Planar Binding was not involved in creating any of the golems I checked. Geas/Quest (or Lesser) was involved in most of them, but not all. The Clay Golem (one of the ones whose "elemental spirit can break free and go berzerk", mind you) uses Animate Objects, Bless, Commune, Prayer, and #@$%ing Resurrection. So the only conclusion I can draw there is that a Clay Golem is made using a humanoid's soul, not an elemental, and they just haven't been telling everyone it's secret necromancy. But it's also not actually being forced to do anything, as none of the "control" spells are involved. All but three use Geas/Quest (or Lesser), one of those three uses Dominate Person, but both the Clay Golem (above) and the Marrowstone Golem (Animate Objects, Antilife Shell, Create Undead) have no spells actually "making" them do anything. They also don't have any spells that would summon, bind, or control an elemental in any way, unless Animate Objects somehow forces an elemental into those objects (both require it).

So, again, while the fluff says one thing the crunch really doesn't support it. Even if it did, the "enslavement" of the elementals is clearly from Geas/Quest, a spell that is neither inherently [Evil] or [Lawful]. Maybe they like servitude? Maybe they're getting paid? Maybe it's like spring break where they get to go have fun on the material plane? Maybe they hibernate? Maybe they're entirely alien and unknowable by puny human minds?

The Fiend-Infused template just makes it more obvious. The Fiend-Infused template requires Dimensional Anchor, Magic Circle Against Evil, and Planar Binding or Planar Ally. It also adds a vulnerability to Banishment and Dismissal. Regular golems don't have that. Since Banishment/Dismissal don't work, regular golems must be powered by non-extraplanar elementals... which is none of them?

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Dig ye not too deep into the lore, fluff or mechanics. For you will only find madness and monsters.

(Or be like me and thrive on said madness)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
The Fiend-Infused template just makes it more obvious. The Fiend-Infused template requires Dimensional Anchor, Magic Circle Against Evil, and Planar Binding or Planar Ally. It also adds a vulnerability to Banishment and Dismissal. Regular golems don't have that. Since Banishment/Dismissal don't work, regular golems must be powered by non-extraplanar elementals... which is none of them?

If you assume that elementals are anything of the elemental subtype, and not just the classic 4 elemental creatures, then there is at least 1. The ahkhat has the elemental and earth subtypes, which means it is an earth elemental (just not one of the classic elemental creatures), and a native outsider. So there is at least the possibility of elemental (subtype) creatures that do not have the extraplanar subtype on the material plane.

Of course, then there is the fact that golems and other constructs created by magic aren't vulnerable to antimagic fields as they are self-sustaining - the magic that animates them is bound up inside them. One could likewise argue that binding the elemental spirit to the golem also ties it to the material plane, binding the spirit in the golem protects it the same as the magic is protected from the antimagic field, making it effectively a native.


A humanoid-shaped earth elemental is fairly similar to a golem on the plane of earth anyways. It doesn't need to eat, sleep, or breathe, so assuming it takes on traits of the earth, it probably would do what a (for example) stone golem would do on average. Stand around as a humanoid made of stone until a threat approached it or its friends, then retaliate by beating the threat into submission. Of course, not all elementals will feel this way, but is it that hard to assume a spellcaster with plane shift and a good diplomacy could convince an earth elemental to be a stone golem? Maybe offer some payment (though I'm not sure what earth elementals find valuable, probably not gold).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lorewalker has the right of it, if you ask me. Pathfinder largely operates according to the notion of objective morality, a concept that is hard to grasp for us as most of us believe in relative morality. Even so we largely agree that certain acts are objectively wrong, such as slavery. These are obvious holes in Pathfinder's concepts of morality, according to us realworldsians.
But we didn't always think that way about many of these immoral acts. Slavery has an intensely long history, spanning millennia. Its abolition is relatively recent. If we can even speak of it, as slavery is still very much alive in many parts of the world even if it operates under a different name (child labor, for instance). Now I cannot condone these things but neither can I justify calling millennia's worth of people objectively bad people. For instance, I'm one of those people who used to have a stereotypical 'casually racist' grandma. I hated that part of her, but other than that she was a good person and I loved her. I'm pretty sure almost everyone, myself included, believes, feels or does something wrong without realizing it. I think you should view such practices, as it pertains to the game, in the same light. So normal and pervasive that most people don't even begin to think that it might be wrong. Many Pathfinder cultures still practice slavery and many of them aren't all bad either. Individuals, such as PC's, might have the presence of mind to consider it, but by and large its 'just normal'.
In other words, most mages fail to see that what they're doing is wrong because of its ubiquity within their subculture. And some of these mages will still be CG paragons of freedom.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Clockwork Familiars wrote:
On their own, these flickers of consciousness—pulled from the fundamental animating energy of the planes—would have no real ability to affect their surroundings. Only through the specially attuned constructs created by arcanists do they gain the ability to truly live, and it's perhaps gratitude for this service that initially binds clockwork familiars to their creators.

It is interesting to note that many of the creatures that are pulled from other plains (Summon Monster, ext...) are willing to help out the one that called them. Just for the chance to come to the Material Plain.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From an in-game PoV it is not evil, but my personal opinion is that it is no better than trapping someone's soul to create an undead creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dr Styx wrote:
Clockwork Familiars wrote:
On their own, these flickers of consciousness—pulled from the fundamental animating energy of the planes—would have no real ability to affect their surroundings. Only through the specially attuned constructs created by arcanists do they gain the ability to truly live, and it's perhaps gratitude for this service that initially binds clockwork familiars to their creators.
It is interesting to note that many of the creatures that are pulled from other plains (Summon Monster, ext...) are willing to help out the one that called them. Just for the chance to come to the Material Plain.

Summoned creatures don't have a choice, and if you use the calling spells you have to bargain with them by using gifts. Bringing them to the material plane is not a factor. Whether you bring them to the material plane or another plane the payment is the same. That assumes the plane is not one they would hate to go to.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Wait . . . just how is it supposed to be okay to use puppies to make Golems?

Because they're being used as pilots, not part of the golem. And they look adorable with tiny aviator's caps.

Besides, we make coats with puppies, why not golems?

Who is "we"? Are you working with Cruella DeVille?

Clay Golems are traditionally used to protect villages from oppression, saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, I accept Golems because I don't really pay attention to anybody's fluff but my own. It's simple enough to make "trapped in a golem" a harmless diversion from the otherwise dull existence on an elemental plane for an immortal elemental that carries no risk of permanent damage assuming I don't want the game to deal with the moral implications of golems.

As a player, it's because the characters I play are generally not privvy to the specific details that go into golem construction, particularly if it involves "what is the mind of an elemental like"? So they don't even know enough to consider the moral implications of creating golems. At the very least, a character of mine is more likely to consider, say, a flesh golem as an individual who is an artificial person rather than the elemental that inhabits it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Linea Lirondottir wrote:

{. . .}

As I understand it the elemental provides the power to move the golem around; when it comes to personality and intellect it's uninvolved. Kind of like the fiend-enginers or whatever-they're-called that are used in Cheliax.

Part of the evidence is the fiend-infused golem. Despite having what is generally a superhuman intellect fueling it, the resulting golem's intelligence score is a measly 4. And the fluff about them.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/fiend-infused-g olem-cr-2 <If you're interested.

Link fixed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is why my crafters make clockworks, people ask fewer questions.


Linea Lirondottir wrote:
To make it worse, I remember seeing a bestiary entry about what happens when a golem is destroyed: that most of the elemental spirits are killed as well, while a small number are maimed. If anyone could point out where this is it'd be appreciated; I haven't found it again yet.

Any one find this?

If the animating spirit is not killed or maimed, this post loses a lot of teeth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the reasons people are okay with golems is because the common person simply doesn't know about the elemental. In that scenario whether the elemental is forced into servitude or paid in some way doesn't matter.


Linea Lirondottir wrote:

I'm really confused by this. Even good and chaos-aligned individuals seem to have no problem making/using golems of various types despite them being utter abominations requiring the long-term enslavement of a sapient being (an elemental). To make it worse, I remember seeing a bestiary entry about what happens when a golem is destroyed: that most of the elemental spirits are killed as well, while a small number are maimed. If anyone could point out where this is it'd be appreciated; I haven't found it again yet.

Given what I know, I'd rate the creation and usage of golems as far worse than the creation and usage of mindless undead from non-sapient creatures. A skeletal goat is a lot easier to stomach fighting beside than a golem.

You do understand that golems actually come from Jewish mythology? The creator of the Golem in the tale is a Rabbi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Linea Lirondottir wrote:

I'm really confused by this. Even good and chaos-aligned individuals seem to have no problem making/using golems of various types despite them being utter abominations requiring the long-term enslavement of a sapient being (an elemental). To make it worse, I remember seeing a bestiary entry about what happens when a golem is destroyed: that most of the elemental spirits are killed as well, while a small number are maimed. If anyone could point out where this is it'd be appreciated; I haven't found it again yet.

Given what I know, I'd rate the creation and usage of golems as far worse than the creation and usage of mindless undead from non-sapient creatures. A skeletal goat is a lot easier to stomach fighting beside than a golem.

You do understand that golems actually come from Jewish mythology? The creator of the Golem in the tale is a Rabbi.

...Relevance, please?

The golem of Jewish myth bears little to no resemblance to D&D golems.

Even if they did, what does that have to do with the morality of how they're made?


Sundakan wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Linea Lirondottir wrote:

I'm really confused by this. Even good and chaos-aligned individuals seem to have no problem making/using golems of various types despite them being utter abominations requiring the long-term enslavement of a sapient being (an elemental). To make it worse, I remember seeing a bestiary entry about what happens when a golem is destroyed: that most of the elemental spirits are killed as well, while a small number are maimed. If anyone could point out where this is it'd be appreciated; I haven't found it again yet.

Given what I know, I'd rate the creation and usage of golems as far worse than the creation and usage of mindless undead from non-sapient creatures. A skeletal goat is a lot easier to stomach fighting beside than a golem.

You do understand that golems actually come from Jewish mythology? The creator of the Golem in the tale is a Rabbi.

...Relevance, please?

The golem of Jewish myth bears little to no resemblance to D&D golems.

Even if they did, what does that have to do with the morality of how they're made?

The spirits that animate golems are little more than brute animals, so the morality is pretty much a neutral line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Int 4 is not a "brute animal", though. It's the same Int as the "Village Idiot" NPC, or the simpleton "Owlbear" in Skull and Shackles.

Unless you're implying that they're not actually people, and thus it's perfectly okay to enslave and mistreat them (which, hey, at least you agree with the pirates in that book so you know you're in good company)...?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Heck, a lot of golems may not even contain the souls of Elementals.

Unless I mis-remember (which is a definitive possibility) elementals do not have souls. They have spirits which are very different.

Certain creatures have souls (such as humans and dwarves and things that raise dead spells work on) but some only have spirits meaning they are destroyed when their physical forms are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gilfalas wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Heck, a lot of golems may not even contain the souls of Elementals.

Unless I mis-remember (which is a definitive possibility) elementals do not have souls. They have spirits which are very different.

Certain creatures have souls (such as humans and dwarves and things that raise dead spells work on) but some only have spirits meaning they are destroyed when their physical forms are.

The spiritual value of elementals and genies isn't real clear. They don't have souls in the sense that they go to Pharasma to get judged, nor do judged souls get sent to become elementals/djinni (very rare worshippers of elemental lords possibly excepted) and seem to get their non-soul spiritual energy recycled into later elementals/genies when destroyed. But it's not really spelled out very precisely.


Dr Styx wrote:
Linea Lirondottir wrote:
To make it worse, I remember seeing a bestiary entry about what happens when a golem is destroyed: that most of the elemental spirits are killed as well, while a small number are maimed. If anyone could point out where this is it'd be appreciated; I haven't found it again yet.

Any one find this?

If the animating spirit is not killed or maimed, this post loses a lot of teeth.

Found it! Planes of Power page 62, Ozimat.

"Earth elementals are useful for the creation of golems, as their stoic demeanor ensures the longest lasting bond between body and animate force. When a golem is destroyed but the elemental spirit survives, ozimats are the result. Still, those that endure the agony of this experience can ascend to become relatively tranquil beings."

Also, they're incorporeal. Ozimats are basically earth elemental ghosts.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do so many people accept the usage of golems? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion