Awakened animal undead

[Ravingdork]

Is there anything preventing an awakened animal from becoming a ghoul (or similar undead), per the Ghoul archetype?

[Dr. Frank Funkelstein]

Your DM ;)

[Finoan]

From pure game mechanics, I don't see anything wrong with an Awakened Animal gaining an Undead archetype.

Narratively, I have very little problems with it either. Less problems than an Automaton becoming a Zombie.

[NorrKnekten]

There are many Zombie animals and beasts. A few Ghoul beasts too which canonically caught ghoul fever.
Theres rules to make Zombie/Ghoul/Ghosts out of anything really.

So as long as the GM would allow it for a human it should be allowed for awakened animal.

[JiCi]

Ravingdork wrote:

Is there anything preventing an awakened animal from becoming a ghoul (or similar undead), per the Ghoul archetype?

Huh... no?

It doesn't say that your PC has to possess the Humanoid trait.

This is something that... they kinda forgot to tell when "trying" to get the Werecreature archetype or the Beastkin versatile heritage with an Awakened Animal ^^;

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

NorrKnekten wrote:

There are many Zombie animals and beasts. A few Ghoul beasts too which canonically caught ghoul fever.

Of course, ghoul fever itself is no longer canonical, but that's a mere technicality, since forbidden cravings likewise has no restriction against working on an animal, awakened or not--provided the original ghoul can speak a language the animal understands, leastwise.

[Errenor]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Of course, ghoul fever itself is no longer canonical

I know it's off-topic, but why? Yes, we have now also new interesting ghouls, which look less nasty against low-level characters. But what prevents us from also using old ones? Who says there can't be several types of ghouls? I'm not even so sure there are IP issues for Paizo, old ones don't look that unique? So maybe sometimes they could be used even by the designers?

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Errenor wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Of course, ghoul fever itself is no longer canonical

I know it's off-topic, but why? Yes, we have now also new interesting ghouls, which look less nasty against low-level characters. But what prevents us from also using old ones? Who says there can't be several types of ghouls? I'm not even so sure there are IP issues for Paizo, old ones don't look that unique? So maybe sometimes they could be used even by the designers?

Nothing at all! You may note I said the old ghouls weren't canon, not that you could still use them. If we're talking about what is currently accurate to the lore, it seems the intent is that the new ghouls are the old ghouls... but nothing at all prevents using the old ghouls as a variant strain.

[The Raven Black]

Errenor wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Of course, ghoul fever itself is no longer canonical

I know it's off-topic, but why? Yes, we have now also new interesting ghouls, which look less nasty against low-level characters. But what prevents us from also using old ones? Who says there can't be several types of ghouls? I'm not even so sure there are IP issues for Paizo, old ones don't look that unique? So maybe sometimes they could be used even by the designers?

IIRC Ghoul fever itself was too close to WotC's IP.

[NorrKnekten]

Oh right it was changed from a disease to a curse right?

There are still the existance of Straugh though? Typically darklands beasts that have been afflicted during skirmishes with ghouls or created by priests of kalibri.

But yeah, Replace my mention of Ghoul Fever to Ghoul Whispers. The only real implication this has is that such beasts would need to know a language since the act of spreading a curse has a linguistic trait.

Also so bloody happy to see the curse now doesn't reduce healing effects.

[Errenor]

NorrKnekten wrote:

Also so bloody happy to see the curse now doesn't reduce healing effects.

They also removed paralysis which I suppose was the actual low-level PC killer.

The Raven Black wrote:

IIRC Ghoul fever itself was too close to WotC's IP.

Yeah, I suppose you could be right and removal of paralysis wouldn't be enough...

[NorrKnekten]

Errenor wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

Also so bloody happy to see the curse now doesn't reduce healing effects.

They also removed paralysis which I suppose was the actual low-level PC killer.

Absolutely, Now we can actually have interesting ghouls at early level,

Ghasts seem to have been replaced by ghoul soldiers. Which are Stinky Ghouls with Reactive strike... ick. but sounds much better than spending several rounds paralyzed.