| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is my understanding that there is something of a discontinuity between a soul's life as a mortal and its life as a shade (formerly called 'petitioner'). My take on how Call Spirit works with a shade is that it doesn't, a shade has gone on to its final reward and is living a new life in the beyond, no longer lingering as a disembodied spirit in the afterlife (even if its life in Elysium or Abaddon can equally be considered 'afterlife' from a general standpoint).
We have no remastered shade statblock, but supporting this idea is that the premaster petitioner didn't even have the Spirit trait. Not that Call Spirit's default mode involves calling any creature with a trait in the first place.
On the flipside, the text of the spell does suggest you can indeed call a spirit back from its 'final resting place'... but whatever vestige shows up, we must either assume it is the version of the creature that knows things, or that Pharasma's judgement places a cap on Call Spirit same as Resurrection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take would be similar to SEO's.
A petitioner/shade wouldn't be a valid choice for the ritual, similar to Resurrection. A soul remains a "the soul of the creature skilled" until judgement is passed by Pharasma, if I understand things correctly.
So as long as their still awaiting judgement you have a chance. How long does judgement take? It varies by plot necessity.
I believe shades can retain memories from a previous life and it gets hazy over time as they get closer and closer to becoming one with their quintessence realm (e.g., final Outer Plane resting point). That information was found in Planar Adventures, which is a phenomenal book that is primarily a world-/planes-building narrative. The book lays out a lot of the metaphysical details of the Golarion universe, which is still wholly relevant, despite being published at the tail end of 1e.
The need for some shades to retain memories justifies why classes like the animist and spells or abilities like the OP exist. Especially as a class that can tap ancestral spirits for assistance, if non-undead spirits did not retain some to all of their memories then there would be no spiritual link beyond the undead.
Shades/petitioners retain small portions of their memories from a previous life, is the general understanding. The problem that presents is you may summon someone who doesn't remember the thing you want to learn about and would've known about in life. Which is fine for a written story, less so for a game.
|
Shades/petitioners retain small portions of their memories from a previous life, is the general understanding. The problem that presents is you may summon someone who doesn't remember the thing you want to learn about and would've known about in life. Which is fine for a written story, less so for a game.
By the GM's fiat (aka the will of reality), this shade remembers exactly that info you ask for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shades/petitioners retain small portions of their memories from a previous life, is the general understanding. The problem that presents is you may summon someone who doesn't remember the thing you want to learn about and would've known about in life. Which is fine for a written story, less so for a game.By the GM's fiat (aka the will of reality), this shade remembers exactly that info you ask for.
Absolutely an option.
There are many ways to play it that are all valid.
I personally just like it better if I say you can only use the spell on souls prior to judgement (which is prior to them becoming a petitioner or Shade).
There's also a discussion to be had around, Peitioner/Shades aren't really the "person" they were in life anymore. You couldn't have any of their possessions, garments, etc belonging. Although, you admittedly have to read between the lines a bit and decide if petitioners are the same being or not. Personally, due to the majority of memory loss associated with becoming a petitioner I personally do not think of them as the same being, which is further reason why I say the ritual wouldn't work after they've become a petitioner/shade.
Of course, it takes potentially hundreds of years for judgement to occur so it's not generally a problem unless you're trying to get access to someone from a long time ago.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is in Starfinder, so anything more than 325 years ago is automatically off limits.
Of course, it takes potentially hundreds of years for judgement to occur so it's not generally a problem unless you're trying to get access to someone from a long time ago.
Not strictly true, I would say what is off limits is things that happened only in The Gap, which is admittedly not exactly clear on how long it lasts.
But you could potentially call a spirit that was pre-gap.
To clear up one thing that confused me for a while.
As far as I can tell, "petitioner" is used by pf2 text to specifically refer to former mortals that have exited Phar's judgement, and part of that process seems to involve a base memory wipe.
After that, some of the specific afterlives have other steps that may include another memory wipe. Some of the hell possibilities, like being melted down and fused w/ other souls into a sword or brick come to mind (after you've been ripened via torture, of course).
Shade is a looser term that can (or at least used to) apply to former mortals more generally.
In pf2 though, there's this ugh text for "shade":
Shades are mortal souls who have been judged and then transformed into creatures native to other planes. Petitioners can survive the basic environmental effects of their home plane.
So pf2 directly conflates all shades as being petitioners, so it's not safe to use "shade" when trying to talk about pre-judgement outsiders / former mortals.
I'm like 99% sure they've used "shade" to talk about former mortals part-way through Phar's judgement system though, so this trait text is just kinda wrong.
____________
Word issues aside, it does seem that un-judged souls retain memories by default. This may even extend through the plane nativization process. So while judged petitioners that become Abaddon's hunted may not remember their mortal lives, all the souls that ended up sucked into Abaddon by accident or daemonic machinations seem like they should remember.
All that's a long way of saying that a GM can loophole Call Spirit into providing info even if said soul became an outsider a thousand years ago. They just need to make sure they dodged Phar's judgement and that it makes sense for them to well, remember anything relevant after such a long time frame.
Such as being stuck in the Boneyard and un-judged due to some bureaucratic error, so there's been no new memory acquisition, etc.
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The use of the word "petitioner" in a remastered product would be an error, because that specific expression is an OGL thing that, like owlbears, otyughs, and magic missiles, is content we've moved away from and/or replaced in the remastered rules. "Petitioner" in this case is basically a typo/error that slipped through and should have been replaced with the word "Shade."
The core idea of a soul that's been judged and is sent on to their afterlife as a shade still carries with it a memory wipe, even though the specific word we use to identify these post-soul entities has changed from "petitioner" to "shade." Those memories might persist in the shade's mind as hazy half-rememmbered fancies (like partially-remembered dreams) for an amount of time.
When you cast call spirit, you're contacting an intellect from beyond. This "spirit" can be a soul awaiting judgment, a shade that's been judged, or even something like a fiend or kami or something else supernatural, depending on the needs of the narrative. In the case of contacting a shade's spirit, the act of invoking that shade's living name before they were judged and providing a connection to it in the form of a possession or garment or a piece of its corpse is enough to trigger those obscured not-quite-forgotten memories, enough that you can interrogate the called spirit as determined by the result of your check to cast the ritual in the first place. In the case of a shade, I'd say it doesn't remember anything it tells you during this ritual and would carry on its afterlife unaffected. (Although if it were a pre-judgement soul, I'd say it would potentially remember*.) This doesn't actually conure or summon a thing with statistics that can do anything other than answer questions.
*Seven Dooms for Sandpoint spoiler
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what I had figured at first, but a soul that is awaiting judgment is not necessarily in its final resting place though. Now granted, the spell might have the power to call a pre-judged soul, but it emphasizes calling souls from their final resting place, which would necessitate a judged soul from that source.My take would be similar to SEO's.
A petitioner/shade wouldn't be a valid choice for the ritual, similar to Resurrection. A soul remains a "the soul of the creature skilled" until judgement is passed by Pharasma, if I understand things correctly.
So as long as their still awaiting judgement you have a chance. How long does judgement take? It varies by plot necessity.
You could interpret it that way, but it conflicts with what I understand about Petitioners/Shades or runs the risk of you calling someone that knows nothing about the thing you want to learn about.
From strictly a setting view, there's nothing wrong with being able to call a spirit once they've become a petitioner with a high likelihood that they simply are useless to you. Honestly, story wise as a GM I love it. Sorry, no shortcuts, find another way. But as a player it would be frustrating since the ritual is Uncommon in the first place meaning the GM had to allow you access to to be even to able attempt it, and then did you dirty by not allowing it to even be really successful in giving you info.
So, I'm just going to ignore the bit in the ritual about "final resting place" because all those pieces just don't really make for a compatible story lore and mechanics.
I also like the idea that after a certain time, things are simply off limits. And much like why resurrection doesn't work, it becomes the purview of the GM. You can give the spell or ritual, while saying you can do this with some people, but some are simply not avaiable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love this take.
Hard limitations do need to be carefully constructed, but can paradoxically foster creativity and greatly improve the table as a collective's ability to spin a narrative.I think this forum in general skews too much toward the "PCs must never experience failure/setbacks outside of their control/rolls" which often infects non-roll things, like this ritual.
Just because PCs spent the resources to roll a success on a ritual does not mean it's gotta have some effective payoff. Nor do the players have to know it'll fail ahead of time! It's perfectly fine GMing to know it's not the effect/spell the PCs are looking for, yet remain quiet and allow the players do it anyway.
That | idea --> attempt --> failure --> next idea | is the entire learning process. It's also the core loop of a narrative campaign. Characters keep failing to clear the final objective, until they achieve one final success, bringing the campaign's plot to a close.
______
A great reference point for GMs in this "how far back in time can PCs get hard answers?" limit is the spell Object Reading.
No need to conjure a sapient spirit to talk, you can instead use a spell to sort through and seek specific memories/info out of an object that was exposed to the event. This spell itself has hard limitations, as the object needed to have witnessed the specific desired info. Despite being a "hard limitation" this PoV of the object detail can be a great way for the GM to provide and hide info in a way that makes for a better narrative.
PC caster picks a corpse's sword? That sword was sheathed and under a cloak during some of the important talk, but after it was drawn, the dead owner & BBEG shouted just enough at each other to provide the next clue, etc.
______
Here's the scaling on how far back the PCs can look at each R with Object Reading:
R1: past week
R2: past month
R4: past year
R6: past decade
R8: past century
R9: object's entire history
This helps to outline the capability of a hero depending on their present level of magical prowess.
And not just the PCs! This is also very useful to determine what sorts of NPC casters the party may be able to consult based on who they can seek out. That Rank 4 does look to be a good sweet spot, where some effort will be needed to find an Occult caster of that level, and the jump to 1 year becomes campaign-relevant without being too much of a GM-burden-surprise.
|
|
I love this take.
Hard limitations do need to be carefully constructed, but can paradoxically foster creativity and greatly improve the table as a collective's ability to spin a narrative.I think this forum in general skews too much toward the "PCs must never experience failure/setbacks outside of their control/rolls" which often infects non-roll things, like this ritual.
Just because PCs spent the resources to roll a success on a ritual does not mean it's gotta have some effective payoff. Nor do the players have to know it'll fail ahead of time! It's perfectly fine GMing to know it's not the effect/spell the PCs are looking for, yet remain quiet and allow the players do it anyway.
That | idea --> attempt --> failure --> next idea | is the entire learning process. It's also the core loop of a narrative campaign. Characters keep failing to clear the final objective, until they achieve one final success, bringing the campaign's plot to a close.______
A great reference point for GMs in this "how far back in time can PCs get hard answers?" limit is the spell Object Reading.No need to conjure a sapient spirit to talk, you can instead use a spell to sort through and seek specific memories/info out of an object that was exposed to the event. This spell itself has hard limitations, as the object needed to have witnessed the specific desired info. Despite being a "hard limitation" this PoV of the object detail can be a great way for the GM to provide and hide info in a way that makes for a better narrative.
PC caster picks a corpse's sword? That sword was sheathed and under a cloak during some of the important talk, but after it was drawn, the dead owner & BBEG shouted just enough at each other to provide the next clue, etc.______
Here's the scaling on how far back the PCs can look at each R with Object Reading:R1: past week
R2: past month
R4: past year
R6: past decade
R8: past century
R9: object's entire historyThis helps to outline the capability...
I think the degree of success of the ritual already covers the ritual fails / spirit unavailable quite well.
And if the GM has the result pre-scripted to enhance the story, that's great too.
Well, we already got the answer from James Jacobs that using their name or a part of their past will temporarily jog their memory for the purpose of the ritual, which is an elegant solution.You could interpret it that way, but it conflicts with what I understand about Petitioners/Shades or runs the risk of you calling someone that knows nothing about the thing you want to learn about.
From strictly a setting view, there's nothing wrong with being able to call a spirit once they've become a petitioner with a high likelihood that they simply are useless to you. Honestly, story wise as a GM I love it. Sorry, no shortcuts, find another way. But as a player it would be frustrating since the ritual is Uncommon in the first place meaning the GM had to allow you access to to be even to able attempt it, and then did you dirty by not allowing it to even be really successful in giving you info.
So, I'm just going to ignore the bit in the ritual about "final resting place" because all those pieces just don't really make for a compatible story lore and mechanics.
I also like the idea that after a certain time, things are simply off limits. And much like why resurrection doesn't work, it becomes the purview of the GM. You can give the spell or ritual, while saying you can do this with some people, but some are simply not avaiable.
Eh....sort of. James is the creative director but also posts like this are unofficial.
Personally I view James take here as a suggestion of how you could handle it, but not the only way to handle it. As far as I'm aware the official lore isn't explicitly written to say this is what happens. It's very much a grey area. James solution does resolve it in a fine way, but I still prefer my version honestly because I don't like the idea that the ritual temporarily restores their memory. Setting a limit of "you can't reach the judged" is preferable in my opinion (much like resurrection) because otherwise you can just reach out to someone who was there when the ancient thing you're looking for wasn't ancient and knows exactly what happened to it, and that's simply more narrative power than I'd like players to have.