Undead can't be purchased, and there's no 'item' creation rules, so I'd say this is a big negative lil fella.
Animate Dead isn't item creation. It's a 3rd level spell that costs 25gp/HD of creature to be animated.
Looks like a policy question to me. Does the undead count as "Bonded Animal" similar to a familiar or mount or companion?
(Social situations in the society might make keeping of undead impractical, though they might be kept off-site at a local aligned temple.)
I've just looked for and can't find any similar ruling for the old Living Greyhawk campaign.
Looked further, and I saw some advisory stuff about how creating undead was exceedingly evil, and as such might shift the PC's alignment to evil at which point they would become an NPC and have to retire their character.
Cool question. Makes me want to play a LN cleric and having scads of zombie childcare workers helping to raise local orphans. (It's all about the balance...) But seriously, this is a good question. If NEUTRAL is a balance between evil and good, a neutral cleric would be expected to do occasional evil acts and occasional good acts. If undead are created not with the intention of killing villagers, but of creating workers to turn the treadmills (possibly from the bodies of criminals who had recently been killed in the module), then how evil is the act.
The question also arises of what about undead monsters who have been rebuked by a neutral cleric. If they fail the will save, they will come under his control (indefinitely if they are mindless, saving throw 1/day otherwise). How should these be treated in PFS?
|
Animate Dead isn't item creation.
Thanks for the news flash. Next time look for the words with ' marks around them.
Given the generally evil nature of bringing undead into the world I wouldn't allow it at my table. No matter what Mr. Frost said.
BTW you couldn't find LG rules is because creation of undead is considered an evil act, punishable in LG.
Animate Dead isn't item creation.Thanks for the news flash. Next time look for the words with ' marks around them.
Given the generally evil nature of bringing undead into the world I wouldn't allow it at my table. No matter what Mr. Frost said.
BTW you couldn't find LG rules is because creation of undead is considered an evil act, punishable in LG.
Hmm. Are you saying that in a PFS game, you would not allow an act even if it was (hypothetically) allowed by PFS, or are you saying you wouldn't allow it in your home game? It would be disappointing to go into a PFS game and find that the DM was houseruling things that were ruled legal for PFS play. As this particular issue may be moot depending on how paizo rules, are there other things that you currently houserule in PFS games?
While evil acts in LG were subject to punishment, the only possible punishment was retirement of the character, which would be if the local triad determined that the character was irretrievably evil. As I understood the discussions that went on at the time, it was possible to overcome evil acts with noted good acts, and that there was no prohibition on purchasing scrolls of Animate Dead. Hence the discussions at the time of how it could or could not be used.
While I understood you were not saying animated dead were items, I understood you as implying that a similar rule should apply because they were item-like. My intention was to point out that there are other things that characters can do to gain item-like things (companions, familiars) which persist beyond the module.
|
|
Are you saying that in a PFS game, you would not allow an act even if it was (hypothetically) allowed by PFS, or are you saying you wouldn't allow it in your home game?
I'm saying that the creation of undead is horrifically evil, and not be appearing in my tables from the PC's side.
'As this particular issue may be moot depending on how paizo rules, are there other things that you currently houserule in PFS games?'
I reserve the right to house rule anything a 5yo me would find stupid. Currently this has only happened with LFR (too often IMO).
'While evil acts in LG were subject to punishment...'
In LG a GM could mark your evil act, 2-3 (depending on original alignment) such acts turns your PC into an NPC.
We have both in our group and the LN cleric's idea is to be a necromancy type of cleric. It is his dream character and it is causing table conflict due to the other cleric players desire to destroy the undead.
If your player's dream character is a necromantic cleric who creates undead, then he should be Neutral Evil, certainly not Lawful Neutral.
|
|
You can't rule something that is in the rules not allowed.
Actually... The rules explicitly ban evil characters. So unless it's ruled that robbing people of their bodies, rebuking attempts to return the undead's soul to life, and enslaving said bodies into never ending service is not an evil act I can ban such things. all. day. long.
I was sure I put a statement in the guide book about spells cast in one scenario never extending over to the next, but I can't seem to find the page at the moment. If your PC wants to raise some skeletons and their alignment and deity are okay with that (animated dead is an evil spell, after all) then they should be allowed to. However, their fellow PCs and most NPCs will see this as a horrible, evil abomination and will likely destroy the undead. PVP isn't allowed, so there's really nothing a PC could do if they spent the time and gold and summoned a handful of skeletons only to watch the party's barbarian smash them to pieces.
So: no, you can't summon skeletons and keep them from one scenario to the next. Yes, you can use animate dead so long as your alignment and deity are okay with that. Yes, your fellow PCs might destroy them. No, you can't really do anything about that.
Given the generally evil nature of bringing undead into the world I wouldn't allow it at my table. No matter what Mr. Frost said.
There's nothing in the rules that would stop someone from doing so, though I leave it to the GMs and the situation as to how they handle this--within the rules of Pathfinder Society of course.
|
'While evil acts in LG were subject to punishment...'
In LG a GM could mark your evil act, 2-3 (depending on original alignment) such acts turns your PC into an NPC.
I'd like to threadjack long enough to correct this, as I was an LG Triad member for several years.
GMs couldn't take a character out of play (or turn a PC into an NPC) for being evil, no matter how many "evil marks" they had noted on their adventure records.
As a Triad member, *I* couldn't take a character out of play for being evil. I could only recommend this to the Circle, and they would have to decide to take the character out of play. And they had a lot better things to do than adjudicate things like this.
Although I heard rumors, I don't have direct knowledge of a single Living Greyhawk character ever removed from play for evil acts by the campaign administration. Even among those characters who supposedly chalked up an evil act or two every adventure.
I had a necromancer character who was both disgusting and evil--I voluntarily took him out of play, and he showed up as a villain in a later adventure that I wrote. :)
Thanks,
Ron Lundeen
former Verbobonc Triad
|
|
I'd like to threadjack long enough to correct this, as I was an LG Triad member for several years.
I said nothing inherently incorrect (aside from perhaps the number of evil acts required). My only mistake was there is more red tape than one might suppose from my statement.
Looking back over the rules it states that attacking another PC (without extraordinary circumstances) automatically shifts alignment to evil.
I would appreciate it if you not attack my credibility when it doesn't pertain to the subject of the thread.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Poison use is explicitly evil, and explicitly allowed in Pathfinder Society. It's even encouraged by a faction mission.
Igniting random city-wide violence, same thing.
In one scenario, a faction mission directs characters to obtain materials to facilitate the creation of a new type of undead.
In that context, casting animate dead on a long-dead corpse, or a dead animal, doesn't seem so bad to me.
--+--+--
Regarding player-versus-player: Josh, are you saying that one PC can destroy another PC's property, and the victim has no recourse? If my character had a fear of wolves ("wolves and bats are evil") and killed a druid's animal companion, are you saying that the druid's player would have no recourse?
How is that different from destroying a necromancer's undead wolves?
That would be true, were it not for the fact that said actions are evil, explicitly against the rules.
Is it really explicitly against the rules? I just looked through the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play. The closest rule to that is:
Step 6: Alignment
No evil-aligned PCs are allowed in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. You may select any of the good or neutral alignments (though obviously not neutral evil). Gary chooses Lawful Neutral for Taar’s alignment.
This doesn't _explicitly_ say that evil actions are against the rules. In fact, it doesn't even implicitly say that evil actions are not allowed. There are only three commandments which govern player action.
1) Thou shalt not engage in player versus player conflict. (Says nothing about non-player characters)
2) Thou shalt not bully other players. (Again, player/player interaction, not player/non-player interaction).
3) Thou shalt not cheat. (Self-explanatory).
What rule are you thinking of when you say that "said actions are evil, explicitly against the rules"
The Pathfinder Society, as the game sets it up, is an adventuring organization. It's not the church of a good diety, requiring its members to go forth and do good deeds. The entire faction of Cheliax is dedicated to the cause of seeing Asmodeus rise and control the land. The missions given by the Paracountess, who may herself be a demon or devil, or succubus, will almost certainly never involve doing good deeds, and will most probably involve some measure of evil deeds.
(Not to mention a recent mission that had as a faction goal for another faction the mass-murder of several innocent bystanders.)
If you want to force characters in your home games to conform to your vision of what their characters should be, that's fine. It's your game. But I have a sincere problem with the declaration that you would enforce non-existent rules in PFS even in contradiction to whatever Mr. Frost might rule.
|
|
How is that different from destroying a necromancer's undead wolves
I believe the term property is the key difference here.
A wizard's familiar and a druid/ranger's animal companion are friends. For the most part undead (even moreso with mindless undead as in the example case) are property, slaves to their master without will.
I think what's being missed here is that if a player has a problem with the table they're at the most powerful statement that can be made is to walk away. I've done it, and encourage anyone that finds themselves seated at a table they're truly unsatisfied with to do the same. Trust me, if it happens more than once the GM usually doesn't continue.
|
|
Is it really explicitly against the rules?
No evil PCs, in black and white.
If someone attempts to create undead at my table I'll let them know that would shift their alignment to evil, making their character unplayable. Should someone attempt to bring undead into my game my answer will be no, then I'll advise them of the no evil characters rule.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
NotMouse, I understand here you're coming from here.
Let me ask you:
What would you do if a PC attempted to kill someone with a particularly painful poisoned weapon? Would you declare the character evil and unplayable?
--+--+--
Josh, is there any way a DM can declare a character evil, or is that a decision that needs to come from you?
|
Is it really explicitly against the rules?No evil PCs, in black and white.
If someone attempts to create undead at my table I'll let them know that would shift their alignment to evil, making their character unplayable. Should someone attempt to bring undead into my game my answer will be no, then I'll advise them of the no evil characters rule.
This strikes me as extremely heavy handed. It may say 'No evil PCs' in the rules, but you are definitely house ruling that a single individual act instantly makes the character officially evil and unplayable.
How is that different from destroying a necromancer's undead wolvesI believe the term property is the key difference here.
I don't think so. A bought horse or a dog is also property. Should a character be able to slay every bought animal just like undead?
Edit: Or any other property for that matter. Weapons, armor, spellbooks, ect.
|
|
In my opinion creating undead isn't any more evil than say, these acts committed by PC during Pathfinder Society missions:
* Killing someone and taking their stuff (happens in pretty much every scenario)
* Assassination by poison
* Acts of terrorism
* Grave-robbing
* Using any spell that has the evil-descriptor
* Rebuking undead
* Worshiping an evil deity
Singling out creating undead as "evil enough to warrant an alignment shift" when the above mentioned acts are expected and in some cases mandatory for mission completion is just plain silly.
Destroying another PC:s property is IMNSHO definitely player vs. player.
Until we have actual rules for evil acts as opposed to DM-fiat and loose guidelines I really can't see how any kind of case by case moderation would work in an organized play environment.
Is it really explicitly against the rules?No evil PCs, in black and white.
If someone attempts to create undead at my table I'll let them know that would shift their alignment to evil, making their character unplayable. Should someone attempt to bring undead into my game my answer will be no, then I'll advise them of the no evil characters rule.
Interesting. So, this begs the question.
Player: "I cast animate dead on the wolf that we just defeated."
You: "Your alignment is now evil."
What do you do, do you eject them from your table? Do you take away their character sheet? Do you report them to paizo? How do you "make their character unplayable"?
And again, by what rule do you follow that says that one evil act makes a character evil? How do you track alignment at the PFS game? How do you know that that same cleric in the previous module didn't run into a burning mill to save a bunch of NPC's from a fiery death? Or that he didn't free an entire shipment of slaves destined to a life of harsh servitude in a far off land? Again, how do you personally determine that a character is now EVIL, and not simply being neutral, which includes both evil and good acts?
I guess the side question to Mr. Frost is - is there a mechanism, or will there be a mechanism to adjudicate DM-player concerns/conflicts? I know Living Greyhawk had the Triad, and then the Circle who pretty much made sure that things ran smoothly, but I don't think LFR has any such mechanism, aside from directly appealing to RPGA, and even then I don't know what happens from there. Will PFS have a structure whereby rogue players, or rogue DM's will be "brought back into the fold"?
It might be interesting to see if any other PFS DM's or even previous LG or LFR DM's or players have had experience with either players acting blatently evil, or DM's deciding that a character was evil and how they dealt with it.
|
Ooh, an almost heated conversation! I have nothing much to say except echo something others have already said.
GMs individually allowing something that is normally not allowed in the actual rules isn't as bad as disallowing something. For example allowing a player to 'retrain' a character's ill-made progress to a more sensible one is completely okay to my mind where as denying a particular tactic of a character doesn't seem so okay so long it's allowed in the actual rules.
To clarify what this 'retrain' bit was all about, there's a Sorcerer 1/Rogue 1 character in another town. It so happens this player started as a sorcerer and took rogue as his second class. This way he is thus 1 hp short, and doesn't have as much skill points. Of course if the sorcerer used all skill points in Concentration and Spellcraft, taking the rogue first wouldn't get them so high.
When PFRPG hits the shelves this would no longer be a problem.
|
|
NotMouse, I understand here you're coming from here.
Let me ask you:
What would you do if a PC attempted to kill someone with a particularly painful poisoned weapon? Would you declare the character evil and unplayable?
--+--+--
Josh, is there any way a DM can declare a character evil, or is that a decision that needs to come from you?
according to the description of Detect Evil from the Beta, poison use doesn't qualify as an evil act.
Murder is what is evil, not the device that is use to commit murder.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
According to the description of Detect Evil from the Beta, poison use doesn't qualify as an evil act.Murder is what is evil, not the device that is use to commit murder.
My sincere thanks, Herald. When we shift from the current rules in 5 months, that's one problem that we might be able to retire.
|
|
My sincere thanks, Herald. When we shift from the current rules in 5 months, that's one problem that we might be able to retire.
According to the description of Detect Evil from the Beta, poison use doesn't qualify as an evil act.Murder is what is evil, not the device that is use to commit murder.
I'm not sure what you mean, but as far as i am concerned, I'm hoping that this doesn't change in the rules.
Where does it say that? I can't find it.Well, right now, we're not playing with the Pathfinder RPG rules; we're using D&D 3.5. And so poison use is an evil act under current PFS rules.
I'm not sure what you mean, but as far as i am concerned, I'm hoping that this doesn't change in the rules.
SRD: (under Detect Evil)Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them.
|
|
Here is the problem with NotMousse's argument and the reason that DM's need firm rules for organized play.
Fixed your typo.
'He doesn't care what the ruling is, he cares what he thinks.'
Absolutely didn't care. No evil characters is on the books. No undead slaves isn't on the books, it's only on the MB.
'The key problem is DM's that allow EGO to guide their decisions rather than rules.'
The key problem is you don't like the rules I enforce. If you don't like it, don't play at my table.
|
|
Interesting. So, this begs the question.
No it doesn't really. I would let the player know such an action would make their character evil. Your fictional conversation would then go something like this.
Player: "I cast animate dead on the wolf that we just defeated."
GM: "That's an act so evil your alignment would shift to evil. Evil characters are not allowed in PFS."
Player: "On second thought I don't cast that... Can I resell this gem for full value?"
GM: "Trade goods sell for full value, you're kosher."
This assumes someone who came from at least 500 miles away (nearest PFS game day on the map) and tried to pull that stunt. Otherwise I know all my players and they would ask before attempting to buy something not in the PHB if there was access to the gems needed. I'm pretty sure they're not, but I'd check and inquire why they wanted the jewel, pointing out that animating undead is exceedingly evil.
'How do you "make their character unplayable"?'
In general I don't. Among my number are none stupid enough to make their characters evil just to see what would happen.
'Again, how do you personally determine that a character is now EVIL, and not simply being neutral, which includes both evil and good acts?'
Because I know, literally, all my players. Oddly enough the only one to even flirt with the evil side is our Chelaxian, and he's really a hedonist rather than outright satanic.
BTW LFR has triad just as LG did.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
Several separate issues are raised by the idea of player characters animating the dead. The first issue has been addressed by Mr. Frost: Unless a specific exception is made, player characters’ spells don’t carry over from one game to the next. Undead animated in one game are not permitted to linger past that game.
The second issue is thornier: Just how evil is animating the dead? Some people view this as a truly vile act (“You dare to summon forth an abomination from beyond the grave! You imprison their spirits in an undead shell, doomed and accursed!”). Others see such magic as unsavory, but not particularly nasty (“Arise, honored dead! Arise and defend your lands from those who would profane them!”). The second philosophy considers numerous other actions to be much more sinister than animating a few corpses.
No one philosophy about necromancy has been outlined as the dominant point of view for characters in Golarion. Much like the debate whether 19th century archeologists were scholars or tomb robbers, several philosophies might be found in the lands of the Inner Sea.
The final issue is one of party unity. Some actions aren’t problems when everyone in the party agrees, but become problems when some party members overrule their companions’ discomfort. I suspect that animating the dead would be an issue at many tables, causing conflict between players or their characters. As such, I would discourage anyone from building a sinister necromancer as their Society character. Playing with their close friends, such a character might be fun. At a convention, with a group of relative strangers, such a character could cause real discomfort.
The final issue is one of party unity. Some actions aren’t problems when everyone in the party agrees, but become problems when some party members overrule their companions’ discomfort. I suspect that animating the dead would be an issue at many tables, causing conflict between players or their characters. As such, I would discourage anyone from building a sinister necromancer as their Society character. Playing with their close friends, such a character might be fun. At a convention, with a group of relative strangers, such a character could cause real discomfort.
The problem is this. Many PFS scenarios _REQUIRE_ what many may consider blatantly evil acts by player characters. And they are looked upon as an okay thing to do. Look at "The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch" and certain factions goals. That's fine. It's part of roleplay and we accept that it happens. What I (and many others here) have a problem with is one DM imposing his view of a spell as a policy matter at a shared world experience.
What if every npc that you or a party member killed was considered to be evil. It generally is in real-life. Sometimes it's referred to as a "necessary evil" but it is still evil.
If you are saying "in the interests of party unity, you should not make a character who does this one evil thing", then shouldn't another player be just as much in the right to say, "any damage other than subdual is evil. If you do lethal damage, and if you kill another living creature, you are acting in an evil way." Do we then impose a restriction on a table of what the most squeamish player wants?
This is getting ridiculous. We have one rogue DM claiming that no matter what paizo or Joshua Frost decides, a given spell will not be allowed at any table he's running. Great find. Let him run his table. Just let me know what conventions he's running events at so I can warn people about him. Not because I want to play a necromancer for whatever reason (and I don't really - I'm more than happy with my current character) , but because if he's disregarding rules in this case, chances are he's making arbitrary rulings in other cases.
House rules are fine and they have their place - in your house. At a convention, the expectation that players have is that the published rules will be respected.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, first of all, I'm going to back up and say that, re-reading my PHB, poison is not the evil that I remember it being. The poison spell is necromancy, but not evil. Jungle halflings hunt with poison. Poison is forbidden for paladins by dint of it being dishonorable, not because it's evil.
So, that.
To stand closer to NotMousse on this issue, there are a lot of judgement calls, and he's being honest when he explains what his are and why he's making them. I don't agree with his rulings, but I appreciate that he's not sneakin' up on people and jumpin' 'em with house rules.
And even such people as Clinton Boomer have noted that they use house rules (in Boomer's case, on re-rolling initiatives every round) that they feel comfortable with.
...none stupid enough...
This really seems to be the core of your argument. You started with saying that it was 'item' creation, but then said that it was an evil act, and then moved to say that it was an alignment-shifting evil act. But the core is that you don't like the spell and don't want it used at any table you are running, regardless of what the rules say, or what Paizo's organized play says.
BTW, why do you feel that Animate Dead is an alignment shifting evil act? Is there a quote in PHB or DMG or Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play that you can cite that says so? The [evil] descriptor that it carries is a limitation on who may cast it.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful SpellsA cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Which means that a _GOOD_ cleric cannot cast [evil] spells and that an _EVIL_ cleric cannot cast [good] spells. A _NEUTRAL_ cleric can cast both [good] and [evil] spells.
There is no source in PHB or DMG which states that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an alignment shifting evil act.
There's also no source that says that it enslaves a soul. The actual description says that it animates a dead body. Just as Animate Objects animates an item (no soul there), Animate Plants animates plants, Animate Rope animates rope. (I'd hate to think of all the poor rope souls that have been enslaved by that spell). You're simply reading into the spell words that are not there.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
The problem is this. Many PFS scenarios _REQUIRE_ what many may consider blatantly evil acts by player characters. And they are looked upon as an okay thing to do. Look at "The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch" and certain factions goals. That's fine. It's part of roleplay and we accept that it happens. What I (and many others here) have a problem with is one DM imposing his view of a spell as a policy matter at a shared world experience.
While some of the faction goals may be sinister, nobody is required to fulfil all of these goals. I haven't read or played all of the PFS scenarios, but I haven't seen any situations that require characters to commit "blatantly evil" acts in order to survive. Sometimes they have to make a choice between their personal ethics and their faction's wishes, but slavish devotion to one's faction has never been required. At worst, they may miss a few faction prestige points.
If you are saying "in the interests of party unity, you should not make a character who does this one evil thing", then shouldn't another player be just as much in the right to say, "any damage other than subdual is evil. If you do lethal damage, and if you kill another living creature, you are acting in an evil way." Do we then impose a restriction on a table of what the most squeamish player wants?
Hardly. I mean that it's rude to make your character one whose main schtick causes discomfort to many fellow players. It's not the "most squeamish" but the consensus that matters.
This is an area where "community standards" may legitimately vary. If "Joe the Necromancer" wants to bring his decaying minions to my table, he's welcome to. His actions may have repercussions, but I won't go out of my way to "nerf" him unless he was wholly tactless. ("Holy Sarenrae! What is that THING on the temple's doorstep?")
NotMousse clearly feels that such would normally be grossly inappropriate and would hose any party the necromancer traveled with. Realistically, how many towns tolerate undead minions stalking their streets? While many players wouldn't run their characters so foolishly, we've all met guys who relish the center stage so much that they handicap the party.
We have one rogue DM claiming that no matter what paizo or Joshua Frost decides, a given spell will not be allowed at any table he's running.
It sounds as if he had no intention of "ambushing" his players with this interpretation of the rules. I may have met this GM, and he seemed pretty reasonable to me. Nor do I believe he is a "rogue" unwilling to work within the rules: I see this as someone concerned that an odd PC might run roughshod over the rest of his group.
|
|
The problem is this.
You have no sense of perspective on this issue. I'm sorry some jerkoff decided your pet PC couldn't use some random thing and you got all kinds of butthurt over it. Now get over it.
I'm one GM, in an isolated region, enforcing one rule to the letter of the law. I'm not the ghost of Gygax come to sodomize you with the random harlot table carved into ent bark.
But riddle me this, where, exactly, are all these theoretical necromancers getting access to these material components that aren't in the PHB?
'Just let me know what conventions he's running events at so I can warn people about him.'
Please do, I'll be at RandomCon in just under 45 days. I look forward to laughing at you and your silly quest you think is so important. 'Beware the foul GM who wont let his players cast a spell they have no components for!!!11one!'
...<random limbaughing> ... But riddle me this, where, exactly, are all these theoretical necromancers getting access to these material components that aren't in the PHB? ...<random limbaughing>
Wow. This is actually a valid point.
Nowhere in the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play does it state that you can buy any kind of spell components.
I'll concede that one to you, you've finally hit an argument grounded in the rules (or lack thereof).
Hey Josh? Is there a mechanism where a caster can purchase non-spell-component-pouch components? Like for Augury, or Raise Dead, or Scrying, or Restoration?
It really appears as though these spells are simply non-castable.
Spell components can always be purchased so long as the PC is somewhere the GM could reasonably expect the components to be found. IE, if you need 25 gp in incense and you're at the to of the Fog Peaks, highly unlikely. But you need the incense and you're in Absalom, go for it.
Spell components can always be purchased so long as the PC is somewhere the GM could reasonably expect the components to be found. IE, if you need 25 gp in incense and you're at the to of the Fog Peaks, highly unlikely. But you need the incense and you're in Absalom, go for it.
Thanks for the quick answer. Is this (hopefully) going to appear in the 1.2 rules? The 1.1 are entirely silent on the issue. (Yes to equipment in PH and Pathfinder Campaign Setting, but gems and large mirrors and such do not appear in either).
Oh, hey, one more question? If Pathfinder Campaign Setting equipment is allowed, does that include Firearms? They are rather expensive, but they might make nice flavor for some character, sometime. (No, I'm not looking for a tec-9 to pop a cap on anyone. <g>)
Spell components can always be purchased so long as the PC is somewhere the GM could reasonably expect the components to be found. IE, if you need 25 gp in incense and you're at the to of the Fog Peaks, highly unlikely. But you need the incense and you're in Absalom, go for it.
Yep, just a clarification...
In the after-action buying equipment, presumably you will be back at the Pathfinder Society hall, and that would be in a large city, and you should be able to restock on spell components. Is this generally correct?
(Very qualified question, as I'm not trying to use it as a X said Y, but as a "in general, I don't need to worry about finding replacement components for Restoration or Augury after the mission")
Thanks again
Oh, hey, one more question? If Pathfinder Campaign Setting equipment is allowed, does that include Firearms? They are rather expensive, but they might make nice flavor for some character, sometime. (No, I'm not looking for a tec-9 to pop a cap on anyone. <g>)
Deussu asked that sometime last year. No firearms in society.