Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sargogen, Lord of Coils

Alydos's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 63 posts (70 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 5 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

TEO ArchAnjel wrote:
Woo hoo! We have exceeded our Land Rush 1 total count! 127 right now and still growing strong.

My lucky number comes up soon!

Goblin Squad Member

Pretos_Teshdale_TEO wrote:
Who are you calling experienced? ;-P

Us, the best and most motivated.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I live again, praise to the Order.

I dug through the threads on the front page looking if anyone else has had this problem.

My subscription is shipping things to a different address than what it was set up for. (One of my prior addresses)

I sent an e-mail but wondered if this will have a better turnaround time.

The order number is #2628845

Screenshot for more detail

Does anyone know when this is being released?


Lou Diamond wrote:

I do not know why Paladins are being talked about here. A Paladin would not have done what the Nina did period. It is only IMO that the Ninja May have commited an alignment infraction namely killing the two inocent guards. The Third guard that struck GMT with a posioned weapon is and was fair game for any of the party to lay waste too. The party clearly saw what the effects of a single strike on Torch worte and they knew thier primary mission was to protect Torch at all costs.

The two things I could see GMT doing is demanding werguild for the Ninja or starting a whispering campain agisnist the Ninja wtih the 10 and the other Venture capatians. This could have drastic and deadly consequences for Torch as the Ninja in question might take offense and whack Torch and he is far deadlier than some Red Mantis Assassi but that is only one GM's oppion.

You were the GM, correct Lou? Actually the majority of my posts point to page 36 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play which should answer all your questions. Though it won't tell you that a Paladin would not have defended someone as you imply.

Lou Diamond wrote:
they knew their primary mission was to protect Torch at all costs.
PFS Organized Play wrote:
Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions.

Did the party have any reason to KNOW the other two guards were innocent? So far no one has mentioned that. Unless Torch himself knew that only that exact guard was a Red Mantis Assassin... then it gets all kinds of confusing.

We're bringing up Paladins (While staying on topic) because it is fun and adding a lot of mirth to the topic.

Edit: Edit: I can make it better, we have the technology.


MrSin wrote:
I have yet to meet a Richard in a PFS, I think the only time thats come up is when someone threatened to change someones alignment to good so they said they had to start burning orphanages to even things out.

Change their alignment to Good?!?! Was he playing a Blackguard! Because I have been playing for quite a large amount of my natural life, and I'll tell you that only the nastiest, vilest rogues and all Paladins get threatened with alignment shifts.

Not saying people are completely twisted and insane about Paladins, but you'll never, ever see a cleric wearing a Phylactery of Faithfulness

The feeling of pleasure and power people get holding this over a player is utterly disgusting to me.

The human decency guide for Organized Play does say the words "MUST warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment." So everyone should keep that in mind when deciding the consequences after a scenario or module.


MrSin wrote:

Could you imagine that though? in the same 6 seconds Mr Torch was stabbed a guy in full plate and a greatsword turning to 2 other guys who look affiliated with the guy who just stabbed torch and says "Pardon me sir and madame, but are you going to stab Mr Torch too? I have to ask politely or my god will take away my superpowers."

I think in that situation my first thought would be protecting torch and that the other two guards were obviously about to kill him too. Its not that your going out of your way to kill innocents, its that your trying to protect torch from a trio of assassins. Usually in the middle of combat you can't just call a timeout. I'm not a big fan of punishing the paladin for protecting people.

That made me laugh considerably harder than I expected!

The gist of the entire page in the Guide to PFS is one of leniency and reason. It mentions consistently evil acts (Most would say Disruptive gameplay) that continue AFTER a warning has been issued.

It follows the prime directive of warn first, don't punish for things beyond control. I do like the example of Burning down an orphanage full of children though, because I can imagine players trying to reason it away. "That Orphanage attacked me!"


Bob Jonquet wrote:
MrSin wrote:
When you say people deserve to fall for that kind of thing you sort of open up those debates.
You may have missed my point that there will be table variation. No where did I say that paladins "deserved" anything. I merely pointed out that there are differing opinions on what would/should constitute a violation of code.

We could use the Guide to Society Organized play Page 36 as our guide.

Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play:
"We believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.)."


Of course, that probably isn't written with Paladins in mind, for the Paladin to have unknowingly slain two innocent guards to defend Grandmaster Torch when both he and the party were assaulted by the third guard is unforgivable by any Deity and I think it should shift his alignment to Neutral if not Evil.

The right thing to do would have been call a time-out to ask both other guards if they were also going to stab Torch.

Edit: Edit: Removed Edit. Edit-ception.

I'm Ryan and I'll be testing the waters with Renkan the Untrusting.

He's a muscular and tall man who tried hard to be a miner for a year before being fired. He lost his family due to work stress and spent a lot of time listening to preachers in the streets about how it's the selfish misuse of magic and devils that's done led to his sorry state of affairs.

He's recently joined the church of Freya in a pathetic and lonely attempt to find a new wife.

Pathfinder/3.5 Dungeon Crawler on Google+ Hangouts with Roll20.

First game will be Saturday, February 23rd at 1700 EST.

Feel fear for the last time as you delve into a sandbox Giga-Dungeon over multiple sessions in search of Evil, Wonder, and Treasure.
The Challenge will be Immense.
Spiritually, this is Dark Souls: Prepare to Roll edition.

Requirements for Characters and Play::


-Starting Level: 1
-Point Buy: 25 Points
-Traits: 2 Traits, no restrictions
-Starting Gold: 250g
-At least one sentence of character back-ground, in-depth backgrounds not reccomended
-A Back-up Character.

All Pathfinder and 3.5 material allowed.

Pre-Generated Characters are available.

Semi-Free Form: Accurate Maps, Locations, and Sight-Distance provided, true movement determined through role-playing.

I plan on playing at a high periodicity, at least weekly as I am free to GM nearly every night in the evening.

If enough players express interest I am willing to open a second Game on any day in the evening. (Several Hours inbetween 1730-2200 EST)

I posted this in the Looking For Group portion of Roll20 three hours ago and already have three players, so I expect spots to fill rapidly. Please PM or Post.

Goblin Squad Member

@Dak Thunderkeg, Ah, Dak, I'll address that personally. I was in teamspeak with Waruko and made a very aggressive and rapid post pointing out the logical flaws in a post by a seperate user.

I then saw you had managed to sneak a post in 5 seconds ahead of me, and began editing it for my response to you. Which was requesting that instead of stating that the treaty (AS described by TEO's Bluddwolf and not by me) was rather vague, you instead post suggestions as to what should be contained in it. No offense to you, I was respectfully asked to remove that post due to it's aggression towards a seperate user.

Although I felt it was sincere and reasonable.

(This thread so far has been a blast, it's all fire and brimstone, obfuscation and misdirection, and the baseless assumption of both gameplay and that more than 3%+/-2.27% of the game will role play)

Goblin Squad Member


Andius wrote:

Instead of they have got hung up on debating how they don't like about the details OF A TREATY THAT HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN!!!

This is why this debate is closed to the public. Too many people wander in, read a fragment of what is said and then offer their opinions without understanding the full situation.

I want to take a group of people of a small size and debate the issue. Not have people on the forum skim the OP and then skip to the last page and start giving their opinions on points that they misunderstood or already were addressed.

Most people posting here simply do not understand the issue. It's not offering incredible power to any group or individual. It doesn't have poorly defined terms on what is and isn't griefing. It doesn't police the every action of every player of PFO.

Do you remember Matthew Peck who kept attacking Pathfinder Online and would only run from a thread insulting it when Ryan Dancey would appear and question his motives? I see someone very similar in this thread.

Someone who skips over every post of actual relevance and seeks only to fuel the people who regurgitate their opinion without reading any of the thread.

All the while claiming it was "Discussion" as he gets off to all of the misdirection. He even got praised for his straw man "clear" arguments and trolling, and does it ever make him feel special.

The only time he concedes a point is when directly called out on it, then he goes back as if he didn't know that point so that new thread readers will be ignorant and make assumptions about what was actually talked about.

The irony of this all is that a thread about initial discussions on an alliance against the games end was hijacked by someone who wanted to spread grief to other people for his own sick pleasure.

Goblin Squad Member

Recapping Key Points of this Text WALL

The Treaty of Rovagug is a pact intended to be signed by the majority of Guilds in PFO, no matter their size or alignment!

It is NOT a set of rules to follow, it is NOT some cheap law to oppress certain play-styles.

It Is a pact to unite all organizations in the event that WHEN a large entity comes to destroy PFO and destroy everything people have spent months or years forging and crafting.. we will work together.

So that we even stand a chance.

Goblin Squad Member

It's a pity, you were being serious and completely reasonable for the first five. For the sixth you assumed this is a law... it is not, this is a document where companies pledge aid against a common and powerful foe in an end of our world scenario.

We do not intend to enforce behavior, or push our own upon others, this is a Pact to exact concerted arms upon an entity who violates the articles we as a group decide upon.

Really, it's not a law, stop changing what you're talking about mid-sentence, it's hard to tell when you're serious!
I wish a pact could ever stop gold farming. :(

Bluddwolf wrote:
Waruko wrote:

OK EVERYONE please look here.

You are not signing a treaty because IT DOES NOT EXIST. You are simply signing a "Hey I am interested in helping you MAKE THE TERMS of the treaty." So you are not committing to "terms" your are committing to a debate and a talk to help create the treaty into something you WOULD sign. That's all people.

Here are my terms....


The discussions for this treaty must be held here, not on some other forum. I have enough passwords and user names to keep in my head, I don't need more.

Furthermore, discussion can be held here in a neutral environment, where posts can not be altered or disappear, except by the hands of GW moderators.


Article One of any said treaty must detail exactly what "Griefing" means. Any action outside of that definition is not covered by the terms of the treaty.


Infinite Bounties must be considered griefing.


The charge of "Griefing" must not apply to the proper application of one's profession. Bandits get to steal; Assassins get to kill; Clerics get to pray, etc....


Merchants may not ply their trade with impunity. They must accept the dangers of using caravans or having stores, and expect that they will from time-to-time be robbed.


A caravan or merchant must be granted quarter if he / she voluntarily hands over 30% of his / her current wealth being carried. If the merchant later files a charge of griefing, than we reserve the right to slaughter them, their next of kin, to raise their village and molest and then slaughter their livestock.


Point Six is non negotiable....


I mean not to mock too much here, but... This is like having stricter gun control laws to stop criminals. If they are already shooting up a bank, they are not going to worry about the gun being illegal. The only people it will impact are those that would follow the law anyway.

Even in this case, it won't impact those that agree to it. They are...

Goblin Squad Member

You know what would be a great mechanic for them to work on instead of darkness? Giving to orphanages, I would make many donations.. maybe some people would give more than me. Mostly orphans.

Goblin Squad Member

Since everyone ignored this:

Andius wrote:

You speak as though the treaty is written and terms are set in stone. Just because you take part in the debates doesn't mean you need to sign the treaty. Why not come and see if it ends up in a form you find acceptable?

Anyway I'm not sneaking in anything. I stated upfront what the goal is.

"The treaty of Rovagug is an RP and meta-game agreement to work together against griefers and organizations that are excessively aggressive/destructive."

If you kill everyone you see just because you can, that is excessively aggressive/destructive. What exactly are you taking issue with here?

Goblin Squad Member

I can see that you are in complete agreement with us and the purpose of the treaty!

I hope you reconsider needing recompense for when the end of the world, including yourselves, bears it's fangs.

Bluddwolf wrote:

It is the intentions of The UnNamed Company not to grief. In my view griefing is the repeated and intentional spoiling of another person's time in game.


* Respawn Camping

* Hunting Down Noobs in starter areas for cheap PVP kills.

* Obvious kill stealing (repeatedly)

* Dungeon Raid team kicking (getting kicked from the team just prior to boss being killed).

* Using Names that are not lore appropriate on RP servers

...not Griefing.

Bluddwolf, Founder
The UnNamed Company

Goblin Squad Member

Just remember, this is a game where a large offset-time zone guild could destroy a largely unguarded fortress in the night. If you are looking for the best longevity and largest tracts of land, you will want a guild that has many players and spans the entirety of the time zones.

One that stands vigilant at all hours, full of many time zones and populated at all hours.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eta D'Lore wrote:

Ummm what are u talking about? No where did I say "I want this game to turn out..." a specific way... Are u making stuff up?

Try not to get offended when people speak their minds... It's just not civilized. This thread is called PvP that is what we are ALL talking about. I will speak my mind if u don't like it then don't read it simple as that I will not be bullied by your comments so stop trying.

You should focus more on the subject, Eta, and less on other posters Regeneration 5 (Acid or Fire).

Thar was just violating the most important rule of: Don't be a Jerk. by using blanket statements such as "People like you" with a straw-man attack and then trying to cover it up with a reasonable argument agreeing with you.

I personally want the PVP to be intense and to create a strong group mentality among players. I'm not saying that lone wolves will not be viable, just that Competition is definitely the drive that keeps people playing and paying together.

@Kyn: People read things before throwing several hundred dollars at them? I don't!

Goblin Squad Member

We're going to be the very best, like no one ever was.

Goblin Squad Member

Kyros Deun wrote:
Probably gonna be in as my PFO version of this sucker. Hope to see and not slaughter you there!

Of course, you can sit down at our inn and have some of our personal ale.

Goblin Squad Member

I shall then be Apsu,
for I am the first.
I am the primeval,
who was of Heaven
and of Material
before they had names,
for I created them with Chaos.
I then shall go
and I shall end Death.

Goblin Squad Member

Vroom, I feel like we should make a new alignment thread and use this thread for talking about The Empyrean Order.

I feel like it's great that actions will reflect on players, I just hope that will not be visible at a distance. "He has the CE tags, get him!"

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

In the topics where we discuss cosmetic gear in more detail pretty much everyone agreed light armor should only be able to look like light armor and heavy like heavy. There is still a lot of customization that can be done within those limitations.

Also I would point out armor shouldn't always be identifiable by sight. I the P&P I almost always conceal my armor be beneath a shirt/cloak if possible. Why would I let my enemies know I have a chain shirt or breastplate on?

Yes, but a GM who focused more on realism would make NPC's suspicious of the person whose body looked so awkwardly bulky under their shirt/cloak and have thoughts about whether he's just wearing two or three layers of clothing or armor.

It's not impossible to hide armor but even many-linked chain shirts deform the natural body shape.

Still, it's a world of magic, and many players would be happier being able to shift their armor to look like whatever suits them best.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:

The solution is cosmetic armor. I'm not overly concerned about how much skin my character shows but I hate gaudy, or evil looking armor. Others love it. Why force people to wear armor they don't like for stats?

Whether it be by allowing us to change high stat armor to look like items we prefer visually, or doing a cosmetic equip system like LotRO, don't force us to wear armor we don't like just for stats. Then it doesn't matter if the uber-gear is bikini-mail or a clown suit.

I am a big fan of being able to identify people's armor by looking at it. Not having a cosmetic option for say, someone wearing plate armor and it looks like skin-tight cloth. I understand the magic view that you could make armor look like anything though.

Goblin Squad Member

You want us to move.. beyond the old hot hot shake your stuff kobold seducing sexy times battle equipment?

I mean.. what's beyond? Are we talking moving to naked or Tera Online?

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

NEARLY any means. A little vigilante justice is one thing. Harming innocents to get at the culprit is another.

You will find many TEO have all the tools needed at their disposal to get the job done and you can't tie us up with red-tape like you can a lawful-good group.

Neutral-good / Chaotic-good have immunity to red tape.

You may not be slowed down by red-tape as much, but it's definitely not an immunity as it tries to bog you down. Chaotic Good people just like to try and get rid of the tape. That's what they have in common with Chaotic Evil, y'know, except for the "I'm going to kill this person because it's Tuesday" mentality.

I don't believe that the lawful alignment truly revolves around beauracratic restrictions and more around personal conduct and integrity.

I hope I'm not distracting from the Dresden RPG talk, just putting my posts in the middle as extra thread bumps.

Honestly the bumps are my way of beginning to add my power into TEO's.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
We call the goody-do-something's that can get the job done by nearly any means neutral good and chaotic good.

What do you call all the other alignments that can get the job done by any means? Waait, any means sounds like they have no moral qualms..

I get it, you call the evil members 'Chaotic Good'! Genius!

Goblin Squad Member

Posting here so that I remember to take a look at you Soon.

Goblin Squad Member

This is all awesome and everything! But where do we sign up to do your dirty work on the side. ;D
Everyone needs to inconvenience their enemies, best way to be the best is no competition. Maybe a few Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil sortsa folk, none of the goody do-nothings that have plagued DnD for decades. Know what I'm sayin?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Will your guild be appropriately Evil in order to set the world aflame?

Goblin Squad Member

The very best part of Collision detection is the tanking role.

Being able to block off enemies as a fighter is one of the most satisfying feelings in pvp.

I prefer a system where there is definite collision detection, but if it's pressed upon for a certain amount of time (Maybe a second or two) you can still find your way through that single enemy.

I need to think of something quirky but consistent, whether it's something that shouldn't have survived an apocalypse or that is an iterative idea.

(McDonalds would be too obvious) Make it seem completely normal even when it's extremely out of place, everyone carries around an iPod

Kthulhu wrote:
Meh. Monte Cook. It'll be d20 and Timmy Cards all the way down. He's a one-trick pony.

Well my little troll friend, thank you for your thread contribution. Could you please explain what is wrong with the d20 system the majority of this website plays and explain to us how you spent years fixing it.

As of writing this the world book is assured and Numenera is likely to be in all color!

Abbasax wrote:

Cool! I've been eyeballing it for a couple of weeks now but I haven't decided if I'm going to back it yet. What else makes you excited about it?

Admittedly, I've only looked into Numenera just a little bit, but so far I haven't seen anything for it that hooks me or gives it as much character as Fading Suns (for example).
Also, and I know that this is borderline heresy, but Cook's name alone doesn't make me interested so I'm curious about why the setting is getting everyone crazy.

I know I sound all curmudgeonly but that's honestly not my intent. Everyone else is really exited about it and I sincerely would like to share in that. So please, go crazy and totally sell me on it!

Heresy? Try and say Cook's name on the Giantitp forums and it rapidly devolves into a frothing, insane discussion about how my vision of role-playing games is way more valid and much better than the way anyone else plays. The bitterness can be licked off your computer screen.

Back on-topic; I really want a setting without magic! When everyone asks me how something was done I'll go "SCIENCE!!"

I'm excited about lowering the difficulty of a a task rather than adding dozens of modifiers that I might forget to use. (I'm looking at you +2 vs charm and compulsion) It's completely made for fast combat, reading the playtest reports the whole system is designed to make combat fast and furious. There's nothing wrong when the players know what they need to hit an enemy, or know what they need to roll to dodge/block an attack; it just means the combat flies fast. As long as you keep the story they keep on edge.

Mr Cook just released a blog post about how d20 rolls work. One thing that is different is that 17, 18, 19, and 20 all have their own extra benefits that are seperate (17 different than 18 than 19 than 20) but all overlap a little. While only the natural 1 is a critical failure.

The game is made simple from the ground up. It is Rules LIGHT. Any splat book is just fluff and technology. No more having to convince my players that it's -GASP!!- okay to deviate from the Laser precision rules and make their ideas real. At the same time I can have a consistent world for them to reference that is more transferable between groups than my own home-brew for super science.

There is also an incredible amount of humor you can add in to a far-science campaign. The first thing that comes to mind is the mammoth island they found where all the mammoths inbred to approximate genetic uniformity. Fighting through a giant fallen construct husk for hundreds of miles to find a medieval castle full of genetically identical, unadvanced frenchmen who have lived there for eons.

Here's a more permanent link to the story with the option to download it.
The Amber Monolith

There's a sample of how game-play will be on Monte Cook's website.

It sounds pretty amazing and I do like kickstarters that have already reached their goal.

kevin_video wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
kevin_video wrote:
Okay, before I make my final decision, I need to know EXACTLY what benefits I'm getting out of this deal compared to the regular anniversary edition. The problem is the standard anniversary edition is very vague in what it gives compared to this one. I need comparisons. Especially if I'm going to shell out an additional $110 dollars.

As I understand it, the extra cost gives you:

The presentation case and the 15 prints.

The book is basically the same, except you also get:

Nicer paper. Imitation leather cover. Spiffy spine, trappings and so forth. Cloth bookmark. 22 Player Handouts.

So basically, once I get the pdf version that I'd get either way, I could print off those 22 handouts but they wouldn't be as nice or official, and would probably cost me about $2 in paper and toner.

With that argument, I don't see why you would get the physical copy at all.

Saying that, I am in complete agreement that I need a comparison list before I pay more than double the price.

If it's just higher quality it's not as motivational as if it's actual extra content.

This brings a PFS game I GMed a short while ago into a new perspective. When I was a player I once coup de grace'd someone, all 5 other people at the table gasped in SHOCK.

I was running a scenario recently with a particular sorcerer who had color spray, she knocked the Eidolon and the fighter unconcious is an instant.

She went down, and the cleric of the group, praying for her survival, healed her. She stood up and color sprayed again, the party then made sure to not only knock her down, but coup de grace her brutally so that it couldn't happen again.

If my (moderately low int) PC's could make the decision to end the threat, why wouldn't the NPC's think that way too? Especially as Evil characters.

I've been patiently, eagerly awaiting and reading all the posts since page 1 wondering how this discussion would blossom and grow.. It's still primarily role players vs roll players. Every mechanical advantage must be stretched to and beyond it's limits.

There have been some really good restatements and re-wordings of previous arguments but nothing I would call refinement.

As long as people remember the top Pen and Paper myth Rule that the GM is out to kill you and turn anything you try and do into painful, fun-squashing failure.
Try and make your bear acrobatically tumble past dozens of armed soldiers to get to the invisible sorcerer in the back and attack the thin air? Just too epic, the GM makes some lame excuse and doesn't let you so you fight back saying it's a class feature and he's nerfing you!

Approximately 15 of the 200+ posts are people saying that the GM cannot EVER interfere with RAW,to have a game governed by the rules is paramount. Then go on to, in the same post, say that the RAW is wrong and that you don't make meaningful Handle Animal checks, or if you do it doesn't matter because the Animal Companion is you, we are legion, it is us, you are me, we are you.

You can have it both ways, it's a fantasy game, you can have it both exactly 100% one way, and 100% not that way based on your current want. The rules are modular and every person is dysfunctional in our own way.

I spoke briefly 200 posts ago about how it is assumed in the creation of the classes and in their "balancing" that the animal companion is a separate entity, hence all of the wording and specific rules listed extensively above and in the Core Rulebook. Yet this was just brushed aside and not once disproved except for in an uneven comparison with the summoner saying in essence "Well then it wouldn't be exactly the same"

It's okay to disagree, it's okay to Think that's not okay. But Does it make sense to argue that the people RAW focused are wrong or doing something against the rules?
Does it make sense when you state your opinions as facts with no explanation whatsoever, again and again and again? Especially after all of the effort I can see people putting into their posts.

Does it make sense to throw out the term Straw Man because you saw someone use it in a post earlier, then it becomes contagious and someone else throws it out because they saw you use it.. it's a vicious cycle. IT makes the thread smell of regeneration 5 (acid or fire) so strongly.. so strongly I'm ranting pointlessly, my posts are always too long for people to respond too. tl;dr.

Serum wrote:
In terms of the DM controlling the animal companion... he can try, but when the druid can just say "Down" or "Heel" or "Stay" as a free action, the DM isn't going to be very successful in getting the animal to do as he pleases.

Getting the animal companion to do as he pleases? You make it sound like the GM is a BBEG casting Charm Animal.

I agree that just like any trained animal you could prevent it from doing something it naturally should do by telling it to heel, too bad every player forgets they use tricks to command it in the first place.

Morning BlackBlood.
I'm pretty new to the forums, so it was wonderful spending 10 minutes reading through the second page. Absolutely no new information was posted and no new opinions were voiced. It was great, it felt like I was reliving the first page over again. I think I love this place!

There appear to be three stances, One: The Animal companion is an NonPC as directly implied in Handle Animal and the class skill, and therefore can only be commanded by the Character with tricks taught, not the Player.

Two: The Animal Companion is a slave-bot meant only to be used by the player. Any Infringement on this is equivalent to death itself.

Three: It's a game for friends and people should compromise about sometimes having it as GM controlled so that it can have meaningful back-and-forth communique; and sometimes having it be a combat slave who does relatively what you want.

Trikk wrote:
Losing control is much worse than not having it from the beginning. It will be essentially arbitrary unless you do what you suggest and put an in-combat/out-of-combat divide between them. If you arbitrarily lose control of your pet, it feels just like if the GM strips away any other class feature without explanation.

Once again, you're presenting it as black and white, lost control or always controlling.

It's not without explanation if it's in-setting and in-character. You're not permanently losing control either, just allowing the animal companion to work as intended. Should you ever really have control of your friends or companions or servants? It following you is all based on it's training and Handle Animal checks in the first place.

It may very well choose not to follow you if you abuse and torture and maim it, when the GM says that it growls at you, what do you do if you've Never role played a single aspect of it's personality. "Sorry, Mr. Scruffles likes it when I make him bleed, so he licks my hand in appreciation with the half of his tongue he still has"

I could see someone describing their animal companion as doing something out of combat like greeting someone in a social interaction. But how often do people just forget they have an animal companion outside of its skills and in-combat use? Take the Raven from OOTS as a great example. It is inherently an NPC animal, even if one that is introduced to and will follow the druid/ranger/etc around as part of a class feature.

As I've said before, there is nothing wrong with the GM using an Non-PC to roleplay appropriately.

Trikk wrote:

I think it has to be all or nothing.

Either the GM always controls the player's pet or he never controls it.

Of course, you can still discuss with the GM or with the player if the action felt out of character or was weird for some other reason.

Why, in your opinion, does it have to be absolute; black and white?

I personally believe that the companion should act as an NPC out of combat, but in combat the players dice rolls are still the d20 being thrown out. The player makes the commands, he should follow through with them unless they are out of reasonable bounds at GM's discretion.

This allows for faster gameplay, more accurate accounting of damage/+attack mods, and more fun for the player. However, it enhances the bond of the player with his pet because it can respond to him.

Talonhawke wrote:

This is the reason most players avoid classes with easy to punish codes.

A lot of DMs have a built in need to see a paladin and suddenly turn a simple goblins attacking a village quest into a moral quandry by suddenly adding a nusery full of newborn goblins who are helpless and can't live on their own.

I don't have a lot of experience outside of the several places I've lived, and I am DM most of the time, so in my opinion the occurance of that kind of play is greatly exaggerated by the forums.

Having said that, I know that a lot of stereotypes are founded in truth. Some part of me thinks that this entire thread is about trusting the people you play with more than a rules question about whether players control animal companions All of the time.
To that, Handle Animal checks are a huge RAW against that, but convenience and normal game precedence are a huge for it.

Talonhawke wrote:

The Rules for animal companions state that the companion(controled by the GM) chooses what feats/skills/ability increases it gains.

The only time it states the druid(The player) gets to choose anything is the bonus tricks. Meaning if my animal companion is treated in all respects like an NPC then other than his skill tricks its up to the GM what feats/skills/ability increases are gained.

As to summoned monster the next line talks about speaking to them which is no problem for a summoner since the eidolon knows all his languages.

I agree it says you can speak to them, but it doesn't specifically say they follow all commanders, just that they will attack enemies to the best of their abilities. While I agree with your interpretation, it is not stated outright as a rule.

Wow, I never realized the animal companion itself chooses it's training much like a player, this is very interesting and I did not notice that exact wording nuance before. That is a very odd way to think about animal companions but is also support for them not being psychic slaves to the Players... Though in-game your PC should be guiding the animal on it's choices of training with handle animal.

Any reasonable GM will happily let you decide what your animal takes as feats, but should still arbitrate anything too out of character as you describe your companion. (tiger trained with dwarven waraxe comes to mind)

There was a time before the internet?!?

This still doesn't answer my new questions about how I should feel about the DM being in control of my code. If I'm not comfortable with him controlling an NPC, how can I be comfortable with him as a Game Master who has any effect on my character at all? I am seeing this ending with the only way to play this situation in disagreement is not to play.

Or to assume 90% of GM's are really out to help everyone have a good time and not crush our feelings with a small, spontaneous event.

Talonhawke wrote:
In fact if we take the whole NPC route then the druid has no control over what feats or skills Fluffy takes since NPCs are created by the gm and he decides how he levels. Though I guess a nice GM might ask for your input.

I'm having fun, I'm glad there are people up this late to talk too.

Nowhere do the rules say the DM creates all NPC's, in fact, the animal companion is created by the rules and could even be said to be Trained in game by the player, meaning the DM does not choose what skills they take, but who is the arbitrator who decides if it's okay for the animal to be built that way?
Also, the Summon Monster rules say that it attacks to the best of it's ability, which RAI likely means it is your slave, even if it has intelligence and free will it cannot disobey you as you make it do anything. But that is still just as easily Rules as Interpretted as it is Intended.

BBTroll, I'm curious about your opinion on how the GM decides if your action is against your alignment or say.. paladin code! You would lose control of a huge portion of your character even on his whim! Are these also classes you would never play?

I'm sorry, I was assuming the worst because you have Troll in your name and wasn't being civil instead of snide. I also thought it silly to think that a Magus's blackblade could never work outside of their control and was sarcastic.

We're all making the assumption that the GM is a monster of a person, and this argument works best when you assume worst case scenario. However that does not mean that it's unreasonable to follow the rules and realize that an animal companion is still a tamed, trained animal.

Talonhawke wrote:
So summoners get a free pass on controling godzilla but that wolf or tiger yeah thats a lot sheer strength to be controlled.


Conjured Enemies:
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.

So where do you get the idea that Summoners get a free pass on commanding their sentient high-int Eidolon? It's never stated, though it may be implied under Summon Monster.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I, as a player, would simply avoid playing any class that provides a companion/familiar if the DM were known to take control out of the blue.

Would this same DM take control of a Magus's Blackblade?
What about a homunculus as a improved familiar?
A beast-bonded witch's familiar?

I concur wholeheartedly, BBTroll. Why play a class that can have a sentient companion, be it an item or beast, when it is actually able to think or act beyond my exact control? The idea is patently absurd.

Back around to the OP, I think everyone should remember that it is not a competition between players and the GM, it is a game for fun and if he uses an NPC in a in-story consistent way to advance the game... why would you rather he did such a thing poorly? I am fully in favor of a consistent, fun-paced game between friends.

Players who are new will learn to read their class abilities and know what they're signing up for, like a fun NPC companion. Especially after the shock of being denied what they Assumed was the way it worked.

It's not arbitrary, it is assumed in the creation of that class and in the sheer strength of having an animal companion.
While he should follow the personality of the animal, he should also enforce that he player follow it as well and not just forget the animal outside of combat.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.