|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Taco just went through Eyes.
FWIW, I hit him regularly in Storval Stairs.
If I remember correctly (and I might not) Radovan I believe is Varian Jeggare's slave.
Specific typically trumps general.
In this case, just like Priest (which is a trigger word for some things as well) Patron is not really defined for PFS. My hope is the new CC will define these words.
The way I'd handle it, is that while you can't worship either of these two entities, you can venerate them. I would use the rules on how to worship (i.e. one alignment step away) and just call it venerate.
However, expect table variation.
EDIT: A precedent for this type of exception is seen in PFS with saddles.
Not sure why you clarified my "B" when I added an "E" that basically said the same thing.
Bill Dunn wrote:
The Additional Resources document allows the Pantheons and Aroden appears on the cultural pantheon. Granted, it's qualified by a parenthetical (before his death) but he hasn't exactly been removed from the list. I can't really imagine anyone raising a stink about listing a character as an Aroden worshiper if you aren't deriving a mechanical benefit from your worship. After all, if you can worship none, then worshiping something that isn't a god (or no longer is one) doesn't seem a very far step.
In PFS, we differentiate between the word Worship and Venerate.
You cannot worship something that isn't in the Additional Resources, and you have to follow the rules in the guide for worshiping.
If you don't care about any mechanical benefits, you can use the word venerate instead.
It may seem pedantic and semantic.
But the point is, PFS has defined what worship means in the campaign. So please don't use the word worship unless you are going to specifically follow those rules.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
A. You MUST worship a deity in PFS play only if your class requires you to.
B. You CANNOT worship a dead, false, or forgotten deity in PFS play, unless that deity is allowed by additional resources.
C. Atheism is completely legit in PFS.
E. You can venerate anything you want, as long as you don't expect any sort of mechanical benefit.
"follow" is not a term officially recognized by PFS.
Its worship or venerate or atheism.
The Fox wrote:
Her... Stupid phone.
All of those can certainly be continuity issues.
But why purposely create continuity issues at the very core of who your character even is if you don't have to?
Um going to say the following bits with two caveats. 1) This is how I learned to roleplay, how I prefer to roleplay and I fully understand that others may enjoy this passtime differently. And 2) I'm in no way trying to say badwrongfun, but feel the opposite is being said of how I enjoy things.
There is a difference if you care about roleplay continuity if character. GM credit blobs have no continuity to maintain. Once a character has been played, using a system that was created to help newbies and allow fixes to concepts that didn't pan out, to do things you couldn't otherwise do (or typically do in a home campaign) is gaming the system.
Using GM credits just starts your continuity a bit later.
If you don't care about roleplay continuity, which I understand that not everyone does, then the difference is largely semantics.
I honestly don't see why just playing a 1st level character as is, isn't a viable option.
You could always start your build as Unchained Rogue, and then go Magus at level 2. Same net result, without breaking the spirit of the game.
So Paizo Con, 2014, I'm playing an early morning slot with Brian Darnell and Rusty Ironpants and a few other good friends. The GM had a soft voice, so he did us all a favor and had the VC briefing printed for us so we could read it.
He read it out loud, and we read it. And somehow I missed a very important part of it.
Scars of the Third Crusade:
My kitsune gunslinger named Forge Jorge Florinio Perez des las Alas el-Jorday Blakros, whom I play as best I can with an Antonio Banderas accent from Puss-n-Boots. I twirled my wayfinder around my finger and kicked in the sheriff's office door demanding to see the prisoners.
Rusty and Brian and everyone else turn to me and are like, "you do what!?"
I'm like, "what?"
They pointed to that line in the briefing and I was like, "Oh... oops"
I'd read it, and heard the GM read it. And yet still I somehow missed that part. Oops.
We wanted to use the more Norwegian version of the word rather than the Germanic... here's another interesting tidbit about what Skol means in Minnesota...
I can't tell you how many times I've been asked that as a Vikings fan. Most people think it's just a common, Scandanavian greeting...and it is. It can also translate into bowl, as in drink from a bowl. And although there are varying opinions on how 'skol' came to be a greeting, this is my most favorite one. Let's see how we can tie these two disparate meanings--(bowl and hello) together.
Back in the Middle Ages, rampaging bands of Vikings were roaming Europe and kicking the holy dog crap out of people. From Lindisfarme to France it didn't matter. For about 500 years, the boogeyman would check his closet before he went to bed to make sure there weren't any Vikings in it.
Anyway, at the end of the battle, Viking warriors would decapitate the king or leader of the tribe/army they had just vanquished and that night would drink from his skull--spelled skoll--as a sign of respect for the fallen opponent. It was only then, Viking warriors believed, could an opponent who had fought valiantly be allowed into Valhalla.
In battle, Vikings would urge each other forward by yelling "SKOLL" to one another. By doing so, they were telling each other to keep it up so they could drink from the skull (and the top of a lopped off skull looks roughly like a..wait for it...BOWL!!) of the Vanquished that night.
These days, it just is a way to urge each other on to victory in an American football game, but if you piss us off too much, we'll put Packer Nation's head on a metaphorical pole, parade it around, and then drink some Grain Belt from it, so keep one eye open, because the Vikings can go medieval on you in a heartbeat.
So, at least mythologically speaking, both meanings originate from our Ancestors kicking the hell out of some poor sap who was the leader of some hopelessly pathetic tribe that dared to give us the finger.
I mean, think about it...after a hard day of rampaging, killing, and pillaging, you're beat. You're beat. Your shoulders ache from swinging a battle axe and crushing skulls, and you got blood and brains on your new wolf fur hoodie. All you want to do is sit around a campfire, drink some grog, and shoot the breeze with your buddies. You're too tired to strike up a conversation, and as a warrior, you don't gush over someone when you see that they're still alive, so you come up with simple, one or two word phrases that capture the essence of the moment.
Today, it's "dude".
Back then, as the skull of the poor chucklehead (who hours before was some minor bigshot) is passed around, all you have the energy to do is give a wry smile over to a fellow warrior and say....skol. One word conveyed it all.
So skol has evolved from a battle cry of warriors to a common salutation or toast to friends, which in a way, it always was.
Only under much different circumstances.
And if it is just a myth, as many claim, well, it's one hell of a myth, and until someone can prove to me they DIDN'T drink from the skull of a vanquished opponent, then By God, they did. Because until then, it's just opinion, and I like this side of the story a lot better, because it's totally badass.
"May we always drink from the skulls of our enemies!"
A skål is a Scandinavian toast of friendship and goodwill that may be offered when drinking, sitting down to eat, or at a formal event. Some fans of Scandinavian culture have popularized the the toast beyond its native countries, and it can often be heard in many peculiar corners of the world, especially in regions with a large Scandinavian population. The word may also be spelled skal or skaal.
Like other toasts, a skål implies a wish for good fortune and good health, and it carries very friendly connotations. There are a number of different ways to say it, ranging from a series of individual toasts in which everyone toasts everyone else, taking a sip of a drink with each toast, and a collective skål shouted out by a group of drinkers or diners. As one might imagine, in a series of individual toasts in which everyone salutes each person individually, one tends to become rather intoxicated by the end.
Several Norse poems saluting famous figures have included a “skål” or two in the lines, as in the case of “Gustaf's skål,” an 18th century song which the king later adopted as his official anthem, because he was so fond of it. In poems such as this, the celebrant is typically highly praised, with lines like “the greatest king in the north.” At some parties, people may improvise their own extended speech or toast, especially at an event where people are celebrating a marriage or another major life event.
jon dehning wrote:
The other Goblin is a 5-minute recreation by Jason Engle (he who drew the Prestige Classes in the CRB--signed one of them too) of the Paizo Con 2015 Goblin.
Most classes with animal companions come with a link ability that grants them +4 to handle animal with thier companion.
The math is:
-2 Cha, +1 Rank, +3 Class Skill, +4 Link, +2 Harness for a total of +8.
I agree with this. And I'd add that in all but the most egregious situations, I will not overturn a GM decision. That isn't to say I won't discuss with them later some of the decisions made, though.
As Mark noted above, it was in a later post.
Sarvei taeno wrote:
so done with this forum, ive played under Andrew c. at paizocon. he is an awesome guy yah people do not see eye to eye on rules but this post has run its course lets not insult or degrade anyone and just be done with it. call it table variation and move on. done and done
Thanks. I appreciate the shout out. And yeah, you are right, the insults, veiled or not, are not appropriate. No matter who they come from. So mea culpa. Game on!
What I find most disturbing is that the campaign leadership did the player base a major solid, by removing the ambiguity of what constitutes an alignment shift action. Apparently there was enough ambiguity with spells with an evil descriptor, that some GM's felt that casting an evil spell meant you became evil immediately, and some players felt that casting an evil spell shouldn't mean anything at all.
There were posts by James Jacobs and Sean K Reynolds that weighed in on this.
It is no coincidence that the rule on evil spells, faction missions, and the new policy on how to police evil actions all came about at a similar time.
But now we have people trying to take the solid campaign leadership did, and apply it in such a way it was never intended to be applied. Indeed, it was written specifically to avoid this particular method of employment.
Perhaps the language is imprecise enough that it needs to be reworked once the new Campaign Coordinator is hired.
But it really is disturbing that something done as a gift to the player base is being taken way out of proportion to its intent. If we keep on this route, it may be that we lose access to all evil spells in PFS.
That solves many problems.
We won't have necromancers fighting with Priests of Pharasma or Paladins. We won't have players trying to manipulate RAW to cast evil spells with their Paladins. And so on.
Is that what we really want?
Or can we PLEASE try to use a bit of common sense?
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Fair enough. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
Holding Paladins to being Honorable.
It breaks the part of thier code where they have to be honorable.
Let's step aside from the Paladin argument for a second and consider alignment infraction discussions. There are so many opinions on what is evil, that you can't possibly define it 100%. From canabalism to torture and assassination to coup de grace on helpless victims. You'll find more opinions on it than you can shake a stick at.
So I say that being Honorable is equally ambiguous. And a GM has every right to declare casting an evil spell as dishonorable.
There are lots of spells you can cast on ammo, that you can cast on the quiver or container after you cast abundant ammunition, that make using the spell fairly useful.
But consider, why is it balanced that a 2nd level spell can essentially replicate thousands and thousands of gold in adamantine?
Sarvei taeno wrote:
the faq just states casting evil spells will not cause an alignment shift. while the faq may have only stated half the post it does not mean the other half the post gets tossed away.
Yes, it actually does. The FAQ was created to communicate what his post said. It supersedes the post. You can use the post to help you determine intent or context if you wish. But the post itself is no longer valid due to the fact it was condensed into an FAQ.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Indeed. I read it to say casting the spell is not a evil action, and will only cause an alignment infraction if it is against a code of conduct. And since casting Evil subtyped spells is not against the code, I will not cause a paladin to fall for it. It will have to actually be an Evil act before I will do so. A paladin using infernal healing to heal his allies does not fall at my table.
That's certainly fine. Which is I why I indicated it was Table Variation.
But lets consider the following:
PRD: Paladin wrote:
That's the Paladin Code. While nowhere does it say, "you can't cast a spell with an "evil descriptor" and in PFS, the campaign leadership has been nice enough to remove the potential for an alignment infraction by simply casting a spell with an evil descriptor, I strongly feel that you are going against the Paladin's code. You are knowingly using something evil. Whether it constitutes an evil act or creates an alignment infraction is actually inconsequential.
You are doing something that is akin to consorting with evil. The spell itself is still an evil spell.
If you start allowing a Paladin to use infernal healing how far away is allowing them to animate dead as long as the undead are used for a good purpose?
It breaks their code, because a Paladin who would willingly use an evil spell, no matter the end result, is not being honorable to himself, his deity, or what being lawful good means.
Sarvei taeno wrote:
1) The guide says message board posts are binding, unless superseded by the FAQ or Guide.2) The FAQ that sprang up from Mike Brock's message board post, supersedes the message board post.
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself...
Secondly, as one of the VOs that helped Mike write this FAQ, I can unequivocally say that the lines in the FAQ that finish the above quoted sentence
...as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.
was intended so that Paladins and other good aligned clerics would NOT be able to cast infernal healing.
You can quote RAW all you want, but RAW supports my stance. RAI supports my stance. My inside knowledge supports my stance. And good common sense supports my stance.
You don't have to like it. But please don't lecture me about upholding campaign rules when you are just trying to use a narrow view of RAW to loophole your way into what you want.
Table Variation. That's the key takeaway here.
If you don't like that answer, then err on the conservative side, and don't do the action that's questionable. How do I know its questionable?
The fact it was asked at all, and this thread prove that its a questionable act.
I prefer to look at what is written. Figure out what's intended by looking at what's written, context, and the many conversations had by the venture officer corps when this query came up. Then come up with an answer that I consider common sense and that makes good sense given what Paladin's are supposed to stand for.
I believe that with what's written, RAW fully supports causing a paladin to fall. Even given the FAQ, the clause that paraphrases as, "except for those with a special code," indicates that Paladins might fall if they cast an evil spell. What was intended also fully supports this. My version of common sense supports this. And what Paladins stand for supports this.
So I'm 4 for 4 that says Paladins will need an atonement to not be considered an ex-Paladin if they choose to cast infernal healing.
Others may disagree with me. And I'm fine with that.
Thus, Table Variation.
Joe Ducey wrote:
Assuming you mean the new Crane Wing Errata, it completely overwrites the old Crane Wing. -Most of the new errata are the old FAQs or didn't exist at all. In the case of Crane Wing it's the newest ruling from the same source so it's the legal one.
And in the case of Feral Combat Training, it completely supersedes it, since the bit the FAQ is talking about no longer exists.
Hopefully in the next week or so, that FAQ will be cleaned up to match the Errata.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The change to Feral Combat Training invalidates this faq. Since the line “as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike” is missing, that means FCT no longer allows monk unarmed strike damage. The FAQ should be removed or updated to use the new rule.
This is also true for several of the other UC FAQ items.
Natalie Saratov wrote:
The FAQ on Vital Strike should solve this question.